.png){kind=avatar}
Dear EU IV Team, Please don't release a buggy unplayable DLC like the CK II Team did.
- Thread starter illapa
- Start date
-
We will be taking the forums down for scheduled maintenance on Tuesday, May 22nd 2023 at around 8:00 CDT / 13:00 UTC for up to an hour hour.
-
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 have a hunch that the reason why the past couple of CK2 expansions have been buggy messes is because Paradox has been diverting resources from CK2 to work on EU4, HOI4, Runemaster, and their other upcoming projects.
Yes it is, can you not play the game because decadence isn't working? Does it make it impossible to play as a muslim now? sure decadence won't harm muslims anymore but we manage to play next to other blobs that don't get destroyed by religion based anti blobing mechanics so I dont really see it as game breaking and frankly if you don't break the game or make it impossible to play a certain group I consider you minor
I am cautiously optimistic about the release. Removing the demand-side of the supply/demand is a huge simplification of the code, which means it is removing a lot of potential problems and likely several bugs, as well as making bug-fixing easier. Given how little that detail in the economic simulation of the game actually accomplished, that is a huge improvement. Also, removing random terrain, opens for a lot of potential improvements to other parts of the code a DLC or 2 down the line. I like both those changes because of the potential upside and me finding the downsides relatively minor.
I think they are introducing a bit too many new features at once with a fundamental rework of autonomy/rebels, an autobuild, ship-changes, diplomatic options, subjects, christian religions and not least the ai changes that follows all of that. Since the diplomacy-game and the wars are the main draws of the game, it is a concern that they may break some of the most essential features of the game in this patch/DLC. I am not that concerned about the map-changes even though the optimization of the code it has required may force me to eat my words and my computer.
I think they are introducing a bit too many new features at once with a fundamental rework of autonomy/rebels, an autobuild, ship-changes, diplomatic options, subjects, christian religions and not least the ai changes that follows all of that. Since the diplomacy-game and the wars are the main draws of the game, it is a concern that they may break some of the most essential features of the game in this patch/DLC. I am not that concerned about the map-changes even though the optimization of the code it has required may force me to eat my words and my computer.
the good quality release of Paradox were during 2012-2013. But since CoP every big Dlc has been a debacle.
You had some damn long hope then: PI's expansions weer always buggy at release.
no seriously, I have been here for many years but it was rare for PI to release a polished new game, even more rare to release a polished expansion. And if they failed to fix it over the years, they will continue failing for a while. So just take it for granted that some factions won't be playable a while after release or start playing after the first patch or beta patch is out.
Alblaka said:
Nah, Charlie is one of the more stable CK2 expansions. It is especially nothing compared to ROI, that one had its own content practically unplayable and it took quite a while for PI to patch it up.
It would be really great if some people would boycott the word 'petition'
Yeah, it would be beautiful, wouldn't it?
$20 says it'll be buggy. That way I can get what looks to be one of the grandest Paradox expansions ever for free, and enjoy the hell out of it for hours on end in spite of its "bugs."
Yeah, it's going to be buggy -- who cares. Strategy games are difficult to balance and bug-test for mid-size developers, and if Paradox were to put more manhours into ironing out expansions perfectly, they'd become less profitable and we'd get fewer of them as a result (because more than one dev had stated CK2 is only getting expansions for as long the game's profitable).
Everyone in this thread who's complaining about buggy Paradox releases should just let the rest of us beta test them and wait until the next patch is released.
I'm no expert on the gaming industry, but I presume that more Quality testing would cost more money and be passed on to the customer. So my question is would prefer a more expensive DLC with less bugs on launch, or cheaper DLC that will get patched over time?
Charlemagne is unplayable? Works great for me. Of course patches are needed to iron out bugs, but I have yet to encounter one that completely ruins the game. /Armchair developer
I hate these kind of threads. You don't speak for me or others I know. Every DLC and expansion they release is called unplayable and broken. None of them have actually been that, and they're always patched promptly when major problems are noted. Think of the time and effort that goes into testing a game like EU or CK. You can do anything you want as anyone in the world. There are literally endless options for the player, and that the games are as stable as they are is amazing. The balance isn't perfect, and there are minor (yes, minor) bugs, but I'm able to play the game for four hours straight with no crashing and nothing going wrong, so I don't see what's so unplayable or broken. Whenever I get the urge to play EU4, I tend to come to this forum, and there are always threads like this. It bugs me and stops me from discussing a game I really like because there's so much junk to sift through.
If you disagree and continue with these threads, then fine, I can't stop you, but at least stop 'speaking' for the community. Use 'I', not 'we'.
If you disagree and continue with these threads, then fine, I can't stop you, but at least stop 'speaking' for the community. Use 'I', not 'we'.
What are some of the game breaking bugs in EU4? I haven't noticed any big problems after any patch or dlc.
How about a basic tracking process so that PI can at least accurately list what they changed, rather than multiple significant omissions, UI lies, and patch note inaccurates in multiple patches in a row? How about not monkeying with mechanics when your manpower is strapped and breaking their functionality if bug testing is so hard (exile)? Why toy with parameters like AE and truces if you can neither defend the resulting implementation nor the implications? People buy the DLC for the new DLC content, which has been consistently workable. That's not how they've screwed things up, they've screwed up by ridiculously stressing their resources on unnecessary crap and turning their game into a non-conforming good (Observer mode, cross-platform MP, and hotjoin, and for a large chunk of the game's existence, American dream).
This isn't just an issue of man hours for QA testing. There are some real pragmatic limitations that are being ignored to the detriment of the product, and people are right to complain about that, especially when changes to that crap don't HAVE to be made alongside DLC introducing tons of interesting NIs, more provinces, formable nations, and huge QoL improvements.
This is a title that has had multiple objectively broken advertised features for five months +. People have paid for stuff they can't use for a substantial portion of the game's life cycle, and yet that stuff is *still* advertised. A plea for a functional title is warranted; there is plenty of historical basis for it, including the last four major patches in a row (possibly more, but as I wasn't around to observe them directly, I won't claim further).
The game has been out over a full year, and multiple parts of the UI still lie to the player while hiding the rules of gameplay (which get changed, and those changes are sometimes hidden also). When you do that every patch, yes you're going to get complaints and those complaints are both predictable and rational.
Foolish lies, or just ignorant of the game's problems? Hot join is an advertised feature. Observer mode is a *paid* DLC feature. Cross platform MP is an advertised feature. All three of these things do not work currently and have not worked in over five months (some more than that).
The game also lies to the player about what will happen, such as "yes I will join your war" --> joines against you, or doesn't tell you the consequences of your choice. You can't even look on the UI and make a clear determination of your combat width without memorizing the base width yourself.
Those limitations are consistent with a beta, not a 1+ year release title. The beta has some fun in it, but that's your reality.
Maybe you should just go to the dedicated strategy & tips forum where people discuss their current playthroughs, strategies, and tactics to accomplish a given goal...
...
Haha. Well, that COULD have been a thing anyway
.
Last edited:
Yea. I love paradox more than any other studio. I love grand strategy games, but I think going all out white knight fanboy and defending paradox's recent bugs on release is doing a disservice. Be honest about it and admit that there's a problem and the dev's will become aware of it faster. I genuinely think they're a good dev team that wants to make good games and will be a bit more careful with their releases.
If you have boycotted them you shouldn't buy them at all. Otherwise its not a boycott.
Art of War looks great and its stupid for people to complain about something before you've even played it.
/signed
I was really unimpressed with Charlemagne. It launched in a buggy state, certain features were cut (ability to create custom coat of arms for custom titles), and other features were badly implemented (transition from Tribalism to Feudalism.) The reason I'm opting to get AoW instead of CM is because AoW looks better. But I will wait until it releases to make my final choice.
I was really unimpressed with Charlemagne. It launched in a buggy state, certain features were cut (ability to create custom coat of arms for custom titles), and other features were badly implemented (transition from Tribalism to Feudalism.) The reason I'm opting to get AoW instead of CM is because AoW looks better. But I will wait until it releases to make my final choice.
Norse characters can't sail up rivers. That seems like it would be pretty hard to miss in playtests to me.
For a 4-man/woman team they did a pretty good job. It was still a disappointing release though.
Last edited:
AOW looks amazing. I love that they're finally helping the rest of the world out. I just really want to be able to multiplayer at launch and not awkwardly wait 3 weeks before i can play.
- Status