Wasn't this thread originally about DDRJake? How did we get here?
Congrats Jake on making the QA team!
Congrats Jake on making the QA team!
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.
Well it's all strictly speaking related. It largely questioned the whole QA process and many questions that have been floating around the forums as of late regardless. I questioned whether hiring Jake will actually do any good seeing as the problem may lie at the base design level, from there it's not difficult to see how it got to where it did. Informative, but not entirely surprising is my conclusion
.
Because people who frequent ParadoxPlaza are the type who can start a discussion about the ethics of a full government ban on smokes, and end up discussion the definition of a Black Hole via discussing how the fall of Burgundy impacted the development of the Europe through the early modern era.
Mostly the moderators (who are underappreciated) and/or attentive OPs keep us on track, but in this thread we were allowed to run wild for some reason.
since the issues discussed have been rabbling around for the past few days the Paradox lords probable felt it needed addressing one way or the other
First off, Wiz, thank you for taking the time to come down here and talk with us, and explain your side of the looting change. I think one of the big things that got the forum community's attention was that this sorta came out of left field, with limited discussion of why you felt looting was an issue and that it was going to be changed... it was just suddenly 'I HAVE ALTERED THE LOOTING. PRAY I DO NOT ALTER IT FURTHER' which gives it an entirely different feel.
The other thing that did bug me was that you have a wonderfully great system for looting in a sister title. Something I wish Paradox would do more often is look to their sister titles, built in the same engine, to consider how to perhaps improve features. I don't want EU4 to turn into the CK2 of countries, but in the example of how an army loots, it does quite well.
I hope that by looking at this thread maybe you move the idea of a more improved looting system up, since while you don't consider it the most important thing, there's a portion of the playerbase that does, and would like to see some improved version of it return.
I don't personally thing the old way was great, or even better than the existing seige-for-loot system. But I do think we need a better looting mechanic.
The other thing that did bug me was that you have a wonderfully great system for looting in a sister title. Something I wish Paradox would do more often is look to their sister titles, built in the same engine, to consider how to perhaps improve features. I don't want EU4 to turn into the CK2 of countries, but in the example of how an army loots, it does quite well.
I hope that by looking at this thread maybe you move the idea of a more improved looting system up, since while you don't consider it the most important thing, there's a portion of the playerbase that does, and would like to see some improved version of it return.
I don't personally thing the old way was great, or even better than the existing seige-for-loot system. But I do think we need a better looting mechanic.
Oh my god yes.
For the love of everything, stop discussing loot, changes, balance, etc. myriad complaints in this thread. Congratulate Jake, quip something about his appointment, or GTFO.
I'm done, don't you worry your little head about people discussing things rationally (which many of you would refer to as 'whining') in a subject that is semi related to the reason they hired DDRJake while at the same time attempting to reduce the general negative feelings towards Paradox from their paying customers.
Quite a bit of research has shown that when people are presented with evidence that contradicts their beliefs, most double-down and believe even more strongly than before. That's why there are people here who still believe that PI games are entirely balanced around MP, that PI uses a 3D map because they like eye candy, that Steam stats are what PI uses to judge the success of their games, and why any discussion of WHY a particular change was made never seems to convert anyone to PI's side.
For the record: as was said in this thread, games are not balanced around a MP experience, it is just a tool the devs use and a poor/incomplete explanation led to the conspiracy theory, the 3D usage allows PI to shunt a lot of work onto your GPU which frees up the CPU to do more work, PI has their own tunnel to everyone's games that tells them when/what they are playing, and I still think there should be more peacetime mechanics and deeper coalition mechanics but those issues are basically closed.
Oh, and QA=/Dev, DDR Jake will not be influencing the development path of this game (or other games). He will be doing what he does best, trying to break them and discovering bugs in the process. Congrats to him and PI for what seems like a great fit. If you don't like the current state of the game, this news changes nothing. If you do like the current state of the game, this news changes nothing. If you think PI games still have too many bugs on release, then this is great news.
For the record: as was said in this thread, games are not balanced around a MP experience, it is just a tool the devs use and a poor/incomplete explanation led to the conspiracy theory, the 3D usage allows PI to shunt a lot of work onto your GPU which frees up the CPU to do more work, PI has their own tunnel to everyone's games that tells them when/what they are playing, and I still think there should be more peacetime mechanics and deeper coalition mechanics but those issues are basically closed.
Oh, and QA=/Dev, DDR Jake will not be influencing the development path of this game (or other games). He will be doing what he does best, trying to break them and discovering bugs in the process. Congrats to him and PI for what seems like a great fit. If you don't like the current state of the game, this news changes nothing. If you do like the current state of the game, this news changes nothing. If you think PI games still have too many bugs on release, then this is great news.
You have a strange way of commenting about Jake being hired as a tester.
Yes, this does happen too easily and frequently. Hopefully it is eventually addressed.
There are some tool-tips, and this: http://www.eu4wiki.com/Naval_combat
Not true, it is well known that trade ships move the fastest, followed by galleys.
Ottomans mass-build galleys and Atlantic powers do build heavies. AI does not take attrition, but this is offset that the AI is not able to disengage portions of its fleet into port to repair at month-end while rest of fleet keeps fighting, and then the disengaged portion rejoins with some +morale & +repair (can be considered as the human player 'cheating')
Click fleet, right-click destination; fleet paths there; which is not micro. Macro is balancing between heavy/galleys vs trade ships.
No need.
fair enough, as long as you keep a focus on single player... then im happy.
This is a terrible post and why devs often don't bother sending communications. Please stop this.
As to your, er, "point," EU4 would actually be improved with its current naval system scrapped. It's been discussed before, even.
I believe Wiz on on the right side of this looting thing, but he's not always right.
Minimum autonomy for same continent colonies... never forget.
Not at all. Johan is benevolent (unless its thursday or friday).
paradox is his baby, of course he takes his baby home!Using your home account during the working day
I challenge your very notion of "balance". In your future examples, you talk about things like "win war button", but that's a matter of making the game have meaningful decisions, not "balance". You can not and never will "balance" a French start with a Ternate start, it's impossible. The frustration here comes when you make mechanics changes that make Ternate weaker or mechanics that have no historic basis just to protect nations like France extra.
Your patches have systematically deviated further from balance, because they strengthen powerful nations and nerf weak ones.
If it was so low on your priorities and such an unimportant mechanic, why did you spend resources to alter it? If your goal was "balance", why did you trash a feature that allowed smaller nations to stay solvent when fighting large ones? Why did you remove an alternative option to "carpet siege every war"? Wasn't the goal to have more meaningful decisions and strategy, rather than "one strategy" (carpet siege)? Yet, changes like this and your "length of war and +30 coalition" war enthusiasm modifiers push the game towards exactly one strategy: carpet siege.
It also goes against the "disincentivize total war" Johan talked about in another thread. If you were honest, you would realize that the current looting model is both less situational and offers less meaningful decisions than the previous one. Right now, you *always* loot. Previously, you looted when you could and expected more meaningful returns than the potential cost of losing the unit. In areas like Ming you could loot a ton, in areas like Aztec you could loot basically nothing. Now? It's not even a mechanic that drives decisions. Where's the "balance" there?