Beta of 5.1 - 17th May 2011 - Discussion Thread

[mkhuh]

Had no problems playing as Muscowy - it's a little challenging but it probably should be given their starting position. Playing as the hordes on the other hand had some problems last time I tried due to missions to vassalize, etc., that and vassals whom you can't ally etc (various diplomacy restrictions).

 

[Antonius66]

All I know is that I want the patch to be released already . I am dying to play another game but would prefer to do it with the final patch.

 

[Javaslinger]

All I know is that I want the patch to be released already . I am dying to play another game but would prefer to do it with the final patch.

I'll say it again... keep beta patching, adding features and events, improving the AI, etc, etc... until the cows come home...

I only get annoyed when the beta's stall for months at a time... so long as they're pumpin them out every week, I'm a happy camper.

 

[DanubianCossak]

I say form a Paradox dedicated team to keep patching this thing at least until EU4 is out

Heck id even volunteer some of my time to help!

 

[jdrou]

All I know is that I want the patch to be released already . I am dying to play another game but would prefer to do it with the final patch.

Not saying this will happen with DW but you should be aware that HttT didn't get an 'official' patch until a year after release. I would certainly not delay playing just because the patch is called 'beta'. If you don't want to actually be a tester just wait a few days or a week to see if any critical issues are discovered before you install.

 

[highsis]

I will keep asking for this feature. Auto-army management check box for each stack plzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz! I sometimes want to leave dealing with nomads and minor to AIs so I could attend to more pressing concerns like major wars. I would do that except beta does not have that feature yet.

 

[Antonius66]

I do not mean final as in last one ever. I would just like to have a 5.1 released, so achievements are back on, and then right back to work with new betas, rather than new betas for 1 year.

 

[StephenT]

I do not mean final as in last one ever. I would just like to have a 5.1 released, so achievements are back on, and then right back to work with new betas, rather than new betas for 1 year.

This.

If it's going to take a year's work to get DW finalised, then can we have three patches 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3 at four-month intervals, rather than waiting 12 months for 5.1? With HttT it didn't matter, but DW introduced achievements. As it stands, achievements are broken, even though there's nothing wrong with the actual code - 'broken' in the sense that they just don't work with the latest version of the game.

Or failing that, I assume there's no technical reason why achievements can't be enabled on beta patches?

 

[TAMBOURINESNAKE]

Or failing that, I assume there's no technical reason why achievements can't be enabled on beta patches?

Probably have to rework things server-side for achievements to validate a new game with every patch, so its not worthwhile.

 

[Mammoet]

Also due to unbalanced stuff in the betas some achievements might become way too easy to achieve.

 

[Checco]

The stability events make it almost impossible to keep +3, even in the best Infamy and Legitimation conditions.

In fact, iirc the vast majority of events in the game I am playing cause a loss of stability; of course, avoiding expansion outside my cores (save for 1-2 more provs) makes stab problems nil, especially now that the 'Hunt Rebels' erased a lot of annoyance.

Basically, as long as you keep it in your pants *err, I mean 'cores'*, nothing so bad will happen as the greater rebel source is still nationalism.

So far so good, anyway, nice to see naval nations' maintanance problems solved (and no super navies in 1400, btw!) .

 

[Antonius66]

As mentioned another poster...I just want 5.1, then 5.2, etc. I do not need 5.1 to be the patch to end all patches. Give me a 5.1 and keep working at the same pace as now. Just release 5.1 and name the next beta 5.2 and so on. I know that certain things would have to be ironed out completely before releasing 5.1, but why not do that with the goal of releasing a patch and then keep the major changes and stuff that needs more work and save it for the first round of the next beta patch.

 

[Brianhjh]

- Jakob of Baden's birth is now some time before his death.

The highlight of the read-me.

 

[corporateslave]

This patch is looking pretty good so far, but FYI I'm seeing random game freezes when I try to do hands-off games as the Maldives. I didn't have any freezes at all when playing Holland / Netherlands, so I am a bit puzzled by this.

 

[lordreaven448]

Aw...............My pagan infiltration event didn't make it in. Oh well.

 

[AndrewT]

If it's going to take a year's work to get DW finalised, then can we have three patches 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3 at four-month intervals, rather than waiting 12 months for 5.1? With HttT it didn't matter, but DW introduced achievements. As it stands, achievements are broken, even though there's nothing wrong with the actual code - 'broken' in the sense that they just don't work with the latest version of the game.

Or failing that, I assume there's no technical reason why achievements can't be enabled on beta patches?

Releasing a formal patch is a significant decision that places requirements on other parties such as GamersGate, Steam and Impulse. It is in no way comparable to releasing a beta (which is why they can come out every week). I understand the ache to formalise 5.1, but it is simply not going to be released before it is judged to be properly ready. The moddir issue alone should prevent its release, IMO.

The stability events make it almost impossible to keep +3, even in the best Infamy and Legitimation conditions.

Johan has consistently stated since EU 1 that +3 stability is an ideal, not the normal running state of a nation. Being almost impossible to achieve +3 stab is actually a developer goal, not a bug. What medieval European nations achieved this for any sustained period? None, I'd suggest.

 

[pyroclastic]

Also due to unbalanced stuff in the betas some achievements might become way too easy to achieve.

If this was a concern, they'd have prevented people from doing achievements on Very Easy/with inflation off/saving and reloading every month, all of which is possible with 5.0.

 

[Kamzel]

Johan has consistently stated since EU 1 that +3 stability is an ideal, not the normal running state of a nation. Being almost impossible to achieve +3 stab is actually a developer goal, not a bug. What medieval European nations achieved this for any sustained period? None, I'd suggest.

I agree. While uncomfortable for gamers who got used to being at max stability all the time, this is a good direction. Constantly being at +3 makes much of the game mechanics useless - like Artists, NIs or decisions lowering the stability cost, etc. When recovering stability is made hard for larger nations, all of these become viable choices. However, I have some doubts whether the random event are the best way to achieve this goal. Also, how is the AI going to cope with this, because right now it seems to be obsessed with mindless expansion?

 

[Najs]

It's a good mix right now IMO. Not too many -1 stab events, not too few either.

 

[Hypnotoad]

This patch is looking pretty good so far, but FYI I'm seeing random game freezes when I try to do hands-off games as the Maldives. I didn't have any freezes at all when playing Holland / Netherlands, so I am a bit puzzled by this.

I had this in my last game as well. EU totally froze up and stopped responding. I had to kill and restart the game. This happend 2 times during my 50 first years of play.