Boycott Paradox interactive games!

[happymix91]

Just mod the game and make every provinces have full building slots, or go back to 1.11.4. Or make your own game, or sponse other development team to make another game. There are many ways to decline changes of the game, so stop whining and do something helpful.

Without improvable development system, new building system itself is a good improvement for the game. I can't understand why so many people keep whining about the thing that development system is blocked for non-dlc users. They can even mod the game and unlock all building slots.

 

[Wizzington]

Well, you certainly won't receive legal action for such a post but banning someone doesn't carry the same standard as legal free speech .

That said, OP is losing track of the issue, which is that some things you could do previously are put behind DLC if you want to be able to continue to do them. This is a grey area in EU IV, and the practice wrt for example vassals comes of as unnecessarily shady while most of the DLC doesn't.

In which way are vassals shady?

 

[LemonMonk]

Well, EUIV is running one right now!

King? Surely an Emporer.

Also OP is not representative of most of us and his 'arguments' are poorly thought out.

 

[Tacticus101]

And that is the point. Completely reworked, means a changed game in its core.

An optional change, its not like you cant just ignore the change. Alternatively, change the building bonus' to be the same as before (and increase the building limit). They have changed the game, but offered you an easy route to go if you don't like then changes.

Also, what is wrong with changing the game if they decided the previous system was bad? I don't see you complaining about the trade rework, goods produced rework, reformation rework or any of the religious reworks? They were all huge changes to the mechanics involved, caused massive balance upsets and had knock-on effects on other mechanics. Those changes though added to the game.

Anyways, as per your previous post you want fundamental changes made to the core game for free, the building system is a fundamental change and was free, renaming the value of a province "development" was a rework (Tax, Manpower and Production already existed, they just made them one number), adding the ability to increase your Tax, Manpower or Production is a free additional feature, not a rework.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

In which way are vassals shady?

In every patch up until 1.12/1.13, you can annex vassals that would meet the standards of 50% liberty desire in 1.13. In 1.13, you can only do this if you have to DLC to spend prestige to keep them down, which markedly alters what is viable regarding early game vassal feeding strategies (it also gives you a lot more margin for error, for example buying LD down --> royal marriage rather than having to catch it before the month tick).

It's one of the few situations where you 1) can't do something you could in a previous patch but 2) can do so if you purchase DLC. However, as I play this game a lot and know the mechanics, I can see where that kind of thing can find its way in due to the not-perfect-split nature of the DLC/patch splits. I call this a grey area, because you could have easily just set the 50% LD threshold and given nobody the ability to buy it down DLC or not, at which point this complaint wouldn't be valid...but I doubt the game would be better for such a choice. So it's a tough thing.

That said, for the most part I like the recent changes. The things I don't like from a design perspective are Buddhism (it's the only DLC feature that feels like a downgrade!), movement locking, and back-loading expansion wrt monarch point cost, though I can understand the logic behind the backloading. The AI walks into bad terrain so much with move locking and it's a nuisance to mind it outside of wars/immediate need situations :/.

IMO I'd still rather see more priority on UI, coring rules (whatever the ultimate choice, the UI/patch notes should reflect the reality in-game rather than telling us we can't take this province we could core instantly following the deal because we can't core it), and stuff like crashes while resetting game state etc. Especially wrt mechanic changes, learning by trial and error is pretty off-putting and it's hard for people to keep up with it, especially relatively new players.

 

[gdj]

In my opinion the previous system was worse than what we have now, even without Common Sense.

In the eearlier versions buildings had no real strategic value, you just plastered temples etc eveywhere.

Now, with limited building space you have a trade off and must consider what to build where. Its better in any way.

 

[kontinos]

An optional change, its not like you cant just ignore the change. Alternatively, change the building bonus' to be the same as before (and increase the building limit). They have changed the game, but offered you an easy route to go if you don't like then changes.
Also, what is wrong with changing the game if they decided the previous system was bad? I don't see you complaining about the trade rework, goods produced rework, reformation rework or any of the religious reworks? They were all huge changes to the mechanics involved, caused massive balance upsets and had knock-on effects on other mechanics. Those changes though added to the game.
Anyways, as per your previous post you want fundamental changes made to the core game for free, the building system is a fundamental change and was free, renaming the value of a province "development" was a rework (Tax, Manpower and Production already existed, they just made them one number), adding the ability to increase your Tax, Manpower or Production is a free additional feature, not a rework.

As previously told, i am not arguing if a change is good or bad. I am arguing if something is added, which i think should be dlc only, and completely changed, which should be for free.
If building slots weren't connected with development, i think development upgrades should also be dlc only.
Don't take me wrong, i prefer the new building system by miles in comparison to the previous one.

 

[yuri_teta]

I have the impression that people who don't have the DLC really overestimate the importance of the development feature. It is very expensive to increase development until a new building slot is unlocked. And I am quite sure the new building system is FAR better, even without Common Sense. The only thing I miss are the unique buildings.

Also, if you don't like it, you can just play an old version of the game.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I have the impression that people who don't have the DLC really overestimate the importance of the development feature. It is very expensive to increase development until a new building slot is unlocked. And I am quite sure the new building system is FAR better, even without Common Sense. The only thing I miss are the unique buildings.

Also, if you don't like it, you can just play an old version of the game.

Its importance varies on your goal. Amusingly, the current 1-tag record was set on 1.13 and intentionally disabled the DLC .

I have mixed feelings about decoupling buildings from monarch points (for the most part). Doing so does differentiate them more from idea groups which is a positive though, because you're on a different resource consideration.

 

[Phibs]

As previously told, i am not arguing if a change is good or bad. I am arguing if something is added, which i think should be dlc only, and completely changed, which should be for free.
If building slots weren't connected with development, i think development upgrades should also be dlc only.
Don't take me wrong, i prefer the new building system by miles in comparison to the previous one.

The two aren't linked by necessity. Your complaint could be alleviated by simply removing the building cap for players without the dlc.
If you really boil it down, this complaint reads 'I don't like the rebalance (fewer buildings) of the vanilla game'.
And as has been stated numerous times, this can be alleviated with mods.

Even if one were to take this complaint 100% seriously, I think a 'boycott' is just a completely overblown reaction.
And i think the silent majority will vote accordingly

 

[PanosB3]

I disagree with everything the OPM has said besides the buildings, that needs to be changed in a way that people with the dlc don't be treated in an unfair way cause sometimes (not always of course) you feel so restricted.

 

[FieldMedic]

Oh man, Wiz is the greatest! I don't know any other project leads that would get into it on the forums like this

 

[aragonFTW]

Development needs to enter the vanilla game as soon as possible, preferably in 1.14 please.

 

[Swami]

He's talking about the DLC-hocking NPC that would appear in your game and offer you a quest if you'd just swipe your credit card here, please. The equivalent would be us having expansion-only feature buttons show up in the game but only take you to the steam store if clicked. Something we're obviously never going to do.

Give it some time... Never say never

Anyway I do agree with the OP that this DLC thing is a bit annoying, but I'm oldskool, if you had put all the 5 big dlc's + patches in one expansion pack, especially with all the provinces added etc. it would probably be 60 bucks and many people would buy it. Every game I enjoyed I bought the expansion packs, I also think that people that only take 3 of those 5 dlc's would get that expansion pack, so I would say more money in the end But I guess there is a theory why games do these DLC's now, I don't get it actually. Of course bugfixes should still be in the patches, but patches also changed a lot ingame. You could just bugfix the original game, without extra features and then put everything in an expension pack like the old days imo...

I think that's the biggest problem with CS and other patches, you can play in an older version, but then you don't get any bugfixes anymore...

I do think your OP is a bit extreme, I saw such post a lot on the total war forums, Rome II was really a disaster and everybody wanted to boycot them. While I'm not buying their games anymore before I've seen some reactions I'm certainly not calling for a boycot. It doesn't work, everybody is going to do what they want anyway and such posts just look pretty desperate to be honest. It's just letting people know you're angry, but the people really don't care that much...

Now about Wiz insulting you, well I often see reactions from Wiz that are to the point and sometimes pretty harsh. But I actually like that, he's saying what he thinks and gives a clear yes or no answer. Other developers seem to be nice, but they are actually not giving any info, it's diplomatic nonsens and after their answer you still don't know anything. Really there are people out there that can say nothing with posts twice as long as mine...

But I do share your hate for people that complain about your English, it's not my first language and I'm not good at languages anyways. So I always find myself rereading my posts and editing out errors and searching words on google translate, I don't mind people poiting out errors, I can only learn from that. But I do hate it when people use it to mock me or don't even react on the content only because my English isn't flawless.

(So let's wait for the first person to do this with this post )

 

[kontinos]

The two aren't linked by necessity. Your complaint could be alleviated by simply removing the building cap for players without the dlc.
If you really boil it down, this complaint reads 'I don't like the rebalance (fewer buildings) of the vanilla game'.
And as has been stated numerous times, this can be alleviated with mods.

Even if one were to take this complaint 100% seriously, I think a 'boycott' is just a completely overblown reaction.
And i think the silent majority will vote accordingly

I don't support the boycott, and i think it is obvious with a look on my avatar.
I have also stated i like the new system better.
It's not a matter of gameplay nor a matter of money. It's a matter of principle.
I think Swami made a clear point.

 

[Phönix]

I still don't understand the logic behind the development-building link being behind a paywall, and unfortunately wiz, instead of giving some valid reason, you hide behind "but it actually isn't of any importance, why do you bother?". Well, some people are bothered, and though we understand this is a company, and you are not obliged to discuss your decisions with us, it would be nice if you gave us the reasoning for this decision, instead of trying to dodge the initial argument with comments like that.

Why should he? You can see how the fanboys rally behind him and change the topic as often as they can. But the very fact that instead of discussing the issue or ignoring it, tthey choose to go this rout, should tell you much about the real reasons behind this.

 

[Liquid Sky]

Wouldn't it be easier if you just got a job and made money? My advice to you for your first paycheck would be to get Common Sense.

 

[Desertfox]

As far as I know, some players that go for World Conquest achievement deliberately turn off Common Sense DLC, as the AI developing provinces increases the coring costs and overextension value of those provinces, which slows down WC whenever coring costs or OE is the bottleneck. So for this specific DLC the argument of Pay2Win is a bit weak. So having the option to turn off Common Sense is nice.

In my current Muscovy WC attempt I noticed to my dismay that as I conquered more and more of East Asia and integrated more and more vassals there, the trade of my new provinces started flowing straigth towards the coffers of my enemies. And with only 2 merchants I was unable to stop that. I had 5 large colonial nations but without El Dorado DLC those give no bonus merchants. Also as I am still Eastern tech (no free westernization in 1.11) I could not make Trade Companies either. So I bought and activated El Dorado mid WC attempt, and thanks to the 5 bonus merchants my trade income went up from 37 to 100 ducats/month (leading to 500 total income) and of course the income of my enemies dropped as well, although those with large colonial empires would of course also get additional merchants.

I originally skipped buying El Dorado because I was not interested in custom nations and wasn't playing Meso American natives. But the bonus merchants from colonial nations made buying El Dorado rather compelling in my specific case.

 

[Phönix]

Wouldn't it be easier if you just got a job and made money? My advice to you for your first paycheck would be to get Common Sense.

Oh how nice, an other personal attack. Keep em comming, you are only making my point .

As far as I know, some players that go for World Conquest achievement deliberately turn off Common Sense DLC, as the AI developing provinces increases the coring costs and overextension value of those provinces, which slows down WC whenever coring costs or OE is the bottleneck. So for this specific DLC the argument of Pay2Win is a bit weak.

In my current Muscovy WC attempt I noticed to my dismay that as I conquered more and more of East Asia and integrated more and more vassals there, the trade of my new provinces started flowing straigth towards the coffers of my enemies. And with only 2 merchants I was unable to stop that. I had 5 large colonial nations but without El Dorado DLC those give no bonus merchants. Also as I am still Eastern tech (no free westernization in 1.11) I could not make Trade Companies either. So I bought and activated El Dorado mid WC attempt, and thanks to the 5 bonus merchants my trade income went up from 37 to 100 ducats/month (leading to 500 total income) and of course the income of my enemies dropped as well, although those with large colonial empires would of course also get additional merchants.

I originally skipped buying El Dorado because I was not interested in custom nations and wasn't playing Meso American natives. But the bonus merchants from colonial nations made buying El Dorado rather compelling in my specific case.

Again with the discussion about the usefullness of the dlc? Thats now the point. Never has been. Never will.

 

[Phibs]

It's not a matter of gameplay nor a matter of money. It's a matter of principle.

And what exactly is this principle?

I'll reiterate: the complaint, so far as I understand it, can be summed up thusly "no dlc->building cap".
Which can be modded. And which you and I don't know the majority of vanilla players would want.

edit:
And just to be clear: I'm not criticizing you personally. I get that you're not 100% in the OP's team in regards to boycotts and such.
But you do seem to share the OP's complaint. And I have yet to understand why exactly that is.