Europa Universalis IV - Open Beta Release of 1.19 Denmark Patch - Checksum 8680 - Use at own Risk

[Dagda]

yeah right, let's listen to the loudest crybabies around, always a good method of making reasonable decisions .... "20 people in the forum don't like it guys, it must be super bad!"

So you want the developers to make decisions based on f'n twitter polls, a platform that has been completely compromised by bots?

Also that huge % of 'haven't tried it' is a giant red-flag.

 

[oim8]

I still don't understand why this had to be changed. Has anyone from the development team explained this decision?

It would probably mess with their halving of fort costs or something. I guess if you combined the existing terrain penalties + more forts, wars would take a bit longer. It's a dumb change, I much prefer using terrain strategically as opposed to just spamming forts, but hey, I guess they need something to show for in this patch. They can't just swallow their pride and fix a poor decision, too much effort went into implementing that decision, and I guess they consider it wasteful or maybe even shameful to abandon something they spent time on. It's lame, really. Instead of tactical immersion they opt for "BIGGER NUMBERS BETTER GAME!".

Don't get me wrong, I'm glad they reverted the fort change, but that's just not enough. They need to understand that just because you spent time working on something doesn't mean you need to implement it at all costs, especially when general player consensus is clearly against it.

 

[Triplebassist]

I still don't understand why this had to be changed. Has anyone from the development team explained this decision?

They said that it acted as a double bonus for defenders in bad terrain. They'd get a penalty to the attackers and and a limit on how many troops can attack at once, making it harder for attackers to overcome that penalty with numbers.

 

[kitemasaki]

I'm so glad, I've been playing 1.19 non-stop and wars now always come down to who has bigger numbers. You can't block armies strategically with the new system. In no way is the new system better than the old one and most of who like it as it was must be people who play mostly big nations like France/Austria/Ottomans or etc who liked being able to rightclick their enemies to death. I mean no disrespect to those people since I love playing Austria and France but the new system was not better, it was just different and IMO was bad for the game. EU4's fanbase is mostly people who like hard games and the game should always stay ahead of being a "the bigger sword wins". Rightclicking your enemies to death is something more fitting for AOE-style games.

I think people fail to see that the new system undermines mountain forts far too much, what's the point of them if you can't force your enemy into them? With the new system you can go around it and siege the capital (which most times will at most have a -1 penalty) while the defending army stands in their little mountain fort helpless. I also was blocked from moving inside my country somehow as Milan with the new system because of Venice's Brescia fort. That was dumb.

I'm pretty hyped for the patch, now the only thing needed is the HRE succession fix which is pretty damn gamebreaking.

Pretty much stated the facts.
They can click 'disagree' as much as they like, but it won't change the facts. The new fort system is gone. It wasn't better than the old system and anyone who looks at facts came to the same conclusion. Grasping at straws to save face is all you get from replies challenging the proof.

 

[Swuul]

The poll on twitter is a sample of Johan's Followers, which probably are about 50% developers/coworkers/non pds product owning people. The opinion on the forums is primarily eu4 players. Which would you trust more?

Are you seriously claiming the thousands of people following PDOX developer are PDOX developers??? That is not Johan's personal twitter account, you know.

But then again, you obviously are a person who do not like facts or truth. You make wide statements which are disinformation at best, and outright blatant lies in many cases.

Have you checked how many people play EU4? Have you checked how many people post on EU4 forum? If you still claim the vocal forumites who fail to grasp even basic factors of the game (like for example: how do sieges work? how do spy-networks work? how does the fort system work?) represent the *average* EU4 player, then you do have some serious issues.

 

[CplKatie]

Are you seriously claiming the thousands of people following PDOX developer are PDOX developers??? That is not Johan's personal twitter account, you know.

But then again, you obviously are a person who do not like facts or truth. You make wide statements which are disinformation at best, and outright blatant lies in many cases.

Have you checked how many people play EU4? Have you checked how many people post on EU4 forum? If you still claim the vocal forumites who fail to grasp even basic factors of the game (like for example: how do sieges work? how do spy-networks work? how does the fort system work?) represent the *average* EU4 player, then you do have some serious issues.

No if you read what you quoted I said that a good portion of the people who follow him do not own Europa Universalis 4 and probably just wanted to benefit his hard work. Reading is key when navigating forums, I know that twitter combats this with short and simple messages, but here, it really needs to be read fully.

 

[Swuul]

No if you read what you quoted I said that a good portion of the people who follow him do not own Europa Universalis 4 and probably just wanted to benefit his hard work. Reading is key when navigating forums, I know that twitter combats this with short and simple messages, but here, it really needs to be read fully.

Please provide the data which shows "a good portion of followers" do not own EU4. Or is this again disinformation and/or a blatant lie you made up?

If you want to be taken serioulsy you have to stop lying and making up things. If you cant back your words with facts or data, you will be viewed as a charlatan who isnt much bothered about how things *really* are.

 

[Soranya]

Disappointing that @Johan is more interested in telling his Twitter followers than telling this forum, especially as much of the more detailed feedback that must have influenced the decision would have come from here. I'd have liked to have seen a stickied forum post at the same time as the tweet for such a major change of plans.

Yeah the twitter votes with no announcement at the Forumare really annoying :/

 

[Trin Tragula]

Yeah the twitter votes with no announcement at the Forumare really annoying :/

I can understand the frustration with the announcement of the change but I wouldn't worry too much about the votes. We've been reading the forums ever since the beta patch was released and the discussions here had a large impact on the decision to withdraw it as far as I know. The poll on the other hand made it possible to gauge if a slightly different audience felt the same as well

 

[WrathOfGod]

I'm so glad that pdx balancing team acknowledged their fault. So, when does the new beta patch come out?

 

[I'm gaming]

Please provide the data which shows "a good portion of followers" do not own EU4. Or is this again disinformation and/or a blatant lie you made up?

If you want to be taken serioulsy you have to stop lying and making up things. If you cant back your words with facts or data, you will be viewed as a charlatan who isnt much bothered about how things *really* are.

Lol are you trying to talk with a person who believes Johan has 50% of 8735 followers with developers/coworkers/non-pds-game-owners?

 

[Toledo37]

Any ETA on the patch with reverted fort system?

 

[Kerlyle]

You kinda managed to show an example of what the post you quoted means. The tested system screwed things for nations such as Portugal, Bohemia, Castille, Austria, France, Burgundy, Aragon, Poland among many others and yet people keep insisting it only affects small nations and anyone who liked the new system only play big nations. It made me basically take any complaint that says small nations only as worthless because have they even played the game if they didn't notice that it rendered movement blocking useless for the vast majority of countries?

While I still think the best possible system would be dropping zones entirely and having forts only block movement beyond their province(that is you can only return to where you came from) so there would be actual lines of forts the beta system could work far better than the current one with some tweaking.

Basically remove the free access if the other area borders friendly/neutral and change what counts as neutral and/or not allow hostile to move into that. Would even benefit actual small nations more than the current system does.

My Post on Page 3 of this thread brought up both cases. I know that the new system also worked haphazardly for larger countries, but it just didn't work at all for small or medium sized ones, which is why i brought up that case.

 

[boaster]

I really enjoyed what i saw in 1.19 from the little i played in the beta patch, unfortunately I stopped because i didn't enjoy the new fort system. Any chance for an eta on an updated beta patch we can play?

Either way, thanks for all the good work, love the new map changes. Looking forward to trying to find a good use for all those new impassable mountains.

 

[chrnno]

My Post on Page 3 of this thread brought up both cases. I know that the new system also worked haphazardly for larger countries, but it just didn't work at all for small or medium sized ones, which is why i brought up that case.

My apologies then it just seems like every comment is that. Can even give a recent example in the last post of the previous page.

Yeah it wasn't working but I feel with certain tweaks it could work far better than the current system and I am annoyed that people giving the usual useless feedback they do for every change in the game ever caused them to drop it entirely instead of trying to do it even once. And just to make sure it is clear your post in page 3 is great as it clearly and neatly highlights the main issue of the beta system.

 

[DDRJake]

I'm pretty hyped for the patch, now the only thing needed is the HRE succession fix which is pretty damn gamebreaking.

You'll be pleased to know that this is being fixed too then.

 

[Dakka]

You'll be pleased to know that this is being fixed too then.

Looking forward to see the full patch notes.
Any word on unit pack fixes? Nubian for new Nubian tags, Golden Horde units for both Golden and Great Hordes, Uzbek sprites for Bukhara, and Tier 2 Brandenburgs for Prussia?

 

[Mafiabrett]

You'll be pleased to know that this is being fixed too then.

How about Protectorates/Institution's?
ATM Protectorates hardly ever stay protectorates for more than a few years because they catch up WAY to fast in tech. Ive had issues where they break away, then immediately allow me to diplo Protectorate them again.. It gets severely annoying.

 

[Soranya]

How about Protectorates/Institution's?
ATM Protectorates hardly ever stay protectorates for more than a few years because they catch up WAY to fast in tech. Ive had issues where they break away, then immediately allow me to diplo Protectorate them again.. It gets severely annoying.

Institution Spread to Oversea Provinces (from Captial continent) is much too fast imho.
As well as is the Effect of Development by the AI.

 

[panionios]

Forts: A good idea, badly implemeted.

1. If you decide to keep this system, increase ticking war score speed from occupied provinces and from maximum (i.e. to 60%).

2. I would rather see this: keep the old system, with same costs and a ZOC, but limit ZOC to the fort's area. So if you build a line of fortifications in all areas bordering a particular enemy, the enemy shouldn't be able to pass through until it sieges down one of the forts.