DDRJake as a Dev?
- Thread starter JQuacker
- 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.
Thanks Wiz. I don't really agree with any of your arguments, but I do appreciate that you've taken to time to explain things somewhat.
***WALL OF BROKEN DOWN QUOTES, DEBATING EVERY LITTLE POINT***
And you wonder why the devs don't explain design decisions to you...
I felt the reasons for the looting change were pretty self-evident, but I appreciate Wiz enumerating them anyway.
Wiz said:
+1,000,000
See what you have done? Balor has come down from the mountain. Sacrifice your first born.
Yeah somewhat. Still while that particular argument was junk, the base point they made was not. I mean sure, I understand a little better now why you did what you did in terms of looting but the original point still stands, that more depth was taken from the game as a result of this change.
Now I see the reasons and what goal you are trying to achieve thanks to your explanation but unintentionally or intentionally you removed depth from the game and didn't compensate it in any other fashion.
People are going to wall of text in response to balance changes, it's just how they think and who they are. I just did it myself. Ideally they'd like to have a discussion at length with other rational minded people on either side of a balance discussion and come to a good resolution.
Yet regardless of what Wiz does with these walls of text and even though we may not agree entirely, there is still the base positive feeling from both of us that he took the time to explain the change from his perspective and this would apply across the community as a whole if this was done more often.
We might still think negatively and think the logic is flawed but the discontent isn't going to be as high when the reason is stated as 'because we say so'.
Last edited:
I'd like to thank you for your work. Paradox seeking balance in a strategy game is one of the reasons I keep playing EU4 patch after patch. Thank you very much.
Removing depth from a game is not always bad, and adding it is not always good. If we made you play a connect 2 minigame to unlock each tech level that'd be adding depth, but I doubt anyone would like it.
Yeah but based on the response here, you can pretty much say it was bad
. Furthermore, depth isn't some random nonsense factor or content for contents sake, depth is something with meaning.
You've taken the words right out of my mouth.
I don't agree with the change, not do I agree with Wiz' reasoning, but I can at least now understand why he made the change thanks to this discussion, which makes it a lot more palatable, and I do very much appreciate him taking the time to put forward his point of view.
Yeah but based on the response here, you can pretty much say it was bad
If a few forum responses proved that a change was good or bad, then every major change ever made to EU4 was simulaneously fantastic and utterly terrible.
It's actually easier to play a small country now in some ways. The vassal system works both ways. Most players see it as a crutch to them since I think they probably only think of vassals as things they own. When the tables are flipped it's now much easier to get some regional players on your side and go in for an independence war and eat huge parts of your former overlord. You also get a bonus ally who may not have been that into you before.
It's not just a few forum responses though. It's responses with rational thought and well thought through view points and ideas. Ideas that you yourself agreed might work.
Agreeing that there are different ways to solve the problem doesn't mean I consider the current solution bad. I think looting is perfectly fine as-is, doesn't mean it couldn't be made better but that's true for most anything.
Even in light of the fact that it reduces the amount of strategy in the game compared to how it was before?
Careful there. Next you'll create another conspiracy of 'Wiz is trying to remove all strategy in a strategy game'. I know what you mean, the strategy removed is not the strategy you believe the customer desires largely because of the reasons you stated most of all it being micro heavy but couldn't you at least have tried to have some form of compensation as opposed to all wars being massive slugging matches?
Looting provided one alternative tool of warfare for countries that were smaller and less economically sound. The micro involved meant that anyone using it was most likely in a situation where they needed the money to win, otherwise the effort wasn't worth the reward.
How is it that you feel small or weaker countries should fight wars and try to defend themselves against large countries? If you add in the fact that you can no longer try to use countries that hate the large country as a shield thanks to the military access change, it appears that the design is leading towards the only way to fight wars being Army A meets Army B and winner takes all. Or does the option of a human picking a smaller country and trying to grow even matter?
I cant argue with your priorities and design decisions are your/Pdox decisions, but as Phrox said, I also think that half or more of your points are not really defensible (you can lower amount of loot, explain mechanic, slow down looting units). It WAS possible to improve old system instead of scratching it, ...
My main concern is about the idea that looting must happen at the end of siege. As I was arguing in different thread EU4 is not medieval/early Renaissance game. It encompass also XVIIth century and Napoleonic times, and I am rather happy on my frolic, that Napoleon is not so famous because he was the fastest town sieger in history.
Evolution of fortifications excluded civilian element completely - there was not "treasury room" where feudal lord stored his wealth.
And as density of population rose, most of towns started to become open, as/or their fortifications become obsolete. Majority of means of production/income: mines, plantations, mills, even manufactures were not protected, thus were open to destruction/looting. Towns did not have choice but to comply and pay contributions in cash/food/fodder to marching armies.
Only key strategic points were fortified and modernized, mostly along borders and in capital.
So yes, allies saved Habsburg's asses when Ottomans sieged Vienna in XVIIth century. But did Napoleon siege Vienna? (he captured it twice) In 1805 he entered without even a fight.
And I gave also another example - Silberberg, called Gibraltar of Silesia, build by Prussia to hamper possible Austrian attempt to retake Silesia. Napoleonic troops did not capture it. And so what? Garrison during siege can only defend terrain within range of their cannons. Napolenic armies could live of Silesia almost unhindered.
Paradigm of war did change.
(And if we are talking about early times there is always issue of hordes, which were not interested in storming castles, but enjoyed looting countryside).
System was micro-heavy and maybe unclear, but it could be improved. And IMO it added depth to war. The only valid point is that AI did not do it to player.
Now we have more friendly but less realistic system with limited amount of warfare options. That is design decision but without good background.