I don't want to be rude or unrespectful, it just seems weird to say that we cannot criticize these mechanics (trade, diplomatic plays, warfare) yet when they are working pretty much how they was presented in the dev diaries. Its not about bugs or glitches, its the intended design of these mechanics that we don't agree with.
He isn't saying you can't do it, just that it is a waste of time. The simple fact that the devs haven't even touched warfare in any of the AARs they have posted should make it quite clear for anyone following the game development that it is a feature that is not yet in a state where it is ready to be presented to the public yet. Or in other words, it is most likely not in a state the devs are happy with yet. From what I can remember there hasn't been much details on trade and diplomatic plays outside of the dev diaries either.
Sure the leaked build is incomplete. Sure it isn’t working as intended. But it is the only way the players can get an actual feel for the game.
What makes you think you can get an actual feel for the game from a leaked internal build, before a release date has even been announced? If you truly want to get an actual feel for the game before you buy it, wait a couple of weeks after release. There will be plenty of videos out by then, plenty of discussions about the game (if you look past the 'this game is great' posts on release day), and you can even use the 2 hour refund window on Steam if you absolutely have to test something out before making your final decision. We may even be able to test it out for a full month at release dirt cheap with an xbox game pass (or even free if you manage to get your hands on a key). Noone is forcing your to preorder the game the moment preorders becomes available.
You are absolutely right. But it's fair to say that if you present a feature in a dev diary, we critisize it or at least be skeptical with the typical "I'll wait to play it before judging it, but it does not sound great", and then you play it on an unfortunate undesirable leak, and it playa exactly as it was presented, it doesn't change the validity of the feedback.
While most, if not all, players on these forums are guilty of giving bad feedback at times, the typical "I'll wait to play it before judging it, but it does not sound great" is pretty much useless, to the point where it will most likely be considered as not being feedback at all. It doesn't say anything about what you dislike about a feature, nor does it say anything about what you want from a feature.
How many changes could they make to combat before release? The complete removal of micro has left people only able to rely on Paradox saying it'll work well as a reason why this will be good
Considering that they haven't announced any release date, they could most likely revamp the entire system several times. Why do you think they haven't shown off any more details on what is most likely the feature which has recieved the most negative and prolonged feedback of all the dev diaries? Saying that you 'can only rely on Paradox saying it will work well' simply isn't true. Paradox doesn't stop people from voicing their concern over the potential lack of micro, and many people have done so. The fact that Paradox has been pretty much completely silent on warfare since the announcement may very well mean that they are concerned about the state of warfare in its current state.
Maybe this is a stupid idea so i just throw it up in the air. Wouldn't be benefical to do an "extra" DD about what actually already obsolete in the leak so people stop arguing and speculating about it. Perhaps this is just bring more attention to the leak and make it worse, or maybe untaint some opinion i don't know.
Or they could just ignore any feedback based on the leak and try to stick to their original schedule. Any attempt at addressing such feedback would most likely just lead to more complaints regarding other features in the leaked version, or negativity focusing on anything not addressed in such a post, while also delaying their scheduled work. There really isn't much good that can come out of such an attempt, neither for the game itself, nor the devs.
Is there a way you could formalize the way you receive feedback on the forums? For example, by describing one system at a time as it stands in the current build and concretizing what you would like feedback on. It would help to limit the wild speculation, at least on my part.
Hopefully they have a more formalised way to note down/discuss feedback they recieve than what will ever become visible to the public. Players will generally want the game made in a very specific way, tailored to their own specific preferences. It's most likely much better for all parts that the devs are in full control of what feedback they take note of, and what feedback they choose to ignore, without it being visible to the public. As for describing one system at a time, isn't that exactly what they are trying to do in the dev diaries? Sure the details aren't always as many as we want the to be, but that is most likely for good reason. Sometimes features aren't finished yet, sometimes the devs may not be sure if features will get any more resources allocated before release, sometimes they may even know that features won't get all the love it should before release (it's a Paradox game after all). My impression is that the devs are generally quite good at answering honestly at some of the significant critisism that is raised in the dev diaries (at least to anything posted the same day as the dev diary), without needing big streamers to question the issues. While I may often be disagree with Paradox's design choices and business practises, their facilitation for interaction between actual players and devs are far superior to most, if not all, other somewhat big game developers I know of. I don't see why we should ask them to change that just because of a leak.
A lot of the critisism I have seen raised on reddit and these forums that seems to be based on the leak, should have been possible for people to be aware of simply by reading dev diaries, AARs and dev replies. My question is, why do so many people choose to not voice any concerns they have before 'trying the game themselves'? If we end up getting 'another Imperator' it will be the players' fault. There has been plenty of things to worry about over the past few months, but instead of voicing their concerns, most people seem to be willing to 'wait until release to see the final result'. One of the most worrying things about Victoria 3 in my opinion is the simple fact that the monuments dev diary is among the ones to recieve the most negative feedback. Why would people expect anything but 'another Imperator' if that is the feature they are the most worried about?
