Conclave: The Near Future

[Voldurak78]

Is anything going to be done for the alliance system ? https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/alliances-and-call-to-arms.906355/

 

[heliostellar]

Again, you can opt out - there are already mods on steam which do the work for you. It makes absolutely no sense from a development POV to remove something 2 days after it is introduced when you are actively looking for feedback.

The only person who would even advocate that has no idea regarding game development.

"Beta testing comes after alpha testing and can be considered a form of external user acceptance testing. Versions of the software, known as beta versions, are released to a limited audience outside of the programming team known as beta testers."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_testing#Beta_testing

"User acceptance testing (UAT) consists of a process of verifying that a solution works for the user."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acceptance_testing#User_acceptance_testing

 

[Monphat]

Game-breaking Charlemagne situation where the whole world is against you should be fixed somehow.

 

[Drake_Hound]

Thank you Doomsdark and all of paradox for acknowledging you are listening to your community, cause we all want the best possible experience for CK2.
And continue supporting this great product.

And making raiders/adventurer less of a annoyance. and working on shattered retreats.
Agree with many of the feedback here, the battles in CK2 were ok not perfect but the shattered retreat and other balance options. made it less fun to play.

Didn't had a problem with infamy or coalitions but glad you understand others do.

 

[mjohnson85]

"Beta testing comes after alpha testing and can be considered a form of external user acceptance testing. Versions of the software, known as beta versions, are released to a limited audience outside of the programming team known as beta testers."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_testing#Beta_testing

"User acceptance testing (UAT) consists of a process of verifying that a solution works for the user."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acceptance_testing#User_acceptance_testing

Honestly, those links have so little to do with this situation it is confusing as to why you would post them.

There was obviously a beta version, and it was obviously tested.

There is a difference between having a small number of people test a game vs getting the global opinion and feedback of the player-base. Not sure what you don't understand about this. It is very cut and dry.

You are trying to advocate removing a 2 day old feature (that isn't game-breaking, even if you don't like it) thereby preventing any further feedback (after only 2 days). Come on. You can already play without it for crying out loud. Really don't see why you are failing to acknowledge that.

 

[heliostellar]

Honestly, those links have so little to do with this situation it is confusing as to why you would post them.

There was obviously a beta version, and it was obviously tested.

There is a difference between having a small number of people test a game vs getting the global opinion and feedback of the player-base. Not sure what you don't understand about this. It is very cut and dry.

You are trying to advocate removing a 2 day old feature (that isn't game-breaking, even if you don't like it) thereby preventing any further feedback (after only 2 days). Come on. You can already play without it for crying out loud. Really don't see why you are failing to acknowledge that.

I'm saying to remove it and set up a beta test to get it right. I think it is gamebreaking. Birken already said that they are looking at multiple coalitions, which means a drastic overhaul of what they've already pushed out to everyone. They've acknowledged that this "feature" was a mistake. They should remove it and find something else to accomplish their goal of nerfing player expansion.

 

[mjohnson85]

I'm saying to remove it and set up a beta test to get it right. I think it is gamebreaking. Birken already said that they are looking at multiple coalitions, which means a drastic overhaul of what they've already pushed out to everyone. They've acknowledged that this "feature" was a mistake. They should remove it and find something else to accomplish their goal of nerfing player expansion.

YOU think it is game breaking. YOU are FAILING to acknoledge that you CAN PLAY WITHOUT IT. You seem to be completely ignoring the fact that you DON"T NEED TO PLAY WITH IT

For real, how are you ignoring that? You keep repeating the same thing while refusing to address the reality.

They NEVER said this feature was a mistake, don't make bullshit like that up. They said they can improve it. Stop being naive.

 

[heliostellar]

YOU think it is game breaking. YOU are FAILING to acknoledge that you CAN PLAY WITHOUT IT. You seem to be completely ignoring the fact that you DON"T NEED TO PLAY WITH IT

For real, how are you ignoring that? You keep repeating the same thing while refusing to address the reality.

They NEVER said this feature was a mistake, don't make bullshit like that up. They said they can improve it. Stop being naive.

Maybe you should talk to the negative reviewers on Steam or the people on the 5-6 threads on here asking for Infamy/Coalitions to get removed.

 

[TheChronoMaster]

Maybe you should talk to the negative reviewers on Steam or the people on the 5-6 threads on here asking for Infamy/Coalitions to get removed.

Less than 2% of the players.

 

[heliostellar]

Less than 2% of the players.

I don't hear anyone giving the idea of Infamy/Coalitions raving reviews.

 

[Cruxador]

I'm glad Paradox is at least addressing these issues. I'm not sure there's any version of shattered retreat which can be a positive addition to the game, nor any version of coalitions that are both not terrible*, and sufficiently significant in impact to justify the addition of infamy from a design complexity perspective, but I guess we'll have to see.

you CAN PLAY WITHOUT IT.

Well, with modding you can definitely hobble some features of the game. But that isn't really relevant to anything outside of those mods which choose to do so. "Mods can fix it" doesn't mean we shouldn't address the vanilla game.

Game-breaking Charlemagne situation where the whole world is against you should be fixed somehow.

It's an old DLC now, so it's not really part of the development/support cycle. It's doomed to languish in its current state, or be worsened by other releases. Like the Republic.

*"Terrible" here shall be defined as "worse than not having it at all".

 

[Xoatly]

I think blackmailing a favour should be a choice in this event, to be honest.

"I know you're plotting against me, so why not marry your son/daughter/horse to my relatives or I'll tell on you to me"

 

[heliostellar]

It's an old DLC now, so it's not part of the development/support cycle. It's doomed to languish in the state it was released in, or be worsened by other releases. Like the Republic.

Seduction and decadence all over again.

 

[Kollatius]

I don't hear anyone giving the idea of Infamy/Coalitions raving reviews.

Only the people who are not content with the current situation scream out loud

 

[loup99]

Nice to hear that you are working on it and adresses a part of the playerbase's concerns.

 

[heliostellar]

Only the people who are not content with the current situation scream out loud

Yet the base game gets overwhelming positive reviews... Not acknowledging the people are unhappy with this change isn't productive.

 

[TheKingofWinter]

YOU think it is game breaking. YOU are FAILING to acknoledge that you CAN PLAY WITHOUT IT. You seem to be completely ignoring the fact that you DON"T NEED TO PLAY WITH IT

For real, how are you ignoring that? You keep repeating the same thing while refusing to address the reality.

They NEVER said this feature was a mistake, don't make bullshit like that up. They said they can improve it. Stop being naive.

actually, we cant, its not a conclave feature, its a patch one, so coalisions and shattered retreats for everyone!!!

also i agree with him completely, so he isnt alone here, nor am i the only one who feels this way.

 

[Cruxador]

Only the people who are not content with the current situation scream out loud

This isn't actually true. Complaints of this scale would be met by people saying "No, it's great" if there were people who actually believed that. Instead the counterargument is mostly that it's not unplayably bad and we shouldn't bully Paradox, the people who we have willingly given (in most cases quite a lot of) money for this game, and who based their business model on making games that sell well and maintain a community over a long period of time.

 

[mjohnson85]

Maybe you should talk to the negative reviewers on Steam or the people on the 5-6 threads on here asking for Infamy/Coalitions to get removed.

You are truly just being naive right now. No other way to put it.

I'm glad Paradox is at least addressing these issues. I'm not sure there's any version of shattered retreat which can be a positive addition to the game, nor any version of coalitions that are both not terrible*, and sufficiently significant in impact to justify the addition of infamy from a design complexity perspective, but I guess we'll have to see.


Well, with modding you can definitely hobble some features of the game. But that isn't really relevant to anything outside of those mods which choose to do so. "Mods can fix it" doesn't mean we shouldn't address the vanilla game.


It's an old DLC now, so it's not really part of the development/support cycle. It's doomed to languish in its current state, or be worsened by other releases. Like the Republic.

*"Terrible" here shall be defined as "worse than not having it at all".

actually, we cant, its not a conclave feature, its a patch one, so coalisions and shattered retreats for everyone!!!

also i agree with him completely, so he isnt alone here, nor am i the only one who feels this way.

Actually you can turn off both, it is in defines.lua. Paradox actually added a specific command in the defines to turn off both shattered retreat AND coalitions. By the way, it is as simply as a 0 for no and 1 for yes. Cannot make it any easier.

A big issue with both coalitions and infamy is the extreme abundance of misinformation being spread by the player base. Yes, there are issues, we all know that, but stop spreading down right lies (there is even a dev thread here specifically addressing all the lies and misinformation about these features).

 

[NathanD77]

Long term user checking in , I hate the new update . The shattered retreat is game breaking in some cases , I hate loosing all control of a game with this level of detail . And the removal and nerfing of ambitions is also an unlikeable change for me . I only have 2800 hours of gameplay but I guess it's just one persons opinion against the developers . This was ill thought out imo .

As for the negative reviews , I have yet to leave one as I guess I am in a state of shock at how badly this new DLC and mechanics play . I will give it another go but so far all enjoyment of the game has gone for me .