Can you stop with ridiculous meme focuses?

[TalyonUngol]

I mean that content designed by PDX developers is as bad (or worse) as the content designed by freelancers.


We asked to do more history, because we feel it's been neglected for alt-history. If PDX needs to do less alt-history for that, I'll take it. But that's not "I want less alt-history". We want at least to have the same priority for history and for alt-history. It's what I said before, how can I possibly want less alt-history if I only play alt-history?
The other complaint is that we want good content, both in history and in alt-history, which we aren't getting.

"Good is subjective". No. Good is partly objective and partly subjective. Everyone that plays TNO praises it for its good content and alt-history. Does that mean that we are all wrong because good is subjective and TNO may be actually bad? No, if so many people agree, it's because it's good. Personal likings affect how much we like content, not if content is good. Content is good or bad by itself. I can dislike something but recognize it's good; or I can like something I know it's bad.


PDX decides, but we can suggest things and debate about their decisions, can't we?

Good isn't totally subjective, read above.

Sure. Suggesting and having good debates about it is perfectly okay and wanted. I have no issue discussing these things.

 

[TalyonUngol]

Exactly. Why does this seem so absurd to you? The SCW is an event that is already in the game. The natural question is then: could country X have interacted differently with this event? For a country like the UK, there would be a historical background to explore there. For other countries like the Netherlands there are the more generic ways to interact with civil wars.
So the game could be improved by filling in these historical (or very close-to) backgrounds and by refining the generic choices to lead to as plausible outcomes as possible. Doesn't mean all countries will suddenly pile onto Spain as there are of course drawbacks to every choice.

Instead, the game is drilling very deep into a select few alt-history paths which only function in their own small worlds they create.

There are too much 'what if' scenarios that they just can't all be included in the updates that they do. If I had to choose between being able to bring back the Monarachy... and intervening in the SCW, I'd choose the Monarchy as that opens up new gameplay options, new alliances, and more replayability to me than just sending volunteers to spain.

 

[Darrenb209]

We are getting to the point where the obvious conclusion is that PDX should hire more people to work on HoI. I don't think they are short of money, and they could do everything we ask for: better mechanics, more history, more and better alt-history, less bugs.

That's why Kaiserreich has more content and less bugs than vanilla, simply because its dev team is larger. It has been said multiple times by both sides. There's no magic.
And if the dev team of a mod is larger than the dev team of the whole base game, maaaybe PDX should think about it.

I think this is something that everyone here agrees on, even the ones who disagree on alt-history vs history and meme vs not meme.

Hoi4's fun but it could be so much more even with just a few more people working on it.

Many of my posts have more likes and so on turn do not. In calling me pathetic, you are just has dismissive, snobbish, while masquerading as not. You have no basis to assert that I or others taking a similar view are in the minority or not. But yeah, it does not matter me

Don't take the "I have more likes so I'm more popular than you" internet bullshit stance, please. I've seen it before on a ridiculous number of forums, it really does just make your side of the argument look bad.

99% of people neither give out likes or dislikes or anything else.

Don't play the internet points game. All it serves to do is make the people playing it look like fools who are overly obsessed with the opinions of others.

 

[TalyonUngol]

I think this is something that everyone here agrees on, even the ones who disagree on alt-history vs history and meme vs not meme.

Hoi4's fun but it could be so much more even with just a few more people working on it.



Don't take the "I have more likes so I'm more popular than you" internet bullshit stance, please. I've seen it before on a ridiculous number of forums, it really does just make your side of the argument look bad.

99% of people neither give out likes or dislikes or anything else.

Don't play the internet points game. All it serves to do is make the people playing it look like fools who are overly obsessed with the opinions of others.

I don't even know how to give likes or dislikes or the helpful thing to someones post. Lol

 

[TalyonUngol]

In programming, a bug is a feature that doesn't work as the developer intended.

A design error is a design that works as the developer intended, as it was designed, but that it was badly designed. For example, peace conferences aren't buggy, but everybody agrees they are very badly designed.

Bulgaria coring all the Balkans is obviously wrong, intended or not. The player doesn't care if it's a bug or a design error, it's simply wrong. As Yugoslavia coring Transylvania is wrong.

And content that has too many bugs isn't good content. I don't care how good the Ottoman Empire is supposed to be if the coring decisions are bugged and I can't core Syria because I don't own Kuwait.

I have to disagree. I think Bulgaria coring the Balkans is a good thing. Otherwise, might as well not even bother playing Bulgaria as it would be useless otherwise.

 

[Gefallener_Held]

I think this is something that everyone here agrees on, even the ones who disagree on alt-history vs history and meme vs not meme.

Hoi4's fun but it could be so much more even with just a few more people working on it.



Don't take the "I have more likes so I'm more popular than you" internet bullshit stance, please. I've seen it before on a ridiculous number of forums, it really does just make your side of the argument look bad.

99% of people neither give out likes or dislikes or anything else.

Don't play the internet points game. All it serves to do is make the people playing it look like fools who are overly obsessed with the opinions of others.

I am not. I am just submitting an off the shelf dismissal of his absurd attempt to dig at me. If yougo through mg posts, I reference the Solomon Asch experiments! knowledgikng first I and others may be in the minority, which is adult why we need to be more vocal, since so many just go with whatever way the wind blows.

 

[TalyonUngol]

I am not. I am just submitting an off the shelf dismissal of his absurd attempt to dig at me. If yougo through mg posts, I reference the Solomon Asch experiments! knowledgikng first I and others may be in the minority, which is adult why we need to be more vocal, since so many just go with whatever way the wind blows.

If you are in the minority, then you realize that your opinion isn't going to be the most popular one and that PDX should not pander to you. The majority > the Minority.

 

[Vlad123]

I think this is something that everyone here agrees on, even the ones who disagree on alt-history vs history and meme vs not meme.

Hoi4's fun but it could be so much more even with just a few more people working on it.



Don't take the "I have more likes so I'm more popular than you" internet bullshit stance, please. I've seen it before on a ridiculous number of forums, it really does just make your side of the argument look bad.

99% of people neither give out likes or dislikes or anything else.

Don't play the internet points game. All it serves to do is make the people playing it look like fools who are overly obsessed with the opinions of others.

What do you mean? Which is better than hoi4 to develop it in a few? (when the same developers complain that there are few?) or do you say that it would be better if PDX focused only on 2/3/4 strands of Alt-history? In the first case, I'm wrong, because even the developers complain that they can't do everything because PDX gives them priorities.
In the second case, a few strands of Alt-history would be ideal but they react well to each other! Unlike Eu4 it is much more alive for a simple reason: The AI has so many "attitude" modifiers to see you with that if you are for example "historical friends" it will hardly betray you and will always be on your side even if you have 200 of Aggressive exspansion . On hoi4 instead, being on tracks through the NF ... it happens that if, with the Netherlands, you make concessions to Japan, this will still focus on attacking you. This hints at the huge gulf between Hoi4 and Eu4 ... with the difference that Eu4 is a MUCH older game and makes it a gem. It may not be played like Hoi4, but it sure keeps you from saying "WTF !? I helped this nation from the start, because it's justifying against me !?"
Often the only thing that bypasses the focus of war is being in alliance with that nation. Which is not always possible.

 

[Gefallener_Held]

If you are in the minority, then you realize that your opinion isn't going to be the most popular one and that PDX should not pander to you. The majority > the Minority.

I never conceded that, just that it matters not to me. I guess the Solomon Asch experiment has no resonance with you. No surprise there.

 

[TalyonUngol]

I never conceded that, just that it matters not to me. I guess the Solomon Asch experiment has no resonance with you. No surprise there.

Don't really care enough to google what a Solomon Asch experiment is.

Logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Or the one. - Spock and Captain Kirk.

 

[Vlad123]

Don't really care enough to google what a Solomon Asch experiment is.

Logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Or the one. - Spock and Captain Kirk.

Not always: if the needs of the many are a "false need" and damages a "primary need", the minority is just and it only means that that majority does not understand. In my country we have an expression for this mass "ox people".
What is the false need? Have other memes.
What is the real need: Having a game with fewer bugs, features that work, more diplomatic interaction etc ... things I think you would like too ... but it seems you don't want to understand that a team either does a thing or does a other (and it comes back to the fact that even the developers of Hoi4 themselves say that there are too few!)

 

[Gefallener_Held]

Don't really care enough to google what a Solomon Asch experiment is.

Logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Or the one. - Spock and Captain Kirk.

This what we call willful ignorance.

Wow, a quote from halfway decent star trek movie, from 40 years ago. No way to come back from that. Never mind alluding to bedrock psychological experiments or other things that demonstrate a classical education. Oh no, that is an absolute incontrovertible rebuttal there.

And again, with popularity of things like Expert AI, do not be so sure idiotic, absurdist altf-UNhistory do cater to the clear majority.

Not that I care. Just because the majority is wrong (and ain I do not xoncede this sftuff does represent the majority) has no sway in the imperative to speak out for want is right, what is better.

 

[Me_]

I don't feel like reading pages of increasingly unreadable discussions. Just wanted to say that I would like for the "alternative" history to have some basis e.g. ones that depict political plans that were proposed by some factions but not realized due to outside/inside factors.

Having an option to restore the Hittite Empire or unite Patagonia and Jan Mayen might make for a fun "alt" history, but I don't feel like it fits with the narrative of a WW2-centered game.

 

[Vlad123]

This what we call willful ignorance.

Wow, a quote from halfway decent star trek movie, from 40 years ago. No way to come back from that. Never mind alluding to bedrock psychological experiments or other things that demonstrate a classical education. Oh no, that is an absolute incontrovertible rebuttal there.

And again, with unpopularity of things like Expert AI, do not be so sure idiotic, absurdist altf-UNhistory do er to the clear majority.

Not that I care. Just because the majority is wrong (and ain I do not xoncede this sftuff does represent the majority) has no sway in the imperative to speak out for want is right, what is better.

I didn't even know about this experiment (but I had heard about it on TV in a documentary, only that he called it by another name) today the internet exists ... I found the answer at the first link on google on wikipedia ... so " not wanting to seek "is already a sign of ignorance.

 

[TalyonUngol]

Not always: if the needs of the many are a "false need" and damages a "primary need", the minority is just and it only means that that majority does not understand. In my country we have an expression for this mass "ox people".
What is the false need? Have other memes.
What is the real need: Having a game with fewer bugs, features that work, more diplomatic interaction etc ... things I think you would like too ... but it seems you don't want to understand that a team either does a thing or does a other (and it comes back to the fact that even the developers of Hoi4 themselves say that there are too few!)

Heres the problem with your statement.

A game with fewer bugs/features that work etc, come at the expense of both 'memes' and historical stuff. I have an issue with you saying that memes are only the false need. Everything is a false need when we need balance updates, bug fixes, etc etc.

We don't need more focus trees/memes when we need fixes but saying ONLY memes is where I have an issue.

This what we call willful ignorance.

Wow, a quote from halfway decent star trek movie, from 40 years ago. No way to come back from that. Never mind alluding to bedrock psychological experiments or other things that demonstrate a classical education. Oh no, that is an absolute incontrovertible rebuttal there.

And again, with popularity of things like Expert AI, do not be so sure idiotic, absurdist altf-UNhistory do cater to the clear majority.

Not that I care. Just because the majority is wrong (and ain I do not xoncede this sftuff does represent the majority) has no sway in the imperative to speak out for want is right, what is better.

And YOU know what is right and what is better? Quite humble you are aren't you?

I don't feel like reading pages of increasingly unreadable discussions. Just wanted to say that I would like for the "alternative" history to have some basis e.g. ones that depict political plans that were proposed by some factions but not realized due to outside/inside factors.

Having an option to restore the Hittite Empire or unite Patagonia and Jan Mayen might make for a fun "alt" history, but I don't feel like it fits with the narrative of a WW2-centered game.

Nothing 'fits' in a WW2 centered game except... WW2. The problem with that is, it doesn't leave alot of room for growth as history is a set defined path. Alt-history is EXTREMELY arguable abotu what is plausible or not. Historians have argued for many many years if WW2 could have went a different way, I.E Germany actually winning but theres never been a complete consensus on it and never will be because thats a good thing. Debates are nice.

But how do we determine what is proper Alt-history? Is it only if its been debated?

By your logic, because Mussolini DID want to recreate the Roman Empire, should we say that is proper alt-history and plausible? While I love Roman History and love the Total War series, I have to say it was never going to be plausible and it's outright meme history, but I also think the same for Germany winning WW2. Even if I allow the idea that Germany could be the soviets, America alone would have beaten Germany with superior manpower and factory production. It may have taken a long time with the Germans completely focused on the Western Front, but I don't thijnk America would have given up and would have went all out against Germany. But thats also up for debate.

While I find all of this implausible 'memes' I find it a good thing to include in this game as a game that is railroaded to follow the historical path every single time, is a game that will not last long. Its why Germany having the ability to actually win the war, and Italy too, gives the game growth and replayability.

I also have no issue with the alt-history provided in the game, from Al Andalus to Communist Japan to Austria Hungary. It's not that I don't agree they are complete and utter nonsense, because they are, I think that saying that they have no business in this game opens up a dangerous can of worms that we do not want. Who determines what belongs in the game and what doesn't? You? Me?

The issue that I have is poorly designed alt-history. I think the communist Japan alt-history is completely and utterly terribly designed. Then again, I just think Japans tree is poorly designed. It feels way too short and... well it just feels bad.

Anyways, nothing but historical stuff belongs in a WW2-centered game if we're really going to make it a WW2 game but that is dangerous to me as I do not want to play a WW2 simulator. I might as well just recall the game, 'Allies Win 2.0' if we're going to make it a historical simulator.


Anyways. Im off to work so ill continue this discussion tonight.

 

[Gefallener_Held]

And YOU know what is right and what is better? Quite humble you are aren't you?

Yeah, I do not buy into that everone's opinion is just as valid as another bit. One uses facts and reasons to bolster advocacy of the correct position. Some things are better than others.
This absurdist notion leads to the proposition that Pop Goes the Weasel or Katy Perry or rap "music" is just as good as Beethoven or Brahms. It is not. Nor is it as good Indie music pre Nirvana, electronic/industrial etc, but that is another matter. But yeah, even the Cure up to Disintegration, Joy Division is better than Katy Perry, Cardy B, etc.
Other examples: German and Dutch beer is superior to Budweiser and Miller. European chocolate is better than Hersheys, and so on.
And again, just because something is popular means nothing. Monopoly is the most popular borad game ever but if you look into, there are many devastating criticisms of it for playability, design, and so on. The pioneers, visionaries see this before the herd. The herd follows along from those visionaries who break the conformity, a la the Solomon Asch experiment.

 

[Áurum]

I have to disagree. I think Bulgaria coring the Balkans is a good thing. Otherwise, might as well not even bother playing Bulgaria as it would be useless otherwise.

Bulgaria coring the Balkans may be fun because you become strong, but it doesn't make any sense at all. If you play a minor you are that, a minor. You have to play with the cores you have and not expect the game to give you unrealistic cores only to be more powerful. And cores are determined by history and ethnicities. Players of Bulgaria are lucky because Bulgaria lost WW1 so it has many lands it can conquer. On the other hand, Romania can gain zero cores in the whole game. It already won everything after WW1, it was already Greater Romania. No matter how fun it would be for it to have more cores, it can't happen. The fun part of playing minors is trying to do as much as you can with what you have.

Bulgaria has been already given the Balkan Federation to become strong while being somwhat plausible (the Balkan Federation was proposed in those times, it was almost impossible to succeed, but who can say it wouldn't have been tried if circumstances allowed it).

 

[ImperatorLJ]

I think the meme trees are fine, as long as they don't distract from improving and expanding the core gameplay. Solid Gameplay > Memes.

We can also turn off the ahistorical paths and stuff we don't enjoy.

 

[Gefallener_Held]

I think the meme trees are fine, as long as they don't distract from improving and expanding the core gameplay. Solid Gameplay > Memes.

We can also turn off the ahistorical paths and stuff we don't enjoy.

Luella and others have already explain how this interferes with scripting, detracts from limited resources.

 

[Vlad123]

Heres the problem with your statement.

A game with fewer bugs/features that work etc, come at the expense of both 'memes' and historical stuff. I have an issue with you saying that memes are only the false need. Everything is a false need when we need balance updates, bug fixes, etc etc.

We don't need more focus trees/memes when we need fixes but saying ONLY memes is where I have an issue.



And YOU know what is right and what is better? Quite humble you are aren't you?



Nothing 'fits' in a WW2 centered game except... WW2. The problem with that is, it doesn't leave alot of room for growth as history is a set defined path. Alt-history is EXTREMELY arguable abotu what is plausible or not. Historians have argued for many many years if WW2 could have went a different way, I.E Germany actually winning but theres never been a complete consensus on it and never will be because thats a good thing. Debates are nice.

But how do we determine what is proper Alt-history? Is it only if its been debated?

By your logic, because Mussolini DID want to recreate the Roman Empire, should we say that is proper alt-history and plausible? While I love Roman History and love the Total War series, I have to say it was never going to be plausible and it's outright meme history, but I also think the same for Germany winning WW2. Even if I allow the idea that Germany could be the soviets, America alone would have beaten Germany with superior manpower and factory production. It may have taken a long time with the Germans completely focused on the Western Front, but I don't thijnk America would have given up and would have went all out against Germany. But thats also up for debate.

While I find all of this implausible 'memes' I find it a good thing to include in this game as a game that is railroaded to follow the historical path every single time, is a game that will not last long. Its why Germany having the ability to actually win the war, and Italy too, gives the game growth and replayability.

I also have no issue with the alt-history provided in the game, from Al Andalus to Communist Japan to Austria Hungary. It's not that I don't agree they are complete and utter nonsense, because they are, I think that saying that they have no business in this game opens up a dangerous can of worms that we do not want. Who determines what belongs in the game and what doesn't? You? Me?

The issue that I have is poorly designed alt-history. I think the communist Japan alt-history is completely and utterly terribly designed. Then again, I just think Japans tree is poorly designed. It feels way too short and... well it just feels bad.

Anyways, nothing but historical stuff belongs in a WW2-centered game if we're really going to make it a WW2 game but that is dangerous to me as I do not want to play a WW2 simulator. I might as well just recall the game, 'Allies Win 2.0' if we're going to make it a historical simulator.


Anyways. Im off to work so ill continue this discussion tonight.

I don't know what you mean by my statement. But I try to say it again (and I hope google translate actually translates as I mean).
the most important thing in a game is PLAYABILITY without that you can have memes as much as you want, but the game will not be playable or rather you will continue to play it until the bugs / unbalanced functions will not stress you too much. Right now it seems that PDX is focusing not on a plausible and well done alt story. But on memes, he divides the territories as memes and not for plausible things ... and this is bad ... and he does it only because the memes sell ... and I hope taken it will come to a breaking point where he will have to dedicate 5 / 6 patch only to the bugfix at gain 0 ...