Well Paradox told us long ago that they are releasing smaller DLCs so we can buy the ones we like. Other than that, they do mention it's a fantasy scenario so it sounds fun. 
Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion Announced!
- Thread starter unmerged(533610)
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
- Status
I refer you to the rest of my post regarding your comment about live and let live:
You have your right to say that you find this kind of DLC justified, but many of us disagree, and the only way we can make Paradox understand that is by showing our displeasure here on the forums and then voting with our wallets when it comes out.
Good luck with that y'all, I'll be stablishing the Glorious United European Empire of Iceland and Orkney.
Same.
Doomdark said a new patch wasn't too far off. I honestly doubt if Sunset Invasion took much time. Probably mostly stolen from EUIV.
But we aren't all displeased. And your slippery-slope argument, while effective, is inevitably weak and flawed and once people have a day to breath they'll forget the anger and just not buy the DLC. I know they won't change because (as you said) it will be bad for business. It is just a fan DLC for those of us who want it. And there are people who do. That's why we have mods like Lux Invicta, GoT, or a whole AAR section based around any number of unreasonable scenarios.
And as it has been pointed out: it is a game. And a game is to be fun. Nothing else is historical but the starting characters.
Excuse me but how can You know it? And even if it took them one hour- it's one hour less they work on: fixing.vanilla.game.
Don't You understand? I get extra stuff, while I can't use standard one. You offer me buying new tires to car, while I can't drive with it.
I'll buy this, for the usual 'I want to support Paradox' reason...but I have a feeling it'll mostly be an unchecked box for most of my games. The only thing really exciting about it for me is what modders are going to be able to do with human sacrifice - that, I can't wait to see.
But even though I'm mostly sceptical on this particular concept, I don't want to be some kind of corporate efficiency graysuit calculating how many minutes the creative team lost from their workday while porting it from EUIV to CKII - those are the people who are about to finally finish off Star Wars for good (I mention since it's come up a lot in this thread), and they are poison to all things cool in the universe. Let Paradox be creative; it's what they're brilliant at. And in the end, we'll all be happy with the things they make for us.
But even though I'm mostly sceptical on this particular concept, I don't want to be some kind of corporate efficiency graysuit calculating how many minutes the creative team lost from their workday while porting it from EUIV to CKII - those are the people who are about to finally finish off Star Wars for good (I mention since it's come up a lot in this thread), and they are poison to all things cool in the universe. Let Paradox be creative; it's what they're brilliant at. And in the end, we'll all be happy with the things they make for us.
..What you just said has literally nothing to do with the existence of fantasy Empires in the vanillla game. It just isn't at all how the concept of "Empire" worked in Christendom. Forming an Empire by being the biggest baddest around is fine for the Arabs or Persia. The cases of people holding several Kingdoms were just that: Personal Unions. If you become the Kalmar Union you're not the "Scandinavian Empire", you're the King of X, Y and Z. Turning the game into easymode by removing the need to try to keep XYZ in the family does not mean you become an "Empire".
Pandering to people who just want a flashy title in their game is not the same thing as respecting the historicity of the game. Their inclusion is a valid example.
You realise that the Paradox dev team is not one person, right? If they have multiple staff working on CK2 they can't all work on fixing factions at the same time. If they did, the system would get worse because you'd have multiple people all editing the same lines of code all at the same time. If you have a staff member who is working on fixing factions, you can't get a fix out faster by throwing more people at the problem. So it's silly to assume they're doing this instead of fixing factions, because they can be doing both at the exact same time.
Actually, having horses (for instance from the Norse) would allow them to have higher disease resistance and higher agricultural surplus, and thus 100 K men stack. Then, you just have to find an idea for the navigation skill and you've got an historical alt-hist. Sort of. Maybe. NOT
I, for One, welcome our Aztec Overlords.
Anyway, for those claiming it is "lost time on fixing", most dev companies let their employees have "side projects", in addition of their "main projects", so they get some steam off. This seems like an example for me.
I just wonder who proposed that first at the Paradox board
The difference is obvious. In Armageddon the whole game is changed to an alternate history timeline that you play in, in CK2 it will be a later base mechanic added into the vanilla game that you play in.
Before you come with the inevitable "If you don't like it, don't buy it defense," the thing is that many of us will be voting with our wallets when it comes out, and right now we are giving our opinion about where Paradox is heading with their DLC content and that we are not happy with it. As paying customers it is our right to give input to a company which we treasure because of its attention to historical detail in their games.
If you want to support paradox - you could purchase another copy of CK2 and gift it to some poor child in some poor country. If you do not like this initiative - supporting it would make paradox worse, because it will make them think that it was a good idea.
If they are making a fantasy DLC, then why not make it something more fitting?
I've seen someone mention "Atlantis" rising from the depths and begin their invasion on Europe.
That would have been far more interesting. I would name all my sons Conan after marrying into an Atlantean family.
But I don't like the idea much, I won't buy it, but I would rather donate 5 dollars if they want to earn money with this DLC.
Sincerely I do wish the best for them.
I've seen someone mention "Atlantis" rising from the depths and begin their invasion on Europe.
That would have been far more interesting. I would name all my sons Conan after marrying into an Atlantean family.
But I don't like the idea much, I won't buy it, but I would rather donate 5 dollars if they want to earn money with this DLC.
Sincerely I do wish the best for them.
But I wasn't talking about accuracy. I was talking about making money. A lot of people wanted Empires, they got them. You cannot just make every decision based on historical authenticity or there wouldn't be a game. Games are always within limits (it is hard to make exceptions) and they are always to the ability of the programmer. But they also need to be fun. I have a feeling a lot of people have fun with their Empires regardless of the historical accuracy and that means Paradox is doing a good job.
Oh. So they took people working on... Say- Majesty 3 to create this DLC? Faction problem 2 weeks- so it's not easy to fix. And they work on something else. Maybe not instead- but simultaneously.
You must have a different definition of unplayable. I love the faction system. It could use some tweaking but it's so much better than the meaningless threats you would get earlier. I've had one revolt and it was because I just wasn't checking the screen and let the faction get too big. If you take care of your vassals they won't join factions. Regardless, it is far from unplayable.
Also there is a patch coming so how do you know they aren't "fixing" (your word since I don't see it as broken) the faction system?
- Status