A few thoughts about the recent dev diary responses

[Jutland]

I have an idea. The people who mostly care about the historical trees, were offended by the Polish alt-history tree and will probably be outraged by the USSR alt-history tree (such as myself) should skip reading the alt history USSR DD. I know it sounds stupid, but what do we really have to lose? We're not buying expansions for alt-history trees anyway, we will save ourselves and the devs the frustration and moderators won't have to monitor the threads as much. It's a win-win.

The thing is there should be in first place proper representation of nation in it's focus tree and national spirits, then alt-his stuff and other fantasies. Without fullfilling first objective there always will be drastic response, because shared content will just look like unfinished and done without looking in depth.

 

[cotne22]

Then why waste time and energy in showing that? It would be much better for them to focus on things like land warfare and supplies, not a cossack king or colonialist communists.
The game lacks an identity and focus. It tries to stretch to every place without any real effort or care and it only leaves dissatisfaction to everyone. It doesn't try to be a somewhat realistic ww2 game or an alt history game if you dont put in the effort to do more than basic research.

The USSR focus tree rework is one of the most demanded things from the community (and focus trees in general, look how upset some people were because Italy isn't being reworked) and as the previous expansions show, It will contain a lot of crazy alt history, no matter how much forumites complain, it will be included in one way or another. I will be honest, I'm not a fan of focus tree diaries in general, I don't like the way the devs try to provoke interest in buttons you press every few minutes, I'm more interested in the new mechanics and devs explaining how they work. Focus tree dev diaries are pure marketing and I will get more info by reading the wiki a few days after the release of the DLC. I'll read the historical part because I have some knowledge on the matter and would like to provide feedback, but someone unironically talking about a Romanov restoration just makes me cringe. I'm sure there are others who think this way.
Anyway, I just made a suggestion, I'm not telling anyone what to do.

 

[bitmode]

The focus tree was honestly bad from a historical perspective (if you like wacky stuff then you won't have any problem, and I won't take that from you), and when we voiced our concerns and complains we were met with dismissive and condescending answers, and that was like throwing gasoline to fire. Then they acted surprised to the backlash and demanded respect which we havent been given by addressing our concerns. Respect comes from both ways.

I'm just as disappointed with the focus tree as you are, and probably more disappointed with the game overall than you are. Whether or not you like what the devs created should have no bearing on how you treat them though. Even if you feel a dev was being disrespectful, is it so hard to be respectful anyway?
And by the way, they are under no obligation at all to address our concerns. "Listening to community feedback" does not imply "acting according to community feedback". Just like "report a bug and it will be investigated" does not mean "we will promptly fix any bugs you report".

 

[SRhistory]

I have an idea. The people who mostly care about the historical trees, were offended by the Polish alt-history tree and will probably be outraged by the USSR alt-history tree (such as myself) should skip reading the alt history USSR DD.

Bad idea. I am playing mostly historical but when we get a new DD it holds historical and alt-historical stuff and more. So everyone will read it anyway. Better to not be outraged and just think “not going to play it. So why give a rejection?”. Or if you reject just tell nice and good work. Why? Because many people in this thread only look what THEY want and what THEY like or believe is correct or... but.... we are a community ! What i don’t find fun is for someone else fun.

 

[mursolini]

The devs will always have their own vision, and for some things (like, for example, the specific inclusion of landing craft-type vessels) don't fit within that, even though I'd prefer they were there. However, in my experience, what I've seen doesn't work is throwing a hissy fit and calling people names/making threats. What a lot of the people acting out tend to forget is that alongside them are people making well-reasoned arguments, or noting their displeasure of something without being disrespectful and confrontational. Over time, the people that act out on the forums tend to get ignored, and often disappear, while the devs are far more likely to reply, and take notice of, people that raise issues in a more constructive fashion. At no point in the history of HoI4 have I seen the "hissy fit crowd" do more than say "+1, I don't like this" - which can be achieved far, far more constructively (and in a fashion that reflects far better on the person putting forward their view) than going off like a pork chop.

As far as I remember, you were the one that made a Lot of very constructive feedback about navy.

Why don't you tell us you success stoty, how naval game is in such a great state currently, and how many of your constructive suggestions were implemented?

Instead of abstract "hissy fit or not" discussion, show us: niceness gave me these great results <results>

I believe one community member already checked how constructive criticism was implemented from feedback to focus trees, and we have pretty objective data.

If I'd go on a walk with a dog, we would have 3 legs on average. What average has to do with all of it?

What I'm trying to say is that hiring more people isn't always a solution. It all depends on the scope of the project and management style. Because if you have too much workers they won't do anything useful, if too little they'll be overworked which will decrease their productivity over time leading to burning out. I don't know how PDS works and I lack the experience and knowledge of management to say I know the solution for the problem, or if the problem even exists in the first place. Besides if they managed their assets and people wrong they wouldn't be as big as they are today. So I'm really convinced that if they would need more people they would know it and hired them long ago.

HOI4 is 4-5 years after release. You can't argue paradox can't just fix issues now, because additional people will not work at capacity right away, after having software released for five years.

If you want to argue that PDX made a good management job, explain release date being delayed for closer to a year.

 

[PatrykCXXVIII]

If you want to argue that PDX made a good management job, explain release date being delayed for closer to a year.

Have you forgotten we're in middle of global COVID-19 pandemic? All software developers had problems with remote working, and most major games were delayed because of that.

 

[Caeric]

I'm just as disappointed with the focus tree as you are, and probably more disappointed with the game overall than you are. Whether or not you like what the devs created should have no bearing on how you treat them though. Even if you feel a dev was being disrespectful, is it so hard to be respectful anyway?
And by the way, they are under no obligation at all to address our concerns. "Listening to community feedback" does not imply "acting according to community feedback". Just like "report a bug and it will be investigated" does not mean "we will promptly fix any bugs you report".

I'm probably going to be downvoted to hell and back for this but the people who cannot keep their anger and frustration over being disappointed in check and throwing personal insults and absolutely demanding that PDX comply with their demands and redo the entire expansion to their demands RIGHT NOW to cater to them creates a certain image in my head.

It reminds me of a child throwing a screaming tantrum on the floor in a convenience store after the parents refused their demands for candy.

Or a Karen screeching like a banshee demanding to see the manager.

Try to be an adult please lol

(Don't get me wrong, there are tons of things I'd rather see than some of the more absurd choices for Poland in terms of alt history or adding off-map nuclear reactors. There are a ton of bugs and mechanics I think are far more important than this, however this game is hardly enough to be furious over.)

 

[safe-keeper]

As far as I remember, you were the one that made a Lot of very constructive feedback about navy.

Why don't you tell us you success stoty, how naval game is in such a great state currently, and how many of your constructive suggestions were implemented?

Instead of abstract "hissy fit or not" discussion, show us: niceness gave me these great results <results>

If his suggestions weren't implemented even though he suggested them in a nice way, I doubt an entitled or rude approach would've worked better, to be honest.

 

[zjmna]

I feel like the chain of events on the forums the last couple expansions has been:

1) Dev diaries show off meme-y alt history

2) Forums revolt and say they won't buy the expansion

3) HoI4 hits record player counts

I only ever play historical, but anecdotally my three other friends who play HoI4 NEVER play historical because they find it boring. They love the meme focuses like reforming the Austro-Hungarian empire, or Byzantium, and they keep buying expansions to play those focus trees. I feel like we have to be really careful appealing to the bottom line here, because the game's increasing popularity kind of speaks for itself.

Convincing the devs with constructive criticism is really the only "power" the forums have here. They're not gonna bother poring through insulting comments, and if the forum becomes overly negative they'll just stop engaging here.

And anyone who argues you should yell at the airline cashier: you're just making the world a little worse for everyone.

 

[Reinner]

I have nothing against ahistorical, in fact i prefer playing the game like that simply because of the unexpected outcomes. But i think the reason why people got so annoyed at dev diary and why dislike ratio is so high is because the so called alt-history/fantasy paths are not even making any bit of sense anymore and are just plain stupid at this point.

Many others already pointed out stuff like offmap nukes, Poland crowning some random Russian cossack etc.

It also makes me worried how the USSR alt/meme history will look like, considering what they did with Poland at this point the revival of Lenin or Anastasia becoming the leader of Russian Empire wouldn't even seem that far fetched anymore

 

[safe-keeper]

It also makes me worried how the USSR alt/meme history will look like, considering what they did with Poland at this point the revival of Lenin or Anastasia becoming the leader of Russian Empire wouldn't even seem that far fetched anymore

Spectacle creep is a real concern, IMO. Next DLC people will go "but Poland got nukes, why don't we get _______________"? Wargame Red Dragon went down this road - they gave some nation or other some fancy toy in an expansion, and then next expansion they got all kinds of whining because "X got Y, so we want the prototype stealth hovertank with a flame thrower and built-in ice espresso ice cream machine"!

Just a worry and not a prediction, of course. However, if PDX When they make the Scandinavia DLC, they'd better give us armoured panserbjørn support companies as long as Norway holds off-map Jan Mayen.

 

[DicRoNero]

And by the way, they are under no obligation at all to address our concerns. "Listening to community feedback" does not imply "acting according to community feedback". Just like "report a bug and it will be investigated" does not mean "we will promptly fix any bugs you report".

Now with what I've encountered in the stickies, this latter should be also continued: "we will promptly fix any bugs you report" does not mean "it is cost-efficient for us to release the fix anytime soon".

 

[DrinkingHeavily]

Yelling at devs demonstrates that you.. are angry. It doesn't either effectively communicate ideas or increase any developer's desire to do work. They don't know you personally.. there's no reason to believe you're not equally angry 24/7 about everything.

The point of thinking through what you're trying to communicate to podcat - or any of the rest of them - and stating those items calmly and clearly is that.... They'll be much more willing to consider those edits/changes if presented as a suggestion rather than an unhinged rant.

They may very well be aware of what you're trying to suggest - but anger/snark will only inspire resistance to your ideas. To get your concepts understood, adopted, implemented by Paradox in a future patch or DLC and sustained for years to come, you will need their personal buy-in.

 

[Axe99]

As far as I remember, you were the one that made a Lot of very constructive feedback about navy.

Why don't you tell us you success stoty, how naval game is in such a great state currently, and how many of your constructive suggestions were implemented?

Instead of abstract "hissy fit or not" discussion, show us: niceness gave me these great results <results>

We're talking quite a few years ago now, so the only specific memories I have are of OOB changes (which I made, and were directly acted upon with no variance, which is very strongly suggestive that they were responsible for the changes, given they were fairly detailed and specific) to make the Naval OOBs more accurate. It gets trickier with broader mechanical changes, where ideas may or may not contribute, and the devs may well have thought the same thing in parallel, but I made some quite strong arguments (not rude, and definitely no personal attacks, but noting that it was quite implausible to include the fuel cost of a ship in its construction) over the fuel issue - noting I was hardly the only one making points over the abstraction of fuel into initial unit cost. Iirc also made strong arguments for the inclusion of mine warfare, and riverine supply (many, many moons ago now - I'm not suggesting that had any impact on the dev's design decisions, not least because coastal supply wasn't picked up, and that was part of the package). But I'm hardly the only one in the world who's aware of the strategic importance of mine warfare during WW2, or of riverine supply/coastal convoys - so who knows whether my posts were part of the decision-making process.

What we do know is that the devs do listen, and have responded on many occasions to feedback from players - fuel being a good example. However, it's impossible to determine causality as it gets back to the thing I mentioned earlier that whenever there is a fuss, there are always people being constructive alongside the pork chop brigade, and so other than from direct feedback from the devs (which we've had on this point, on multiple occasions, very clearly) it's impossible for us to disentangle which had the most important impact. That being said, I don't doubt the devs feedback on this point, not least as it's exactly the same way I'd respond (and any of my friends or colleagues) would respond in a similar situation - people going off like a pork chop in-effect sideline themselves, by adding a negative emotional association to any interaction with them that is a blocker for any actual content information being communicated.

Ie - what safe-keeper said

If his suggestions weren't implemented even though he suggested them in a nice way, I doubt an entitled or rude approach would've worked better, to be honest.

 

[safe-keeper]

We all know = this is my personal opinion and you may or may not agree with me.

Ask 10 forumers what the most logical DLC progression would be, get 10 different answers . If I was in charge I'd prioritize improving the battle planner over everything else, for example.

 

[Harin]

I

To me, the progression of DLC for this game seemed clear:

DLC 1: US + UK, logistics + naval warfare overhauls
DLC 2: Germany + Japan, tech + air warfare overhauls
DLC 3: France + Italy, political + economic overhauls
DLC 4: Soviet Union + China, espionage + land warfare overhauls

But we all know they want to milk this for as much DLC as possible, they would never be so condensed.

I think it is pretty obvious, that Paradox tried in the past, is trying now, and will continue to try tomorrow to maximize profit on the game. Since they do not live in a controlled economy it is what I would expect, so it does not surprise, nor anger me.

Allow me to jest a little, but all of it being the truth at the same time.

The alternative to not chasing profit means the company cannot pay the employees and we know how those selfish employees are; if they do not get paid they will actually walk off the job. Can you believe that? You ever met an employee who did not care about the money? Heck, where I come from employees want, not just money, but paid time off for doing nothing at all! Then they want other benefits on top of that! It just never ends with those employees, always with their hand out. What's a business gonna do?

Jesting over.

I guess Paradox could have tried a different business model. Others do exist. If they chose to add more content and put it out faster, that would increase cost in a compressed time frame leading to a higher price customers would pay for the game. Of course higher price has the nasty effect of reducing the number of customers so the price has to be even higher. This leaves us with a game that costs more or without a game at all, as the game does not sell enough copies fast enough and the company cannot pay back the money it borrowed from investors to pay those pesky employees they need to fix the bugs the employees made in the first place.

Another model is to release HOI4 version 1.0 and then close that project down and use those resources for a different game, maybe a business simulator game.

The answer to fixing things in HOI4 and/or accelerating content creation can only be found in business and profit, so I cannot agree that milking DLC is a bad thing. On the other hand, I do believe that the executives of Paradox made a mistake in not putting more of HOI4's profits back into the HOI4 project team. While I applaud the company in producing profits, I would like five minutes of alone time with the executive responsible for not giving the HOI4 team a full time AI programmer, full time bug fixer, community liaison officer, full time history scholar, more portrait creators, hot tubs, basketball court, gun range to test WW2 weapons, and an arena for Sabaton's use when they drop by for a show at the office. Me and him got words that need to be said.

 

[AFilthyCasual]

We all know = this is my personal opinion and you may or may not agree with me.

Ask 10 forumers what the most logical DLC progression would be, get 10 different answers . If I was in charge I'd prioritize improving the battle planner over everything else, for example.

Their CEO used to run online casinos, you know I'm right.

 

[Harin]

Their CEO used to run online casinos, you know I'm right.

Oh, my gosh, oh my gosh. I so laughed out loud! Very good man!

 

[HaruhiFollower]

I mean, sure, but do we the players need to write a dissertation on how absolutely bananas it is to give Poland free nukes? Afaik, they don't even have a reactor today, much less in 1944 in a secret off-map site.

There certainly is a nuclear reactor in Poland (I have seen the blue glow, so they probably aren't faking it ;-)) and Poland has had several different reactors from the late fifties onwards.

 

[EricTheGreat12]

I think that both sides bring interesting points here.

On the one hand, some of the recent DLC Focus Trees have been a mess, and it feels more like the devs went for style over substance at the expense of people buying the DLCs en-masse. The Battle of the Bosporus' Turkey and Bulgarian trees have terrible pacing, and unfortunately it looks as if that's here to stay. It doesn't help either that HOI4 seems to be going the way of Stellaris, in which multiple game mechanics are just dumped on top of one another, and the end result is just a mess that just keeps on getting worse.

On the other hand, the player shouldn't be limited to playing via a narrow historical pathway. Adding more "meme paths" might seem cheesy, but it adds variety and interest to a game that desperately needs it. I do think that these paths compliment the existing mechanics nicely, to a certain degree, and most of the playerbase seems to enjoy it.