Developer thoughts on the Victoria 3 leak

[FleetingRain]

Does this mean that trade will work differently? Both the leaked build and the dev diaries imply you play the trade aspect of the game by determining what to import case-by-case, not what to export (we can't even properly embargo countries!). Trade is one of the biggest non-UI. non-bug-related complaints people have with the game right now, and it's not something that can be "fixed" with a stable build as it's a design issue.

This threat of "we won't talk to you guys anymore uwu" is a terrible idea however. I understand you're disappointed, but issuing such threat never works for either side.

EDIT--

I already addressed this notion on Twitter, but I'm happy to post it here as well:

The fact that what is in the leaked build maps generally to what we have said in a dev diary does not mean we are unaware of the issues with how it currently works, or are not planning to change anything about it. It just means we haven't done and talked about those changes yet. This is precisely the problem with feedbacking based on a leaked build - the discourse around trade will now be based on how the system *was* before we felt it was actually ready, which makes it harder when it comes time to *actually* try to get useful feedback about it.

Nvm I can't read. I guess it's ok, then.

 

[PDJR_Alastorn]

At no point did I say you cannot criticize the mechanics, and in fact, you're welcome to criticize the mechanics as much as you want. What I am saying is that any critique based on a leaked build is inherently not useful to us for all the reasons outlined in my posts and the fact that so much of the feedback we'll be getting from now on is going to be based on the leaked build actually hurts our ability to respond to and act on criticism of the mechanics. You may believe that you are helping us by feedbacking on a build we were not ready to get feedback on, but you're really not.

This, 100% This.

We're not saying you cannot critique things, what we are saying is its inheretly not as useful as you may think the 'we are giving feedback' is. Whenever I read comments about trade, war, and the like on reddit (and I would be a bad QA if I ignored them - despite my frustrations with the leak). I have to go back in my brain and remember what exactly the build is, where the state of that feature was - where it is now in regards to bugfixing and implementation, what QA has already said and gotten addressed and how that ties correspondes to the changed realty of the ground.

There is still value in the feedback sure, but this in no way shape or form is an efficient way of handling it and the amount of energy expended to pull the value from the feedback is energy not being spent on bringing the game to a releaseable state.

 

[Shoo]

This, 100% This.

We're not saying you cannot critique things, what we are saying is its inheretly not as useful as you may thing the 'we are giving feedback' is. Whenever I read comments about trade, war, and the like on reddit (and I would be a bad QA if I ignored them - despite my frustrations with the leak). I have to go back in my brain and remember what exactly the build is, where the state of that feature was - where it is now in regards to bugfixing and implementation, what QA has already said and gotten addressed and how that ties correspondes to the changed realty of the ground.

There is still value in the feedback sure, but this in no way shape or form is an efficient way of handling it and the amount of energy expended to pull the value from the feedback is energy not being spent on bringing the game to a releaseable state.

Here's some criticism for you that isn't based off of anything in the leaked build, not allowing the player to set tariffs on a good by good basis is absolutely foolish and means that you can't really control your economy in a meaningful way, you either overproduce everything in the hopes that the international market doesn't steal everything you need or you completely close off your economy just because you want to protect your steel production, I think it's a mistake to not include that on launch (the sceptic inside me thinks you guys intend to add it later as a DLC feature which would be even worse)

 

[Fanstar1]

My heart and my thoughts go to the developer team here. While most of what I can say has already been said by other people here, it was pretty sad to see how quickly certain elements of the community latched onto the leak and propagated it, seemingly without a care for what this would actually cause and the impact it would have not just on the developers but also QA, testers, and modders that are given early access by paradox.

 

[Yagami913]

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.

 

[Romaoplays]

Damn what a bad thing for a closed beta tester to do. Not only leak the gameplay, but also the files itself in a pirated version?

 

[lingo74]

Bit of an odd question but we’re you able to determine who leaked the game?

 

[gulaschkoenig]

I just hope you completely revamp trade.... I don't want to manually import every needed good there is. That killed imperator for me

 

[Fanstar1]

Bit of an odd question but we’re you able to determine who leaked the game?

I don't think Paradox has any reason to disclose who it was publicly; I doubt you will get a solid answer for that.

 

[PDJR_Alastorn]

Here's some criticism for you that isn't based off of anything in the leaked build, not allowing the player to set tariffs on a good by good basis is absolutely foolish and means that you can't really control your economy in a meaningful way, you either overproduce everything in the hopes that the international market doesn't steal everything you need or you completely close off your economy just because you want to protect your steel production, I think it's a mistake to not include that on launch (the sceptic inside me thinks you guys intend to add it later as a DLC feature which would be even worse)

This is not a place for discussing of features and I understand the frustrations of tariffs not being "where you would want them," I'm the supposed expert in this area of history and its not always where I would want them either but the iteration is better than what was there before - and you're going to have to trust me on that.

I have answered extensively in the dev diary and elsewhere on the discord that its not as black and white as you are thinking and that specifically if you want to protect this good as you are saying in this scenario, an embargo of your market will protect the good in the same way. Any trade you manually conduct outside of the embargo should not be effected to the same rate as AI nations, though you are protecting a domestic industry - I am not certain you would even want to pull in more resources to compete with the profit margins of your own industry.

The answer remains as it did within the dev diary of the time of 'was considered but downprio'd at the time' and this is due to various things such as competing needs for polish and attention elsewhere. I know you are going to read into that as what you will, but I'm more than hurt that once again we are being accussed of cutting features to just charge you more in the future. If this is truly as you think we operate as a company than I have to ask if you are going to ever be happy with our releases if you think we are always out to get you.

 

[FleetingRain]

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.

I don't know how long it takes to write a Dev Diary but I'd love it if tomorrow's DD addressed this.

Damn what a shitty thing for a closed beta tester to do. Not only leak the gameplay, but also the files itself in a pirated version?

Also an extremely dumb thing to do. I doubt those beta builds aren't signed somehow.

 

[osvaldopiazzolla]

Dear paradox dev team,
I can see from your posts that beyond fanbase criticisms and development scheduling issues, *morale* in the team has been affected.
I do not know if what I have to say will be comforting and I make apologies if my message looks more pedantic than reassuring but I am actually an academic Historian (disclaimer : I am not specialized in XIXth century economics or politics, I am a Historian of software and computer simulations, hence my (modest) interest for GSG) and I do believe that the project you are on has interest beyond gaming : it is also interesting from an academic point of view , so please KUTGW : you're onto something.

 

[ero_sk]

This is not a place for discussing of features and I understand the frustrations of tariffs not being "where you would want them," I'm the supposed expert in this area of history and its not always where I would want them either but the iteration is better than what was there before - and you're going to have to trust me on that.

When you say "the iteration" do you mean the current, more up to date iteration?

 

[pleasediaf]

Reading this just made me sad

 

[Shoo]

This is not a place for discussing of features and I understand the frustrations of tariffs not being "where you would want them," I'm the supposed expert in this area of history and its not always where I would want them either but the iteration is better than what was there before - and you're going to have to trust me on that.

I have answered extensively in the dev diary and elsewhere on the discord that its not as black and white as you are thinking and that specifically if you want to protect this good as you are saying in this scenario, an embargo of your market will protect the good in the same way. Any trade you manually conduct outside of the embargo should not be effected to the same rate as AI nations, though you are protecting a domestic industry - I am not certain you would even want to pull in more resources to compete with the profit margins of your own industry.

The answer remains as it did within the dev diary of the time of 'was considered but downprio'd at the time' and this is due to various things such as competing needs for polish and attention elsewhere. I know you are going to read into that as what you will, but I'm more than hurt that once again we are being accussed of cutting features to just charge you more in the future. If this is truly as you think we operate as a company than I have to ask if you are going to ever be happy with our releases if you think we are always out to get you.

Well I eagerly wait to be proved wrong and only time will tell on that front however yes I am somewhat biased against Paradox games' DLC strategy as I see it, EU4 especially showed that locking gameplay features behind a paywall is never a good idea, either the features are so irrelevant that the DLC seems like a lazy cash grab or they're must have features and seem like hiding the "real gameplay experience" behind an ever increasing cost. But I'm sure you guys know what people think and you're going to do what you're going to do anyway.

 

[BotherMe]

I’m sorry this leak happened. As somebody who constantly posts ideas and suggestions on this forum (which are probably out of date before they even get out on paper), I’m disappointed that my own perception of what the game is turning out to be has been tainted by videos of and speculation around the leak. I wanted to stay up to date on what the current thinking and planning was, so I could talk about that. Now, that’s an impossibility.

Question to 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.

 

[PlayerZeroFour]

Whatever gripes you have with these systems in the leaked state: it's irrelevant. Your impression is irrelevant because it is not based on a finished product. It's unfinished and therefore you don't know how it's supposed to be. You think trade and warfare have issues in this leaked version? Cool, that's like saying: "Hey, why does that car, I stole from the middle of the assembly line not start up? They should add an engine and a fuel tank!" completely pointless and meaningless criticism and feedback.

I don't even understand why you played this leaked version in the first place. I sure haven't because I understand this is not a finished product and not even remotely clsoe to what the product is supposed to be. So I have less than zero interest in playing this leaked version. If you want to spoil your experience playing Vicky 3 for the first time, fine go ahead, but stop pretending as if any feedback you give on this version is of any relevance.

Because sometimes you want to get into a car like object and make brrr nosies as you pretend to drive.

 

[GoguRomania]

Absolutely disgusted by whoever decided to leak the game - whoever you are, you are an absolute disgrace to this community and to humanity as a whole.

 

[wrx1030]

Indeed, some of the criticisms of the unfinished version are disappointing and frustrating. But there are also people in the community who want to make the game better. The statement appears to repudiate even such well-meaning enthusiasm, which will also disappoint and frustrate the community.

 

[FaeKissed]

I'm sorry it leaked. Someone seeing unfinished work without permission is my nightmare scenario as a creator. I'm eagerly looking forward to Vicky 3's release, and I'm excited to support it when it launches.