Constructive community anyone?

[14lokk1]

Dear community,

I am not a heavy forum user. I do enjoy reading the developer diaries and the occasional threads, but that's about it. However, yesterday, with the announcement of Death and Dishonour, I was taken aback by the amount of vitriol the devs have to go through it appears EVERY time they want to announce something.

"Why did you do X and not Y?"

"Why didn't you include Z? You don't listen to us."

"When are you going to do A, B, C? Everyone wants to see that."

"I will stop playing this game because you didn't do M before N and as quickly as I wanted it."

Now hold on a minute. Forums are a place meant for discussion, debate and comment, no doubt about that. Indeed, everyone here is absolutely entitled to say what they please. However, we are consumers. While we enjoy Paradox games, we are in no way entitled to subject developers to a non-stop tirade of insults, demands, ultimatums and interrogations. Our comments can, of course, offer guidance to the developers in terms of what we want to see content-wise. However, let me be clear. They offer a service, we buy it or we don't. It's a transaction. If you think Paradox owes you something (with the exception of those purchasing Expansion Pass), you are very mistaken. Matters little if you played their games since Victoria 1 and Crusader Kings 1 or you started with Stellaris. None of this entitles anyone to treating Paradox as if they serve at our pleasure.

I enjoy Paradox games. They aren't perfect of course. Hearts of Iron 4 has a myriad of issues. However, I still enjoy it a lot, alongside their other products. So, when I see new content, I weigh its value and decide on a purchase. Most of the times I purchase. Sometimes I don't. I read the reviews, get some expectations and decide. If I happen to regret it, no harm done.

Therefore, it is highly presumptuous, not to mention arrogant when people flat out accuse Paradox of:
A) giving preferential treatment to some countries over others for whatever ridiculous reasons
B) accuse Paradox of milking money, particularly since their DLC policy has allowed their games to last well beyond the lifespan of a normal title (CK2 is 5 years old and still receiving content)
C) accuse Paradox of not managing issues properly

Game development is not an easy task. Constantly competing resources, compounded with an ever-growing list of demands is a recipe for an organizational nightmare. Yet, only the developers know the full situation and know why and how they decided on certain things. So, I would suggest people refrain from making charged and bloated accusations particularly about things they are not fully informed on.

This post wasn't written to shame or fight anyone. This post is entirely to remind people that a healthy community is built around dialogue. If you are unhappy, please voice it, but don't presume to speak for everyone, nor to put words into the developers' mouths. Paradox is doing a fine job of communicating with us and listening to our wishes, but they equally deserve our patience and understanding, even when they err.

I disagree, any accusations that people level at Paradox are valid as long as they're properly justified. You can't put a blanket statement saying which opinions people aren't allowed to express. As long as we don't insult/threaten the developers personally, we are entitled to express our displeasure in any way we want (following the forum rules, of course). And let's be clear, Paradox doesn't offer a 'service' they offer a 'product'; and we, as consumers, have a right to a product which is fit for purpose. And when this isn't met, they have an obligation to remedy this in a timely manner. I think people are upset with Paradox because people who have bought even simply the base game, first don't feel that their game is working as intended (AI issues among other things). Secondly, that a fix hasn't been made available and it's close to a year from release. And thirdly, Paradox opts to create more paid content in lieu of remedying the issues in a timely manner (that artists and composers can't code is a faulty argument since lend-lease, and additional focus trees need coders and that takes coders away from solving core game issues).

A healthy community is built around dialogue, and in more cases than you'd expect we have to presume to speak for more people than ourselves because otherwise we get put down as the only person with a certain opinion. We also have to put words in developer's mouths since they often word their posts in such a way in which it seems nothing is wrong when if you infer, a lot is going wrong. Finally, I don't think Paradox is doing a fine job of communication and they most certainly aren't listening to our wishes. These forums have repeadly told Paradox to fix AI issues first , and not release DLC until core game issues are fixed. Nope. These forums have also repeadly impressed upon developers that we want a Air war, Naval war, Espionage, as a priority in development, but no, let's release a DLC for Commonwealth nations that no one was really asking for. Finally, the community managers, developers and other Paradox staff has tried repeadly to silence criticism by saying that one thing is being said too much, or that threads are being hijacked. To this, the only solution really is to fix the issues that people get so worked up that so many spend their time in forum posts discussing these subjects. And while everyone deserves some patience and understanding, that goodwill has really started to wear thin given it is a year from release and many people would argue that this is still not a complete game.

The relationship between a developer/publisher and a consumer is traditionally adversarial, and it should be kept that way. A healthy community always has a consumer base which praises good products but very harshly critiques poor products. That way, the developer will know what to make in the future and the playerbase will be pleased. Saying that poor products should be shielded from criticism because they have a hard job is fallacious at best. We are consumers, and we should stand up for ourselves.

 

[rcbricker33]

That's a bit nitpicky don't you think? One of the biggest problem people have with HoI4 is an AI which is like the heart of the game. It works, sure. Just not like people would expect to. How radio playing only Swedish stations is suppose to be a comparison to game's heart failing? Air warfare is horrible, naval combat is meh... if my ground forces at least wouldn't try to fight battleships in their transport boats I would be much happier.

Also, the example with a car no one would buy. Car's problems might and probably are not apparent at the first sight (them French cars and their electronics) and people notice them after some exploitation... as they often do with games.

You seem determined to show that the game is broken and does not work. I stand by my assessment that it works. It does not crash. 20 (almost 30 years ago...damn where does the time go) years ago you would have had no support and would have had to live with the game as it game out the box, and you know what you would have praised the game for not crashing. Hell I wish HOI II would have worked this well out of the box.

My car analogy is no better or worse than anyone else's. I simply changed what worked and didn't work to show that the game works just not as people would want. You don't have to agree with my analogy. I try not to get into too many arguments on here as it is generally subjective opinion vs subjective opinion.

 

[rcbricker33]

I disagree, any accusations that people level at Paradox are valid as long as they're properly justified. You can't put a blanket statement saying which opinions people aren't allowed to express. As long as we don't insult/threaten the developers personally, we are entitled to express our displeasure in any way we want (following the forum rules, of course). And let's be clear, Paradox doesn't offer a 'service' they offer a 'product'; and we, as consumers, have a right to a product which is fit for purpose. And when this isn't met, they have an obligation to remedy this in a timely manner. I think people are upset with Paradox because people who have bought even simply the base game, first don't feel that their game is working as intended (AI issues among other things). Secondly, that a fix hasn't been made available and it's close to a year from release. And thirdly, Paradox opts to create more paid content in lieu of remedying the issues in a timely manner (that artists and composers can't code is a faulty argument since lend-lease, and additional focus trees need coders and that takes coders away from solving core game issues).

A healthy community is built around dialogue, and in more cases than you'd expect we have to presume to speak for more people than ourselves because otherwise we get put down as the only person with a certain opinion. We also have to put words in developer's mouths since they often word their posts in such a way in which it seems nothing is wrong when if you infer, a lot is going wrong. Finally, I don't think Paradox is doing a fine job of communication and they most certainly aren't listening to our wishes. These forums have repeadly told Paradox to fix AI issues first , and not release DLC until core game issues are fixed. Nope. These forums have also repeadly impressed upon developers that we want a Air war, Naval war, Espionage, as a priority in development, but no, let's release a DLC for Commonwealth nations that no one was really asking for. Finally, the community managers, developers and other Paradox staff has tried repeadly to silence criticism by saying that one thing is being said too much, or that threads are being hijacked. To this, the only solution really is to fix the issues that people get so worked up that so many spend their time in forum posts discussing these subjects. And while everyone deserves some patience and understanding, that goodwill has really started to wear thin given it is a year from release and many people would argue that this is still not a complete game.

The relationship between a developer/publisher and a consumer is traditionally adversarial, and it should be kept that way. A healthy community always has a consumer base which praises good products but very harshly critiques poor products. That way, the developer will know what to make in the future and the playerbase will be pleased. Saying that poor products should be shielded from criticism because they have a hard job is fallacious at best. We are consumers, and we should stand up for ourselves.

I am going to agree with most of what you are saying. I think the OP's point was that there is entirely too much angst and insulting tone in most of the critiques. There is a big difference in stating that you are unhappy with something and saying things like "...devs are lazy" or "Pdx is ripping us off". Those types of statements could more easily be stated in ways that do not immediately create conflict. Unless of course the point of people attacking is simply to create conflict...

 

[Axe99]

That's a bit nitpicky don't you think? One of the biggest problem people have with HoI4 is an AI which is like the heart of the game. It works, sure. Just not like people would expect to.

What are we basing expectations on though? For a WW2 GSG, HoI4's AI is well above average - so people expecting a good deal better than what we got were benchmarking the AI to a standard that hasn't been met yet in the genre. If we go back to the car analogy, it's like someone buying a car expecting it will do something no other car has before (insanely good fuel economy say), and is then disappointed that it doesn't - it's not like the wheels falling off.

That's not to say people shouldn't ask for better, or let the devs know we want better (in my post in the DD this week, the main question I asked related to an element of AI performance, and I've been a strong proponent of 'as good as possible' AI, and of the AI being the main feature in the game, since well before it was launched). This is the odd thing for me, because the main reason we're getting a smaller expansion is because the devs have focussed more on base mechanics and the AI (ie, they did what most folk on the forums* had been asking them to do for months, and now they getting criticised for it**).


* At least as far as I've seen - I don't read every thread.
** Of course, people are well within their rights to do this. I just think it should be done as respectfully and rationally as possible.

 

[14lokk1]

You seem determined to show that the game is broken and does not work. I stand by my assessment that it works. It does not crash. 20 (almost 30 years ago...damn where does the time go) years ago you would have had no support and would have had to live with the game as it game out the box, and you know what you would have praised the game for not crashing. Hell I wish HOI II would have worked this well out of the box.

My car analogy is no better or worse than anyone else's. I simply changed what worked and didn't work to show that the game works just not as people would want. You don't have to agree with my analogy. I try not to get into too many arguments on here as it is generally subjective opinion vs subjective opinion.

Here's the problem with your analogy is that the car, on a most basic level, works as intended, whereas in HOI4, it doesn't. A better analogy would be that your car has a fully functioning engine and all, but would reverse whenever you want to drive forwards. Sure, you can work around it, but I think any consumer has a right to be dissatisfied with that product. And so, we are all entitled to be dissatisfied with HOI4 given the state of the game.

 

[Ksyr]

HOI4 work as intended on a basic level for me. I certainly want improvements, but I didn't spend almost 1000 hours in a game that wasn't working on a basic level.

 

[rcbricker33]

Here's the problem with your analogy is that the car, on a most basic level, works as intended, whereas in HOI4, it doesn't. A better analogy would be that your car has a fully functioning engine and all, but would reverse whenever you want to drive forwards. Sure, you can work around it, but I think any consumer has a right to be dissatisfied with that product. And so, we are all entitled to be dissatisfied with HOI4 given the state of the game.

well like I said subjective opinion. I was offering a different way to use the car analogy. I don't really care if you agree with mine or not. As such, I see no reason in battling over what actually is a wasted conversation as the two have little to do with one another.

As for consumer's rights to be dissatisfied...sure you are and I do not think anyone on here is saying that you do not have that right. I believe that for most of us what we are saying is that you can be dissatisfied and still be respectful.

An argument is made strong by well thought out points supported by knowledge and no amount of yelling, rude comments, angst or vulgarity will make it stronger.

 

[14lokk1]

I am going to agree with most of what you are saying. I think the OP's point was that there is entirely too much angst and insulting tone in most of the critiques. There is a big difference in stating that you are unhappy with something and saying things like "...devs are lazy" or "Pdx is ripping us off". Those types of statements could more easily be stated in ways that do not immediately create conflict. Unless of course the point of people attacking is simply to create conflict...

I think we are entitled to whatever tone we choose to use, and we also have no obligation to shy away from conflict. 'Devs are being lazy' shouldn't be said because you won't know if that is true, and also that's a personal attack, but 'pdx is ripping us off' is fine since this is simply expressing that you don't find good value in their products. There fundamentally is a conflict of interests between developers and consumers, developers want to make as much profit for as little effort, and consumers want as much value for as little money. I will always advocate for the consumer, while I understand the difficulties in development, I believe that should not influence what I as a consumer should be demanding from a product. Finally, cynically as I may sound, I believe that different people have different ways of expressing themselves, whether 'pdx is ripping us off' or a long reasoned critique, we are entitled to express ourselves as we please.

 

[14lokk1]

What are we basing expectations on though? For a WW2 GSG, HoI4's AI is well above average - so people expecting a good deal better than what we got were benchmarking the AI to a standard that hasn't been met yet in the genre. If we go back to the car analogy, it's like someone buying a car expecting it will do something no other car has before (insanely good fuel economy say), and is then disappointed that it doesn't - it's not like the wheels falling off.

That's not to say people shouldn't ask for better, or let the devs know we want better (in my post in the DD this week, the main question I asked related to an element of AI performance, and I've been a strong proponent of 'as good as possible' AI, and of the AI being the main feature in the game, since well before it was launched). This is the odd thing for me, because the main reason we're getting a smaller expansion is because the devs have focussed more on base mechanics and the AI (ie, they did what most folk on the forums* had been asking them to do for months, and now they getting criticised for it**).


* At least as far as I've seen - I don't read every thread.
** Of course, people are well within their rights to do this. I just think it should be done as respectfully and rationally as possible.

I think people expected an AI which is superior to HOI3's AI, which I think is a reasonable expectation. Unfortunately, this expectation was not met.

well like I said subjective opinion. I was offering a different way to use the car analogy. I don't really care if you agree with mine or not. As such, I see no reason in battling over what actually is a wasted conversation as the two have little to do with one another.

As for consumer's rights to be dissatisfied...sure you are and I do not think anyone on here is saying that you do not have that right. I believe that for most of us what we are saying is that you can be dissatisfied and still be respectful.

An argument is made strong by well thought out points supported by knowledge and no amount of yelling, rude comments, angst or vulgarity will make it stronger.

Right, people like me or you want the game to get better, and hence we provide suggestion through the use of well thought out, respectful and reasoned critique. However, you can't neglect that some people come to these forums simply to express an opinion, and I feel that they should be allowed to use whatever means (obeying forum rules of course), to that end. Besides, some people are just 'angry people' and I don't think it's right to deny them forum participation based on who they are.

 

[rcbricker33]

Finally, cynically as I may sound, I believe that different people have different ways of expressing themselves, whether 'pdx is ripping us off' or a long reasoned critique, we are entitled to express ourselves as we please.

I agree that everyone has the right to express themselves, but it is a sad world we live in if that means that people have the right to do something with out the it being weighted against the responsibility to curb that right against the greater good of society. If a person's right to state something causes harm because of HOW they say that then they should temper their comment to reduce that harm. Politeness does not lessen a point of view, it makes it easier to consume.

 

[Ksyr]

I agree that everyone has the right to express themselves, but it is a sad world we live in if that means that people have the right to do something with out the it being weighted against the responsibility to curb that right against the greater good of society. If a person's right to state something causes harm because of HOW they say that then they should temper their comment to reduce that harm. Politeness does not lessen a point of view, it makes it easier to consume.

People may even put him on their ignore list.

 

[Axe99]

I think we are entitled to whatever tone we choose to use.

You are, but once you start choosing less constructive tones, you're actually less likely to be taken seriously - this whole 'constructive' thing, while it may take a little emotional discipline (and don't get me wrong, I've had my moments where I've let fly at times as well - of which I'm not particularly proud), is far more effective at getting things done. This goes doubly in a forum where all we have to communicate is words.

On the AI - HoI4's AI at launch was comfortably superior to HoI3's AI at launch. It wasn't comfortably superior (but still similar - better in some ways (if you think invasions are bad now, for example, just go back to HoI3......), worse in others, I'd argue slightly better, some would argue worse) to HoI3 after at least five years of development, but I'd argue that's an unfair comparison. Many mechanics and elements were new (and some of the biggest AI issues were in the new mechanics, division templates for example). However, if HoI4's AI isn't comfortably superior to HoI3's in the next couple of years, then I'd say it's failed - although the number of things HoI4 does better than HoI3 has increased significantly since launch already. This isn't unique to HoI3. EU4's AI at launch wasn't materially better then EU3's at the end (but now after continued development is considerably better).

 

[14lokk1]

I agree that everyone has the right to express themselves, but it is a sad world we live in if that means that people have the right to do something with out the it being weighted against the responsibility to curb that right against the greater good of society. If a person's right to state something causes harm because of HOW they say that then they should temper their comment to reduce that harm. Politeness does not lessen a point of view, it makes it easier to consume.

Well, I'm personally a Libertairan, so you're probably preaching to deaf ears. I feel that it is our right to express ourselves, and that shouldn't be weighted against anything except actual harm. I'm pretty convinced at anything anyone could say can never consitute harm. Being polite has it's benefits, and we're engaged in civil discussion right here. But some people seek only to express an opinion, not necessarily that anyone read it or consume it, they just want to throw it 'out there'. So how does being polite benefit those people at all?

 

[Telenil]

HOI4 work as intended on a basic level for me. I certainly want improvements, but I didn't spend almost 1000 hours in a game that wasn't working on a basic level.

This. On a basic level, HoI4 works, full stop.
It's fine to say that it could or should be better, and I might even agree with that. But saying the game is an embarassment is a ridiculous exaggeration that is most definitely not helpful.

 

[14lokk1]

You are, but once you start choosing less constructive tones, you're actually less likely to be taken seriously - this whole 'constructive' thing, while it may take a little emotional discipline (and don't get me wrong, I've had my moments where I've let fly at times as well - of which I'm not particularly proud), is far more effective at getting things done. This goes doubly in a forum where all we have to communicate is words.

On the AI - HoI4's AI at launch was comfortably superior to HoI3's AI at launch. It wasn't comfortably superior (but still similar - better in some ways (if you think invasions are bad now, for example, just go back to HoI3......), worse in others, I'd argue slightly better, some would argue worse) to HoI3 after at least five years of development, but I'd argue that's an unfair comparison. Many mechanics and elements were new (and some of the biggest AI issues were in the new mechanics, division templates for example). However, if HoI4's AI isn't comfortably superior to HoI3's in the next couple of years, then I'd say it's failed - although the number of things HoI4 does better than HoI3 has increased significantly since launch already. This isn't unique to HoI3. EU4's AI at launch wasn't materially better then EU3's at the end (but now after continued development is considerably better).

Nonono, I meant that HOI4's AI should be superior to HOI3's AI as it stands now, as they have a finished game in HOI3, and they could just use things they learnt there. Now, I know the developers rebuilt the game pretty much from scratch instead of making HOI3+, but that doesn't change that the average consumer who has played HOI3 would probably expect that HOI4 be strictly better. I'm not going to try to justify this expectation, but merely that it exists and is relatively common, hence why people are disappointed at the game.

 

[14lokk1]

This. On a basic level, HoI4 works, full stop.
It's fine to say that it could or should be better, and I might even agree with that. But saying the game is an embarassment is a ridiculous exaggeration that is most definitely not helpful.

Does it work as intended though? As in, is the AI mass abandoning front lines how the devs intended the game to be?

 

[Aodhan_]

This community is actually better than most game forums.

I see it as an inevitable part of the evolution away from face to face interaction and toward virtual interaction. Personal contact encourages a certain degree of etiquette and manners that are becoming uncommon on the internet. In the old days, if someone mouthed off too much they might catch a knuckle sandwich for their trouble. Now any snot nosed punk can spout off with almost complete impunity.

The lack of manners and simple courtesy online is becoming so prevalent that it is probably the leading factor steering people away from multi-player games.

Sadly it's not just online where manners are disappearing .

As for the OP couldn't agree more .

Oh and can't believe Axe99 frequented the CoD forums .

 

[rcbricker33]

Well, I'm personally a Libertairan, so you're probably preaching to deaf ears. I feel that it is our right to express ourselves, and that shouldn't be weighted against anything except actual harm. I'm pretty convinced at anything anyone could say can never consitute harm. Being polite has it's benefits, and we're engaged in civil discussion right here. But some people seek only to express an opinion, not necessarily that anyone read it or consume it, they just want to throw it 'out there'. So how does being polite benefit those people at all?

A person being polite is more likely to be heard.

As to words cant hurt I direct your attention to child suicides in which almost all are due to the words directed at them solely to cause harm.

 

[Balesir]

What are we basing expectations on though? For a WW2 GSG, HoI4's AI is well above average - so people expecting a good deal better than what we got were benchmarking the AI to a standard that hasn't been met yet in the genre. If we go back to the car analogy, it's like someone buying a car expecting it will do something no other car has before (insanely good fuel economy say), and is then disappointed that it doesn't - it's not like the wheels falling off.

Yes, if there's one thing that frustrates me about current internet "culture" it's that many posters seem to fail to think. Specifically, they fail to think through any questioning or challenge to their own assumptions and arguments. This AI issue is a good example; every Second World War game above the level of an Operational Wargame has been the topic of endless complaint and frustration about the AI and the "balance". This has been the case for years - ever since computer games started to try to tackle the topic, really. Did it occur to you (generic you, not anyone specifically) to question why? Might it be because pulling all the threads together and achieving the perfect balance is incredibly hard? Not to mention that pleasing all of the myriad tastes, interests, views and biases out there will be impossible even in a game that actually is as complex as history!

HoI4 AI is considerably better than the HoI3 one in several respects - it's also more ambitious by some margin. But, in exapanding and improving it has also broken some parts. I think this was inevitable; the ground it is attempting to cover is vast and deeply, deeply complex. But is it worth trying to cover it well? Well, I think so, yes. But it will take time, effort and money. If you are not prepared for that journey now, then I think you are just setting yourself up for disappointment. If you want a truly authentic, flexible and satisfying game covering the clash of political systems in the mid-20th century, then I think you have to be in the hunt for the long term. Paradox is the only game company I trust to have even a shot at staying the distance, which is why I'm on board this train. And I see good progress being made. Would I like it to go faster? Sure. And while we are on the subject I would like 8 day weeks, 48 hour days and an infinite lifetime. I have pretty much accepted that these are unrealistic demands, however, and thus it would be pretty childish to ask for them.

I think we are entitled to whatever tone we choose to use, and we also have no obligation to shy away from conflict. 'Devs are being lazy' shouldn't be said because you won't know if that is true, and also that's a personal attack, but 'pdx is ripping us off' is fine since this is simply expressing that you don't find good value in their products.

That's not what "Paradox is ripping us off" means. It means that you are accusing them of deliberately charging a price that is out of proportion with the amount of effort it requires from them to develop the game. It is a personal attack, just as much as "they are lazy" is, and it requires evidence if it is not to be slander.

I suspect what you mean to say is "this DLC content is not that much use to me, and I don't feel that it is worth the asking price to me". That would be a very reasonable complaint, but (a) it's not in any way the same as being "ripped off" and (b) note that it relates as much to your desires and preferences as it does to what Paradox have done.

On tone, I don't see that it has much to do with being "Libertarian", but, sure, you are free to adopt any tone you choose. But, if you adopt a tone that is insulting and slanderous, don't be surprised if you get repaid in kind.

 

[MasterAckrovan]

I think I wrote this on the forums somewhere else, but it seems pertinent so shrug.

One of the issues that seems to be happening is that the consumer base has two camps with different expectations for what HOI4 should be. On one end of the spectrum you have the folks who want a WW2 grand strategy simulator, and on the other end are the people who want to play a mid-twentieth century sandbox. Ultimately these are two significantly different ideals for the game. People's expectations are not being delivered, and HOI4 is trying to straddle these two ideals with only modest success. So, there's always going to be a camp that the devs will annoy when they announce new content.

I'm more of a forum lurker, but honestly mate the Paradoxplaza forums are without a doubt are one of the more pleasant gaming communities out there on the web. The vast majority of the discussions are well reasoned and civil. For the most part, people even try to construct coherent sentences! That's unheard of on a gaming forum That's probably due to the fact that Grand Strategy games tend to skew toward older demographics, but nevertheless even the angriest posts on the HOI forum are still leagues above the typical community.

Now that being said, and this is of course strictly my opinion, I have a really hard time understanding the mindframe of a person who's going to spend significant time on the forum of a game they vehemently dislike. If you spent your money and you didn't get a good product, why put so much effort towards something you didn't like? This is not saying let's all be fanboys every time the devs do something, obviously. But I've seen movies that I thought were terrible and regret spending money on. Been on dates that turned out not to be going anywhere. Splurged a bit too much of snack food while out on the town. But it's only in gaming/media where people spend months talking about a product they don't like, from a company they think are taking advantage of them, with goods that are too expensive and don't provide enough value etc etc. I can't imagine it's very healthy to be spend so much free time making yourself angry. If you think HOI4 has been an unmitigated disaster, then wipe your hands and make a mental note to be more cautious with your money next time.