- 1
Do the developers even play their own game?
- Thread starter Hamor
- 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.
Good thing I can now down-vote to express my scorn instead of repying to these ridiculous complaints.
The game gets better with each patch and somehow there are always more complaints...
The game gets better with each patch and somehow there are always more complaints...
- 7
- 7
ah, so I guess the devs do play their own game.. They want us to place forts in all rebel activity areas to avoid everlasting nationalism.. Only to mothball them once nationalism passes. Well, realistic I'd say.
Just curious, does that include testing different builds etc. Since that seems like a lot of hours, granted this is your job, so it would not really matter, just curious how it goes between work/fun.
Played a bit more of EU 4 with the common sense (Don't own the DLC so playing it without, do own Art of War which is one of your best addons so far I'd say) and the new building system isn't that bad. I mean the only large minuses are that say with financial buildings, you have to see which province its best to build them on, and that includes checking the economy screen. Also the lack of unique buildings, since those extra free leaders, free prestige etc were nice things to have mid-late game.
Also before you could pretty much mindlessly just spam buildings, armories, temples, you name it. Now you actually have to consider which building should be allotted to each province, granted if you have the DLC and invest in developing your province that does sort of let you go more free of worry, but it does seem.. Burdensome to have to carefully think so deep. Of course having strategic mind goes a long way but the amount you have to do checkup on goes far beyond what I'd call a reasonable amount, which province should have a fort, which should have manpower, which should have economy buildings and more.
I hope you guys will check the coming DLC's with mods next time, just some example mods like adding a decision, something quick to put up so you can test an addons performance with mods. Since that was a thing people were rather upset over, many of us love playing the game with mods. I even waited for the hotfix to be released before starting, since I've grown so attached to them, I nearly can't play the game vanilla. But again, you deserve praise. Letting us mod the game very deep, just like Skyrim.
Edit: Yes I reworded my whole large comment after playing some more and thinking about this. Felt I was bit too.. Hotheaded before. Think this one came out much better.
Last edited:
- 2
- 1
True enough, also as a stronger member of a defensive war it should be possible to force a white peace even if the other guy is the warleader. Say I'm the neatherlands and allied to denmark (as was historically) I'll join wars to keep sweden from conquering denmark, but I'm not all that intrested in helping denmark actually take land of sweden. There should be an option for "Peace out now or you're on your own"
- 4
Do not presume to speak for everyone unless you are the queen node of a hive mind.
I think the new fort system looks great (carpet sieging always... troubled me as a concept). I think the new building system looks great (the old one was kinda silly). I think the development mechanic looks largely irrelevant to my preferred playstyle, but to say I "dislike" it would be far too strong. I have no problem with the changes to coring costs; any aspect of that with which I have a problem ultimately boils down to "furthermore, Hostile Core Creation modifiers must be destroyed".
Have I missed an "unpopular" 1.12 change there, or does that cover it?
And oddly, unlike certain vociferous opponents of these things who will doubtless accuse me of being a "fanboy" for liking them, I can entirely comprehend that a sane and intelligent person can disagree with me about these things' value.
- 4
True. Thanks for fixing me on that. On the moment of writing I just passed that with the text. Never use the word "ever" in pretty much anything you write. Will fix that.
I'd also agree that carpet sieging was rather dumb from a logical standpoint, but I'd say just do it like in CK 2. You declare war for a province/duchy/etc and you siege it with along some nearby provinces, then that would be enough to declare victory & sign a peace with your enemy. Of course it was a little like that, usually most just carpet sieged every province since they wanted more then one province which then required more warscore, altough you had ticking warscore, so you didn't necessarily have to carpet siege everything.
And hey I'm the first person to say change is good, I even on occasion resist change but when you force something new on people, and after they've tested it, many dislike it strongly enough to come to the forums to voice their opinion, which not all do. So you know you've done something wrong. Of course everything is not for everyone, and negative voices will usually be more loudly heard then positive ones but comparing to previous large expansions, this one has a lot more negative votes then positive ones. Simply look at the common sense store page to get a glimpse of the negative feedback reviews, which have been voted to the top due to many agreeing with their points.
Last edited:
- 1
About 800 hours here, not that it matters really.
I like the building system a lot and in general many changes are nice, Poland has finally been buffed as well. What I would object too are the coring costs - the can be a bit unrealistic. Let's take the example of the Ottomans that historically conquered the Mamluks in a single war and maintained it's technological progress. Not really possible any more (unless you added an event with free cores that I missed). As for diplomatic annexation - I think the cost is too high (even after hotfix) but that's just my opinion. After my experience with annexing Novgorod as Poland for about 60-70 years I think that vassals are no longer viable unless you're the Emperor. Full admin focus and conquest becomes much better, because you don't have to deal with liberty desire, spend a diplomat, maintain relations, etc. The only time vassals are viable any more is when they are in the HRE and you don't want to get an unlawful territory demand or you are taking far too much land in a single war and can't deal with overextension. Alternatively when you get a 0 adm 6 diplo ruler.
The development system is fun if you're a minor, I have to give it that.
Would you consider dropping the coring cost at all? Probably not, but I have to ask. I imagine a system in which the cores would appear over time, slower than with points (for example 10 years) and you still give overextension. The coring cost modifiers would be replaced by coring time modifiers. Just an idea, but I think it would be more fun. To counterbalance that admin points would be used for something else or you'd just get less if you were overextended. For example -1 admin per month per 25% overextension or something like that.
Why do I object to coring cost as such (if you care at all) ? With it the late game basically becomes all about managing your monarch points, everything else becomes secondary. I don't find that aspect fun. Maybe others do.
Still, one of the best games on the market. Have a nice weekend.
I like the building system a lot and in general many changes are nice, Poland has finally been buffed as well. What I would object too are the coring costs - the can be a bit unrealistic. Let's take the example of the Ottomans that historically conquered the Mamluks in a single war and maintained it's technological progress. Not really possible any more (unless you added an event with free cores that I missed). As for diplomatic annexation - I think the cost is too high (even after hotfix) but that's just my opinion. After my experience with annexing Novgorod as Poland for about 60-70 years I think that vassals are no longer viable unless you're the Emperor. Full admin focus and conquest becomes much better, because you don't have to deal with liberty desire, spend a diplomat, maintain relations, etc. The only time vassals are viable any more is when they are in the HRE and you don't want to get an unlawful territory demand or you are taking far too much land in a single war and can't deal with overextension. Alternatively when you get a 0 adm 6 diplo ruler.
The development system is fun if you're a minor, I have to give it that.
Would you consider dropping the coring cost at all? Probably not, but I have to ask. I imagine a system in which the cores would appear over time, slower than with points (for example 10 years) and you still give overextension. The coring cost modifiers would be replaced by coring time modifiers. Just an idea, but I think it would be more fun. To counterbalance that admin points would be used for something else or you'd just get less if you were overextended. For example -1 admin per month per 25% overextension or something like that.
Why do I object to coring cost as such (if you care at all
) ? With it the late game basically becomes all about managing your monarch points, everything else becomes secondary. I don't find that aspect fun. Maybe others do.Still, one of the best games on the market. Have a nice weekend.
- 1
One good thing I can say is that now provinces and building improvements show monthly gains instead of yearly. Altough the trade power should still show some sort of a ducat translation.
I would not say that. The developers clearly play the game and are not jerks. They don't remove negative comments, they respond to the community and generally carry a good spirit on the forum with them. I mean the fact that the developers themselves, not the community managers respond to us is brilliant! Not many other companies go that far when it comes to interacting with their userbase, for that I commend Paradox wholeheartedly.
I would not say that. The developers clearly play the game and are not jerks. They don't remove negative comments, they respond to the community and generally carry a good spirit on the forum with them. I mean the fact that the developers themselves, not the community managers respond to us is brilliant! Not many other companies go that far when it comes to interacting with their userbase, for that I commend Paradox wholeheartedly.
Last edited:
- 1
Considering the tone of this thread can you blame them?
- 2
- 2
I do agree, eu4 is way to dependant on monarch points. Monarch points in itself are a weird mechanic.
I mean, the genes of your monarch are the sole difference between gaining 18 monarch points a month or 0? 0/0/0 ruler versus 6/6/6?
Granted, brilliant rulers meant their nation profited. But the game starts to grow more and more dependant on luck.
And luck, dear paradox, is not what a strategy game is about. A strategy game is about skill, theorycrafting, trying to be smarter then the rest.
But currently, a player nation that gets 10 dumb 0 total monarch point kings and 10 15 year regencies in a campaign, always loses to to the beginner who had 10 6/6/6 kings and developed their nation.
Nevertheless, I can understand some random factor has to be present in a historical game.
But to base development of a nation, general progress of a campaign, and general level of development on the genes of your kings alone, always felt bad to me.
And to be honest, I think many would agree on that.
My suggestion would be to keep the point system, but to replace the gain of points from monarchs by another system. And to let events etc have influence.
Clearly, a nation in civil war and plague raging in cities, would gain less development points then a thriving venice would has strong allies and a powerful galleyy fleets protecting their trade.
All in all, so far I'm not too inclined to try common sense patch yet. But some might argue 1.7 to 1.9 (art of war) made blobbing too easy, and I should try a campaign playing tall and developing a nation while not expanding too much. But who plays this game that way? This ain't simcity.
Maybe common sense 1.12 patch added war depth to this game, with the new fort mechanic. But to be honest, they made blobbing by war harder by increasing coring costs and diplo annexation costs and forcing players to level diplo tech to keep subjects in check. EU4 is a WAR centered game. But the devs seem inclined to stop warmongerers in this game. If the devs think otherwise, then they should try playing a TALL campaign with 10 regencies lasting 15 years. This game ain't a city builder.
/rant off.
Hope someone can convince me to buy el dorado and common sense.
Hope you didn't mind my rant, and I excuse myself to anyone who might be offended by this post...
I mean, the genes of your monarch are the sole difference between gaining 18 monarch points a month or 0? 0/0/0 ruler versus 6/6/6?
Granted, brilliant rulers meant their nation profited. But the game starts to grow more and more dependant on luck.
And luck, dear paradox, is not what a strategy game is about. A strategy game is about skill, theorycrafting, trying to be smarter then the rest.
But currently, a player nation that gets 10 dumb 0 total monarch point kings and 10 15 year regencies in a campaign, always loses to to the beginner who had 10 6/6/6 kings and developed their nation.
Nevertheless, I can understand some random factor has to be present in a historical game.
But to base development of a nation, general progress of a campaign, and general level of development on the genes of your kings alone, always felt bad to me.
And to be honest, I think many would agree on that.
My suggestion would be to keep the point system, but to replace the gain of points from monarchs by another system. And to let events etc have influence.
Clearly, a nation in civil war and plague raging in cities, would gain less development points then a thriving venice would has strong allies and a powerful galleyy fleets protecting their trade.
All in all, so far I'm not too inclined to try common sense patch yet. But some might argue 1.7 to 1.9 (art of war) made blobbing too easy, and I should try a campaign playing tall and developing a nation while not expanding too much. But who plays this game that way? This ain't simcity.
Maybe common sense 1.12 patch added war depth to this game, with the new fort mechanic. But to be honest, they made blobbing by war harder by increasing coring costs and diplo annexation costs and forcing players to level diplo tech to keep subjects in check. EU4 is a WAR centered game. But the devs seem inclined to stop warmongerers in this game. If the devs think otherwise, then they should try playing a TALL campaign with 10 regencies lasting 15 years. This game ain't a city builder.
/rant off.
Hope someone can convince me to buy el dorado and common sense.
Hope you didn't mind my rant, and I excuse myself to anyone who might be offended by this post...
- 4
The only difference between single and multiplayer is that your opponents in singleplayer are stupid. The game is 100% the same apart from that.
- 1
- 1
This is exactly what I heavily dislike at EUIV and the reason I stopped playing it after the very first DLC came out.
The DLC politics alone would be a reason to quit the game, but the level of abstraction is beyond fun. The game feels like a big "live" Microsoft Excel sheet. And you observe the changing values.
This is just wrong. The mere fact that your opponent behaves dramatically different enforces a different design for both SP and MP which the devs still refuse to do.
That would be extremely improbable. In practice it tends to average out.
I think it would be more acceptable if the dynasties were represented properly, i.e. as graphs of explicit people who produce more people by marriage (and related fun stuff). A simple genetic model could provide for the inheritance of monarch properties. Then the player could apply selective breeding to improve the genes of their monarch. Often there would be a need to balance diplomatic considerations with royal husbandry (e.g. I what to butter up Austria but do I really want to marry a retard?).
The relatively small number of monarchs you'll get through in the game, and the variability in reign duration, means that even one derplord or demigod can have a horrifying impact on your overall performance.
Yes. At the moment the war leader is a little OP and AFAIK there is no way for the player to communicate his wants to it (other than by fabricating claims before the war started). It's a little ridiculous for a OPM allied to a superpower to be calling the shots. If Russia attacks Latvia the US may intervene, but Latvia wont be controlling the negotiations.