This is pretty terrible tbh. It's a growing company that is linearly reducing the quality of their product.
Patches that make the game unplayable is unacceptable.
Patches that make the game unplayable is unacceptable.
- 20
- 6
- 5
Was this joke even tested at all?
- Thread starter benis1996
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
You are correct, I don't know what that guy was on about. VIC 3 doesn't haven have Scripted GUIs, nor access to global variables and has extremely very few effects to impact things. Everything is mostly a modifier and that is very simplistic way of impacting game behaviours.
For example you can't really do much with buildings. Very few modifiers affect them directly and they are mostly defined with production methods, which are triggered by laws or technologies. So if you want to block a PM, you have to do with with technologies or laws which is very problematic.
Trade and goods are even worse. There is no way of adding consumption or production (buy and sell orders) at all, just, again.. through production methods.
But the worst are pop needs. They are hardcoded through wealth and you can't make them dynamic. Nothing stops a native form becoming wealthy and consuming the smae exact things like a rich guy from London would (licor, groceries, etc). This makes it so adding new goods for pops unrealistic. Imagine adding newspapers. You can't stop natives from consuming them.
Last edited:
- 17
- 1
The modding is definitely limited. PM can only be allowed by tech, allowed by law, or disallowed by law. You can't even do disallowed by tech, so you can't for example have buildings that automatically upgrade to different PM as techs progress in the same way you can force a swap on a law change.
You could use taboos tied to their religions and make the effect of those stronger (although I'm not sure how many taboos you can add?), and also increase discrimination effect so that the natives are more likely to remain poor.
This is so not the worst first release in Paradox history. Paradox will be able to pull through the minor bugs and issues just fine. What Paradox cannot do is please everyone nor should they even try. I will continue to support and play Paradox games and Skyrim until I am physically unable. The opinions of others are insignificant in this decision.
- 18
- 4
- 3
- 2
It doesn't quite seem like people understand the sheer army of QA it takes to throughly test things thoroughly in the time frames they demand. No, 3-5 people playing the game isn't enough. QA also tend to suffer from "tunnel vision" and miss things.
Did they test? Yes. Thoroughtly? Absolutely not. The sheer volume of changes made for the size of their QA would have taken weeks of testing after staging changes. People would have been just as mad if the release dropped next year. Possibly more so.
The reality is, players find problems faster and cheaper than any number of QA. Is it desireble? No way. Any developer with tell you how much it sucks to have a regression and have to drop everything to hotfix. But the alternative is having players pound on their door endlessly for the next patch.
Lose-lose.
Maybe when PDX has 2-3 times the QA and can deploy changes multiple times a day effectively then things will improve.
Did they test? Yes. Thoroughtly? Absolutely not. The sheer volume of changes made for the size of their QA would have taken weeks of testing after staging changes. People would have been just as mad if the release dropped next year. Possibly more so.
The reality is, players find problems faster and cheaper than any number of QA. Is it desireble? No way. Any developer with tell you how much it sucks to have a regression and have to drop everything to hotfix. But the alternative is having players pound on their door endlessly for the next patch.
Lose-lose.
Maybe when PDX has 2-3 times the QA and can deploy changes multiple times a day effectively then things will improve.
Last edited:
- 10
- 6
Perhaps the sheer amount of bugs is just very clever plan by Paradox to get stop people complaining about the warfare system.
- 21
- 5
- 2
Perhaps an Early Access model would have been better for such a complicated game in that case. It would have been received very favorably, given that you can release an early alpha and still get people to buy it.
But the game was marketed as a finished product and sold along with its future expansions. It’s hard to justify buying it for a price of an AAA game, then spend hours as an unpaid QA for the company that released it. And it’s not even the first time it happens; V2 and Stellaris had the same problem and I:R flopped because of it.
- 11
- 2
Stellaris was a solid game on release and is the reason why it remains popular today. It doesn't compare to V3, which has very shaky base gameplay systems.
- 7
- 6
- 1
- 1
The problem is that we won't see a proper bug fix until January. Until then, I guess they will, at best, fix the error they introduced in the scripts.
TBH, the state of the game is shameful. I love PDX and their game, but they need to start doing better than this.
I played one game for 50 years and then shelved the game until I can see from the forum that the game's basic functionalities work properly (and no, it doesn't, you don't need to tell me why you think it does).
- 7
- 4
- 3
I don't understand this. Devs know what they have changed. So they should know where to look for mistakes. Take the problems with the politics redesing. How can't they see what happens with radicals and high legitimacy? Or the IG's attration bug? They had to know these things were changed. It's not like these changes broke, I don't know, inmigration for example. The bugs are in what they changed.
- 4
- 1
Im actually quite surprised this thread is still up, i had a 5+ page thread titled "Endgame Crisis are a joke" in the Stellaris forum (regarding the Crisis mechanic) and we were discussing ways to make the crisis an actual endgame threat...and the thread was nuked because the title was considered trolling the devs.
Paradox needs to do something as a company. Things have been going bad for a long time. Imperator was awful, CK3 had a good release but is a dead game right now, and Vic3 release has been pretty bad.
Sure their profits are probably doing fine, but they should be careful with the quality of their products, a lot of videogames companies went through this "I release bad games but I still sell a lot" phase and it ends really badly for the company on the long term, because when people get dissapointed time after time they stop buying and start to lose interest in their products.
Sure their profits are probably doing fine, but they should be careful with the quality of their products, a lot of videogames companies went through this "I release bad games but I still sell a lot" phase and it ends really badly for the company on the long term, because when people get dissapointed time after time they stop buying and start to lose interest in their products.
- 20
- 8
- 1
.png){kind=avatar}
Almost every system in Stellaris was redone from the ground up... Some - multiple times
- 18
- 3
- 1
- 1
No. Don't get me wrong, I really appreciate when studios take the time to create a demo (and the demo has convinced me to buy games I wouldn't have otherwise...or avoid games I'd have probably refunded). But I don't think the issue with Victoria 3 is they aren't aware of the issues. I think they haven't had enough time to fix the issues.
For example, the warfare system was known to be in development early this year. It was pretty public knowledge in the DDs that warfare was one of the last systems to be implemented and was in such a state that they couldn't even show us mock-up graphics when it was announced a year ago. There was also some major trade changes happening around the spring, and possibly other differences that we weren't aware of. And of course, it's hard to write and tune an AI when not all the systems of your game have been implemented. So the issues with warfare, trade, AI, etc. were probably largely known before release - which is why release was 1.0.3 and not 1.0.0. A demo wouldn't have caught those issues because QA probably already flagged them internally and the bugs are waiting on some dev to get the time to look at them.
Where a demo may have helped is with the performance problems. The community can quickly and easily test the game on a far wider variety of hardware configurations than your QA department can scrap together.
The community also is better positioned to test late-game balance, because getting to the late-game (even on full observer mode) takes a bunch of time, so running tons of different tests in parallel via the community provides way more feedback than a QA department can manage. But most demos I'm aware of don't often include the late-game experience: they're a demo, not the full game. If you could play the entire game for free via the demo, why would you ever buy the full game?
I get the impression based on Johan's comments and some other dev replies that the Vic 3 team was under pressure to release in 2022 (maybe they were reaching the limits of the studio budget? Maybe system reworks took more time post-announcement than anticipated?), which is why they went with a mostly-playable game release at the end of October. I don't think a demo would have changed that.
Long-term, there seems to be ongoing issues with the custom paradox scripting language. A whole lot of embarrassing bugs, not just for Vic 3 but also CK3, Stellaris, and other paradox games arise out of simple script mistakes, typos, or conditional omissions, so investing in tools to help validate script changes and errors (maybe a visualizer for how a conditional block will be interpreted since every paradox game has bugs with scripted conditions) would substantially help the simulation quality, but that's easier said than done with such a loosely-constrained script language. As a bonus, if such a tool was polished and released to the public, modders would benefit as well, since it'd make it easier to debug a number of mods.
- 2
- 1
- 1
Not that it really belongs in this thread - but if CK3 (having reveiced a patch last week and a floor plan for further development existing) is already "dead" in your perception, what is IR then?
- 3
- 1
No, it wasn’t. The AI was atrocious and passive, and there were zero things to do between exploring all anomalies and the endgame crisis.
- 7
- 3
- 2
Which, funnily enough, is why I have faith for Victoria. Stellaris has been successfully rebuilt more or less from the ground up over the years into becoming a much better game than it was. They seemingly admitted to themselves that some systems such as planetary management and economy needed to be reworked completely. That development cycle gave me some hope that paradox knows when to hold them and when to fold them with their systems and mechanics, so to speak.
- 8
- 5
The same reasons why Stellaris experience gives you confidence, for me CK3 and I:R bring the opposite. Specifically, being afraid that they won't see it worth their time to fix the game and let it die, specially on CK3.
- 11
- 1