Capacities: Victoria 3 Expert Discussion (Spudgun)

[zorkman]

Calling everyone and one's mother a liar, a shill or a doomer doesn't really advance the main point of interest for everyone in this forums : is Vicky3 going to be a good game or not ?

Considering Victoria 2 is largely less played and understood than the other Paradox titles, the input of people who played a lot of Vicky2 is appreciated. Unfortunately, they are not really the most diplomatic people nor caring to present themselves as such, thus this topic is maybe 3/4th low intensity out-of-ban-range ad hominem attacks based on out of context quotes and 1/5th out of topic discussion (thanks the mod for shutting that down). The rest is salvageable, thankfully, and the addition of a contradictor in the next DD discussion may be interesting if @Spudgun_ manages the debate well enough.

I thought Plastic Duke above summed it up well, & from the information received so far, it is fairly positive. Victoria II may have been less played, but it was still a decade after release having more people playing it than Imperator, though I agree it is less understood than Paradox other games, & different to them. Everyone has their opinions on the game & how it is going, including the veterans of previous Victoria games, but none have any more inside knowledge so it is just their opinion.

Despite not being a veteran of the previous games, though had played them alot at one time, & being disappointed in the timeframe used, I am looking forward to this game, which has been positive so far. I am no cheerleader to the developers before anyone says so, but just think you need to make an opinion on the information provided.

 

[Plastic_Duke]

Calling everyone and one's mother a liar, a shill or a doomer doesn't really advance the main point of interest for everyone in this forums : is Vicky3 going to be a good game or not ?

Sure, but, that's kind of the big problem, isn't it? Because... who knows? Who can tell at this point in time, and from what information we have, if the game is going to be good or not?

No one can, I believe. Not even the devs, here. The game is unfinished, and far from being so. Even the basic design seems to be still a bit in the air concerning some specific points, like warfare. The devs said multiple times that they were still thinking how to do some stuff, and showed willingness to modify their approach based on early reviews from the community. That means everything is still subject to change, maybe even bigger stuff.

Personally, I'm enthusiastic right now. I got mostly very positive vibes from the 3 first DDs, and all communications around. But what does that mean in the end? Nothing. Every single DD could be full of wonders, show only upsides, but the final product could very well be not that great after all. I don't know, maybe something will be off, something may not click, despite all the early positivity. Maybe the AI will be so bad, not even on the level of a drunken toddler, that no amount of perfect mechanics will be able to salvage the game ever? Bugs galore at release? Who knows? Everything could happen.

So yeah, that's just too early to tell. 'Tis all most people on this thread are saying, I think. Too early to have a strong, definitive opinion, one way or another.

 

[Sigwald]

That's the point where I disagree : no one can know for sure if V3 is going to be good or not, but trying to answer the question is to me the most interesting thing to do while we are presented fragments of the game. And that's why I'm enjoying reading people who have a strong and definitive opinion, positive or negative : if those people are not trolling, that means they are invested enough in the game or its previous iterations to analyze and develop how they formed such an opinion. Thus, the "it's too early to tell" argument is something that goes completly over my head.

The problem is not when people form an early opinion, but when this opinion doesn't present any form of reflexion and even worse, when it's used to be needlessly agressive. As disappointed as I have been by paradox these 5 last years, I wouldn't feel the need to post snarky comments about the devs or people who are liking what they see about V3. Yet, some people do, and some others do feel the need to post snarky comments about doomers. And here we are, not going anywhere on these forums, where most of the comments are void of interest and we only have the "show only devs response" for salvation.

 

[IndigoRage]

Thus, the "it's too early to tell" argument is something that goes completly over my head.

The line for me would be making up in one's head how something works before they've seen it and already disliking it on that basis. Not in a "we don't know yet man the game will be totally different on launch!" sense because lately the games haven't all that different on launch, but in the form of wild speculation.

 

[Vernichtere]

Lies and bad faith. I remember that time very well, for having spent quite a bit of my time then being an active part of the "negative crowd" myself. The majority of the first DDs were overly negatively received, and then, the next DDs started to have more positive than negative reactions but it wasn't because they were really more satisfying, it was because the protesting crowd, including me, had just moved on with their lives and given up any hope of being listened to after the devs reacted to criticism in a very dismissive way most of the time. If I recall, this should be shown by the absolute amount of views and reactions to the DDs rapidly decreasing after the tenth or so. I:R was surrounded by a very unpleasant and pessimistic atmosphere ever since its public beginnings, in fact. Somehow, the release managed to be even worse. So no one should try to sugar coat I:R history to try to prove a point like "huh, optimism has ruined the game! And it will ruin V3 too!". This is 100% wrong.

If Vic3 DDs are positively received right now, it's because the majority of people that read those (including myself) genuinely find that what they contain is, indeed, something positive for the game. Not because they are stupid shills or anything. Rest assured that the devs will be called out for every single little missteps, and then some. Internet is a cruel place, after all.

On that note, I'd like to add that, for every new game announced, well, for any event of any kind actually, there are always some people that rejoice in negativity and immediately try to start a doomer circlejerk. This is something anyone should be aware of, and try to avoid. I'm not saying the guys in this video were consciouly trying to do just that, but you also may fall into that trap unconsciously sometimes. Furthemore since Youtube, like all social medias, has a tendency to push people in that direction, to express more extreme and unreasonable opinions, only for the sake of gathering more attention. So, when dealing with YT commentors at large, a lot of caution is advised.

I was on the side of the defenders of Imperator Rome then and still am. The advantage of Vicky is that there are already two predecessors who have their fans. The developer diaries are fine so far too. The worst that is expected so far is a simplification of some areas. One does not criticize the overall concept. That was not the case with Rome.


Of course, the start can be bad here too. However, it is not to be expected that the game will experience such negativity. We don't expect any fundamental design errors.

As for the streamers, people are welcome to have their conversations. It doesn't bother anyone. I also have my unqualified opinion on some design decisions.

 

[MarkFranz]

The line for me would be making up in one's head how something works before they've seen it and already disliking it on that basis. Not in a "we don't know yet man the game will be totally different on launch!" sense because lately the games haven't all that different on launch, but in the form of wild speculation.

So, you have no problem with those who would make up in one's head how something works before they've seen it and already liking it on that basis, or i wrong? Because for me it's two sides of same coin.

 

[Vernichtere]

The main problem with EU IV was the design decision right from the start. It was decided not to depict a population. Which left only more mana for later development. After that, DLCs were sold that intervened relatively hard in the game. It was therefore difficult to revise such decisions. In addition, the game is simply old now. It's more time for EU V. It's not a bad game, but too boring in terms of domestic politics. I don't see any point in buying another DLC there.


Imperator Rome had no clear overall concept and a relatively large number of empty spaces. The community reacted negatively. The developers killed the game when something like a good overall concept was worked out.


With Victoria, I just don't have such fears. All that has been criticized so far are a few simplifications, which are either not final or can be fixed by mods. If people want their capitalist RNG, there will be appropriate mods. The same goes for some "mana" mechanics.

What makes me personally confident is a design that will be easier for the AI to handle.

If the developers manage to resolve the biggest discrepancy in the release within a month. it should be ok.

 

[IndigoRage]

So, you have no problem with those who would make up in one's head how something works before they've seen it and already liking it on that basis, or i wrong? Because for me it's two sides of same coin.

Making up something in one's head with no evidence is making up something in one's head with no evidence.

 

[Vernichtere]

What I have a problem with are excessive expectations. I had already discussed it at imperator Rome. Despite the incompetence, I had about 100 hours of fun with the release. Which more or less covered my spending on the game. If I have about an hour of fun for one euro, that's more than enough. I don't have to freak out just because I can't touch the game again until six months later to have fun again. Quite a few people expect about 600 hours for the release. That's a little exaggerated to say the least.

If you expect a lot more, you don't buy at the release, but wait a few months. No, people still buy at the release and are upset that the game doesn't look like it did after two years of DLC and patches.

At Victoria, the Hatetrain could simply take place on this basis. The game will likely have a number of exploit vulnerabilities and the AI will also make major mistakes. I'm looking forward to the pointless discussions with some Doomers.

 

[Spartakusbund]

So, you have no problem with those who would make up in one's head how something works before they've seen it and already liking it on that basis, or i wrong? Because for me it's two sides of same coin.

If I see someone claiming something about the game that I don't think is supported with what we know right now, then I will point it out whether that person is optimistic or pessimistic about the game.

 

[Zombie_Freak115]

Phew, quite a few replies since i last looked! Im glad there's been so much constructive discussion going on about the points brought up, and i thought i'd adress the most common ones quickly:

First, if this wasen't clear enough already, the point of the stream is to *speculate* based on what infomation we do have. I understand some people aren't a fan of the harsh tone of some of the speculations, but hey it's just speculation and hopefully we can get someone with a more balanced view on it, i will gladly admit i was wrong if the speculations ends up being wrong. The harsh tone does come from a aspect of high expactations, with a panel consisting of such experienced V2 players, it is inevitable that anys *potential* downgrade in their minds will be met with heavy scrutiny.

I also want to point out that not *everything* was negative. For example i was quite outspoken on the "building/infrastructure" part of bureaucracy and like that quite abit instead of bureaucrats working indepentently. Of course alot of it was negative, such as critisim of the "abstractions" with the "capacity" systems, aswell as the seeming lack of representation of local bureaucracy (I will retract it if i end up being wrong, but if they don't show that local bureaucracy is a thing in a DD partly *about* bureaucracy, then i can't say im very optimistic. Aswell as the criticisms that seemingly only Tax efficency is the penalty for having too small a bureaucracy, compared to Vic2 in which the effects were numerus. Overall i think most criticisms were well founded, with prehaps only a few going into straight "Doomer" territory, but feel free to disagree.

And as for the whole "You can't made a judgement about x untill they've shown it all!" I'd like to argue that if they only give half the picture, and leave out the stuff that could potentially elaborate (For example: The road maintenance debacle, and they still didn't elaborate if it's just "spent this capacity to maintain the roads for free" which is hinted or if it actually requires some kindof external resource (goods, wages etc)). I know that DD's are supposed to be "short and sweet" but the downside of not having details is speculation about what isn't being shown, and in our case it would likely going to be mostly negative.

And before someone comments it: I DO want Victoria 3 to be good. Vic2 has many engine-locked problems that can't simply be fixed with a mod, so getting a new game that would make those systems better is welcome, but if we're worried about what we are seeing, we're going to make that clear.

 

[Alfred Dreyfus]

Lies and bad faith. I remember that time very well, for having spent quite a bit of my time then being an active part of the "negative crowd" myself. The majority of the first DDs were overly negatively received, and then, the next DDs started to have more positive than negative reactions but it wasn't because they were really more satisfying, it was because the protesting crowd, including me, had just moved on with their lives and given up any hope of being listened to after the devs reacted to criticism in a very dismissive way most of the time. If I recall, this should be shown by the absolute amount of views and reactions to the DDs rapidly decreasing after the tenth or so. I:R was surrounded by a very unpleasant and pessimistic atmosphere ever since its public beginnings, in fact. Somehow, the release managed to be even worse. So no one should try to sugar coat I:R history to try to prove a point like "huh, optimism has ruined the game! And it will ruin V3 too!". This is 100% wrong.

If Vic3 DDs are positively received right now, it's because the majority of people that read those (including myself) genuinely find that what they contain is, indeed, something positive for the game. Not because they are stupid shills or anything. Rest assured that the devs will be called out for every single little missteps, and then some. Internet is a cruel place, after all.

On that note, I'd like to add that, for every new game announced, well, for any event of any kind actually, there are always some people that rejoice in negativity and immediately try to start a doomer circlejerk. This is something anyone should be aware of, and try to avoid. I'm not saying the guys in this video were consciouly trying to do just that, but you also may fall into that trap unconsciously sometimes. Furthemore since Youtube, like all social medias, has a tendency to push people in that direction, to express more extreme and unreasonable opinions, only for the sake of gathering more attention. So, when dealing with YT commentors at large, a lot of caution is advised.

I'm not a liar. I don't understand why are you insulting me like this.

What I remember is reading the Imperator Rome dev diaries and thinking "this looks awful" and seeing more positive reactions than negative reactions. If that is not 100% accurate to what really happened is not because I'm lying, is because my memory is not being that accurate. My point is: I don't have bad intentions, I want PDX games to be good, not to be bad. Why would I intentionally lie about something like this?

Anyway, my opinion is that Vic3 looks promising in many aspects but there are a lot of things that also makes me feel sceptical and concerned. I don't think is bad to express my concerns. Probably exaggerated criticism is bad, but I think is better to have an excess of criticism than an excess of brainless hype. A good game developer will extract more feedback and ideas from criticism than from brainless hype.

And please, don't misunderstand me, I'm not saying all positive reactions to Vic3's dev diaries are brainless hype, I'm just comparing both extremes of positive and negative reactions, and saying that ironically it's more positive to have brainless criticism than brainless hype (although both of them are worst than a perfect balanced rationale reaction, of course).

 

[Gulsen]

EU4 is a great case in point. The game started very well, was improved over the next couple of years, was very European based, hence the name, popularity of those countries, & the fact Europe was very dominant in the world for this period. Some people were not happy about this, mainly multiplayer community as well as individuals, who wanted to be able to take any tribe however small into some sort of superpower. Nothing wrong with this, but the problem was it slowly started the decline of the main game, which has been going downhill for years now. Coinciding with this was bringing DDRJAKE to head development of EU4. His main claim to fame being taking some tiny island on a WC with gamey tactics. What could go wrong?

So, yes the vocal muliplayer crowd did make a big difference to this game at least, whether you noticed it or not. Just don't want this to happen to V3.

Looks like you're just trying to find a scapegoat for the changes that happened to EU4 in the last few years, and since you obviously have a strong bias against the MP community they're the perfect target, the idea that the MP community is mainly responsible for those changes is particulary ridiculous when you take into account the fact that most new mechanics introduced in the last few DLCs COMPLETELY ignores MP balance and are made only for SP, the new favor system, the monuments, the ridiculous mission trees that give you PUs on half of Europe, the Council of Trent, etc. All of those things have been made for SP and the impact that they might have on MP games has been completely ignored.

 

[IndigoRage]

Looks like you're just trying to find a scapegoat for the changes that happened to EU4 in the last few years, and since you obviously have a strong bias against the MP community they're the perfect target, the idea that the MP community is mainly responsible for those changes is particulary ridiculous when you take into account the fact that most new mechanics introduced in the last few DLCs COMPLETELY ignores MP balance and are made only for SP, the new favor system, the monuments, the ridiculous mission trees that give you PUs on half of Europe, the Council of Trent, etc. All of those things have been made for SP and the impact that they might have on MP games has been completely ignored.

I personally was a proponent of giving people outside Europe things to do and it had nothing to do with MP. I don't care about having players spread across the map. I just like the world feeling like there's actually a point to playing anywhere and having it not be just a European sandbox. In fan discussion around new content for relatively empty parts of the map I never saw anyone argue from the standpoint that it would be good for MP. I have no clue where the idea it's for MP even comes from.