Historical starting position: YES ! Rigid scripted historical process: NO !

[Theodotus1]

I'm co-opting your examples. At least the unification ones.

Rather than have odd unification events, it would be much, much simpler if the AI and the system handled it. For example, if any German or Italian minor get more than 90% of their national claims, they get the tag-change event and become the actual nation. And meanwhile the AI itself would always make foreign-policy decisions favoring the conquerance of its national claims. So Sardinia-Piedmont wouldn't give up on taking Austrian and Italian territory until it held everything that it claims; then it would automatically become Italy, without any need for an event. Such a system would be boosted further by allowing annexation of any country whose capital is a national claim of yours, with a very minor badboy increase.

That would mean that (A) the player doesn't need events to do unification (B) the player can intervene on any side they desire through the alliance system (C) the situation for the AI would probably improve somewhat, since their warmaking would have some sort of focus.

This is what I mean when I say that the event system is inflexible. Everyone knows the hoops you go through for unification events, but there's no need for it if this stuff is better handled by the engine.

It would be much simpler. But that's not how things are, nor how they will be in this particular game. So the event system is what we have to work with.

 

[Theodotus1]

BTW, any country can become civilized in 1.03 if they fufill certain requirements.

This is very good to hear.

People should keep in mind that 1.02 consisted of quick solutions to suddenly-discerned problems, and therefore created certain new issues. It's not a particularly profitable use of time to judge the game too closely based on 1.02.

 

[Theodotus1]

This is exactly what I think also.

As an side, why do some folks feel its unreasonable for players to expect to see 19th century history and events in a game about 19th century history?

The "what you start with is historical, you go from there" is fine, if the game mechanicis allowed you to acchive many of the things that happened in history. I rarely see this, even in 1.02, China still, for example, is remarkably resistant to losing provinces to European Nations. In real history, they certain did, and by the "what you start with" idea, you should be able to take a province here or there. Try it without a massive army. Isn't going to happen. Of course, that is but a single example. The Crimean war events that don't work has been mentioned, the Italian unifacation, all of these.

Quite frankly, if you want to play with "what you start with," its simple enough to remove the game's events files. I can't understand why people are against those that want events having them in the game.

These are good points. I feel the same way. But not everyone does.

It goes back to what interests a person about games like this. If you want to be king of the world, events may be bothersome. If you want to explore history and its alternatives, events are likely to be welcome.

De gustibus non disputandem. (Please forgive my spelling of Latin if necessary.)

 

[Theodotus1]

I'm not completely opposed to scripted events, but some insisting claims for more highly complex events (e.g. for the american-mexican relation) drove me nuts as every additional event will - once again - result in requests for changes (snowball effect).

I've got about the same feeling as silverlight; there are 140 event files and 993 interdependent scripted events (according to the event_text.csv of V 1.02). I hope paradox is keeping a cool head and setting priorities according to its overall goals.

Since there's not going to be anymore Paradox events that require translation, I think you can stop worrying about how Paradox will be setting priorities.

 

[unmerged(21992)]

1. Playtesting was handled by volunteers, not the people who were doing research (afik).

It doesn't matter. At all.

Because the money that went towards historical research could have been spent on a third programmer, no matter who did the research; and because the time spent playtesting could have focussed all of its energies on testing the engine and the mechanics, instead of spending time debugging complicated event sequences.

2. The interests of Paradox's customer base cannot be assumed to equate with 99% of the population.

No, but if we restrict the space to "That part of the population that's willing to buy a semi-deep strategy game" then I still believe that 99% of them are going to care more about a working engine that lets them do semihistorical things than sequences of events that hamstring them.

3. Demands do snowball. The modability of the game allows this to be addressed by people like those in VIP.

I don't see the relevance. People have and still do ask PARADOX why events didn't make it into the game.

4. Event-driven historical accuracy only means no alternatives if the events are poorly written. Well-written events allow ahistorical but possible outcomes to come into play.

There is always going to be a limit on the flexibility of the current event system as long as there's a small number of choices available. And when I say "small" that doesn't mean "one or two" that means "five or six". I can think of at least twenty distinct outcomes to the Franco-Prussian war, and I'm sure others could come up with more. Right now the game covers two or three, and VIP might add a bit more. The mere fact that you need to make choices as to what options the VIP team considers viable, is itself an indictment of the inflexibility of the event system.

 

[unmerged(19226)]

The easiest and in my opinion the best solution for such dilemma can be option in main menu "events on"/"event off". Everyone would be happy with such solution.

 

[Dinsdale]

The easiest and in my opinion the best solution for such dilemma can be option in main menu "events on"/"event off". Everyone would be happy with such solution.

Well I think the most ardent anti-events posts would go further; changing the utilization of time from events to the engine

People should keep in mind that 1.02 consisted of quick solutions to suddenly-discerned problems, and therefore created certain new issues. It's not a particularly profitable use of time to judge the game too closely based on 1.02.

I don't recall a warning in the readme which claimed the game totally unbalanced, it was supposed to be a bug fix.

Things got overlooked because of the way the testing process worked, not because time got spent on the event files. Testing that relys on volunteers is typically doomed to fail because too few of the volunteers typically stay with the product throughout the development process. (Some of Derek's comments have indicated that this happened with Victoria.)

This is not a particularly good excuse. If the betas dried up then they should have recruited more. I could name about a half dozen off the top of my head from this forum who would have been excellent additions (yourself, FFZ, JScott, Darkrenown, Rafiki, Sapper_Astro and many more) to the betas if they needed manpower. If this is still a problem then the beta pool should be increased, that's a better solution than gnashing of teeth and wringing of hands.

Perhaps that, combined with a change to just bug fixing in the first patches might make the game more complete faster. Paradox spent a long time developing this game, but then appear in a hurry to redesign everything instead of being confident in their game. Bugs get fixed, or not fixed, alongside radical changes and this must make it even harder to test and iron out the issues.

 

[unmerged(4253)]

For an example:

1839, backed by supporters in Argentina, Uruguay declaires war on Argentina. Half of Argentina revolts and Uruguay comes to their aid. Eventually, the dictator of Argentina, Rosas, despite superior numbers in every regard, loses the war, (of course their was English and French intervention.) Argentina is re-unified under the new liberal government.

Now, this didn't need to happen at all. However, it was not so suprising that it did. Ideally the engine should simply simulate a high revolt risk for countries like Argentina, which should lead to a high probability of civil war, and Urugay should simply see Argentina's weakness and DOW on its own.

However, the game engine doesn't simulate the revolt risk well. Perhaps there's a way to fix it, perhaps not. Re-unification is definetly a serious flaw with the game engine, and often the enemy still has his capitol after the war, instead of total destruction. As it is now there is no event to simulate these conditions, as I suspect there is no event to simulate many of the other rebellions in South America, such as that of Rio Grande du Sol of Brazil.

Now, the rule of thumb should obviously be that when possible modify the engine, not add events. But maybe an Argentinan re-unification event (if one side conquers the other) would be very useful too, if you modify revolt risk. Events pick up were the Engine leaves off. Event are never perfect, that's true... but the engine is not perfect either.

I think when Theodotus said "If you want to be king of the world, events may be bothersome. If you want to explore history and its alternatives, events are likely to be welcome." he had the key issue in his grasp. In my opinion, this game should not be about the former option, but the second one. Unless it was historically feasable (which it may well have been), I think King of the World desires are best reserved for those games which offer a fantasy world.

 

[unmerged(5110)]

This is not a particularly good excuse. If the betas dried up then they should have recruited more. I could name about a half dozen off the top of my head from this forum who would have been excellent additions (yourself, FFZ, JScott, Darkrenown, Rafiki, Sapper_Astro and many more) to the betas if they needed manpower. If this is still a problem then the beta pool should be increased, that's a better solution than gnashing of teeth and wringing of hands.

Perhaps that, combined with a change to just bug fixing in the first patches might make the game more complete faster. Paradox spent a long time developing this game, but then appear in a hurry to redesign everything instead of being confident in their game. Bugs get fixed, or not fixed, alongside radical changes and this must make it even harder to test and iron out the issues.

I feel that I must note to you that there's a lot more to the beta process that makes just hiring more betas on the fly a tad more difficult. This seems like a good proposition, and a quick-fix, but in their defence, Paradox has to consider perhaps a million other things before they can make quick fixes like this. One example just off the top of my head, is that all of these people that get hired will get their own copy of the game, but may not contribute as much as is necessary to create a game's worth of profit - a so called law of diminishing returns of scale.

For example, bundled with every beta that gets included is the risk that that beta might put the game on Kazaa - so a bigger beta group is not necessarily always better.

 

[Dinsdale]

I feel that I must note to you that there's a lot more to the beta process that makes just hiring more betas on the fly a tad more difficult. This seems like a good proposition, and a quick-fix, but in their defence, Paradox has to consider perhaps a million other things before they can make quick fixes like this. One example just off the top of my head, is that all of these people that get hired will get their own copy of the game, but may not contribute as much as is necessary to create a game's worth of profit - a so called law of diminishing returns of scale.

I am familiar with the beta process (*edit not Paradox's methods, as part of my job), but if the current process leaves them short then something is already wrong and it needs to be fixed.

For example, bundled with every beta that gets included is the risk that that beta might put the game on Kazaa - so a bigger beta group is not necessarily always better.

Not necessarily better, but a small group is being used as an excuse for problems, so obviously something is wrong. Unfortunately, the game was pirated before release, so why would that remain a concern?

There are two methods of dealing with problems; whining and using them as an excuse for failure, or fixing the situation.

 

[Varyar]

I don't understand your problems Haba. There's a whole bunch of games out there that work within "a historical context" but without any determinism at all. Why not play them instead of complaining on some of the very few games that actually tries to re-create(to a certain extent) history "all the way"?

The historical aspect is probably the biggest reason why I prefer Paradox games to others. I used to play a lot of other strategy games, but the constant lack of historical realism simply made them less enjoyable than they could've been. Take Medieval:Total War for instance. Although it is more about battlefield tactics than strategy, it's a good example. If I play as, say, England, I can conquer Europe fairly easily. But by being so easy, victory is spoiled by its inherent absurdness. Likewise, if I restrict myself and keep to "reasonable" expansion, some of the other countries will become an equally absurd behemoth. Or why not take Civilization. Some consider it fun to have Tanks vs Elephants battles, I don't. Needless to say, I greatly enjoyed EUII when I discovered it.

Therefore, naturally, I disagree when someone thinks that Paradox should lighten up the historical aspects of their games. That is what makes them special. If you want a game coated with historical flavour rather than a historical game, there's all kinds of them out there.

Of course, as other have already pointed out, it's not about imposing historical determinism. Rather it's about being able to change, or re-create, history within realistic boundaries, mainly for the player-controlled nation but also for the AI nations.

 

[Derek Pullem]

This is not a particularly good excuse. If the betas dried up then they should have recruited more. I could name about a half dozen off the top of my head from this forum who would have been excellent additions (yourself, FFZ, JScott, Darkrenown, Rafiki, Sapper_Astro and many more) to the betas if they needed manpower. If this is still a problem then the beta pool should be increased, that's a better solution than gnashing of teeth and wringing of hands.

I'd estimate beta drop out rate from first pick to gold is >75%. Plus some people cannot accept that as a beta you give input to the game. You do not decide what goes in to the final release.

 

[Johan]

Not necessarily better, but a small group is being used as an excuse for problems, so obviously something is wrong. Unfortunately, the game was pirated before release, so why would that remain a concern?

Usually about 200-250 people get into the betas. About half of all that get into a beta does not even report back after getting the installer, and another huge part contributes so little that the administration of them, gives too little return that its not worth it.

Obviously the scope of the games we have been aiming for does not fit the development budgets we have. There's only one solution, and that is to make lesser scope in the games that can be balanced properly before release. This means much simpler games, but they will be stable, and all playable countries tested and all mechanics 99.99% balanced before release. And this becomes a regular 9-5 job for me, and I'll let marketing guys handle customers and post-release support, as I'm not putting in anymore weekends now for that. (Which have been the entire patch-system we've had since eu1, if you dont count the first month after a project is released.)

 

[Dagfinn]

Usually about 200-250 people get into the betas. About half of all that get into a beta does not even report back after getting the installer, and another huge part contributes so little that the administration of them, gives too little return that its not worth it.

Obviously the scope of the games we have been aiming for does not fit the development budgets we have. There's only one solution, and that is to make lesser scope in the games that can be balanced properly before release. This means much simpler games, but they will be stable, and all playable countries tested and all mechanics 99.99% balanced before release. And this becomes a regular 9-5 job for me, and I'll let marketing guys handle customers and post-release support, as I'm not putting in anymore weekends now for that. (Which have been the entire patch-system we've had since eu1, if you dont count the first month after a project is released.)

Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

Please Johan, dont punish those of us that like and enjoy your work. Please...

 

[Dinsdale]

I'd estimate beta drop out rate from first pick to gold is >75%. Plus some people cannot accept that as a beta you give input to the game. You do not decide what goes in to the final release.

From personal experience, not all betas truly appreciate the amount of work which is required of them. Now it's one thing if they are "conscripted" into testing a business app and forced to complete the task, another with volunteers who may simply be allured with the thought of an early, and free game.

I'm not sure that it's appreciated how hard the task of a beta is, and naturally you're going to have a drop off. Would you not be able to recruit some willing replacements? There are a bunch of people working their fingers off in VIP and many methodical and dedicated posters here in GD, aside from the ones I mentioned earlier there are many who from their posts have just the kind of analytical skills required.

Obviously the scope of the games we have been aiming for does not fit the development budgets we have. There's only one solution, and that is to make lesser scope in the games that can be balanced properly before release. This means much simpler games, but they will be stable, and all playable countries tested and all mechanics 99.99% balanced before release. And this becomes a regular 9-5 job for me, and I'll let marketing guys handle customers and post-release support, as I'm not putting in anymore weekends now for that. (Which have been the entire patch-system we've had since eu1, if you dont count the first month after a project is released.)

Johan, I'm truly sorry it's come to this. I can only hope that Paradox investigate what the problems were with the release of Victoria before making decisions about the scope and depth of games.

I'm sure you understand that while it might not be stated in every thread which bickers about minutia, that your customers appreciate your efforts and that the only reason we are here in this forum is through our enjoyment of the game.

We may all heatedly disagree about things, and I would imagine that 10 forumites in a room would disagree about everything except the one thing we appear to have in common; Paradox games.

If you want to see the lengths this goes, check out the release threads in the US and read about Canadians driving across the border, and some guy who drove around his state looking for the game If Paradox has the ability to inspire such lengths, then all that needs to be done is to reach the great mass of people who have never heard of Paradox or Victoria.

 

[unmerged(17395)]

> [Varyar]: The historical aspect is probably the biggest reason why I prefer Paradox games to others.

Our positions aren't as contrary as outlined in your previous post: I love the current game because it is a complex (in-depth), strategic and historical wargame, whilst you (and many others) play it because it is a historical, complex (in-depth) and strategic wargame (primacy of the history).

Unlike HOI (or games like common valor) playing in an era better discovered I'm having more trouble identifying with the victorian era - thus my desire of historical accuracy is secondary.
I'm happy with the current state of nearly 1000 country-events in V1.02, but expressing my concerns if paradox would comply with all requests for extending events (unless they're deadly bored or event-tweaking was indeed priorised).

Also, I'll be glad to install the VIP mod (when ready); but I might choose Zanzibar or Swaziland, disable Fog-Of-War, have some beer and pop-corn and fast-forward while watching the history passing by.

 

[Theodotus1]

Usually about 200-250 people get into the betas. About half of all that get into a beta does not even report back after getting the installer, and another huge part contributes so little that the administration of them, gives too little return that its not worth it.

Obviously the scope of the games we have been aiming for does not fit the development budgets we have. There's only one solution, and that is to make lesser scope in the games that can be balanced properly before release. This means much simpler games, but they will be stable, and all playable countries tested and all mechanics 99.99% balanced before release. And this becomes a regular 9-5 job for me, and I'll let marketing guys handle customers and post-release support, as I'm not putting in anymore weekends now for that. (Which have been the entire patch-system we've had since eu1, if you dont count the first month after a project is released.)

Johan,
It doesn't have to go that far. There are other options. (If you turn what you do into something other than what you love, it will soon have little value to you. Life loses a lot of color after that. And you subsequently find you can't always regain what you let go, even if you want to.)

If following a particular business plan means that this becomes just a job, don't choose it -- search for a different business plan.

You folks can be very successful, and it won't likely take radical changes:

1. Keep in mind that many sales problems have nothing to do with the product at all, and that therefore changing the product may be worse than useless. (You can lose your original market and still not gain a new one to replace it.) Rule out all other possible changes before changing your vision for the product.

2. Seriously explore alternatives to your current distributors, if there's any way that you can. Investigate whether it would be profitable to sell the product over the Internet only, either directly or via a venue such as Amazon.com. (I personally know authors who are making very good money by selling only via Amazon, and avoiding retail completely. And given that I couldn't even find Victoria in the retail chain this last season, and had to buy it online, you might find that many of your customers are already buying the product this way. You can advertise that the product is available on-line only, and people will then know where to look. In any case, your current distributors need to go. These people really let you down this last time. You don't owe them anything. Business is business, and they dropped the ball. Frankly, from what I saw here in the States, the situation was awful. I've seen cases go to court over far less.)

3. When it comes to retailers, few are important. Walmart is in locations in the US where other things aren't ("It's everywhere! It's everywhere!"), so it's in a category by itself. But most other retailers cater to the console market these days anyway, and probably aren't doing much to help sell your games at all. So why bother with them? Analyze your data to see what actually makes more than marginal sense.

4. Market your products where the interest is, rather than trying to create interest where it's not already. Mainstream American gaming mags, for instance, are not likely to treat you well in any reliable fashion, so don't facilitate reviews there. (Bad reviews are more harmful than none at all, so don't roll dice.) Only facilitate reviews in venues known to be friendly. Push the product in non-game venues, such as history magazines, where there may be new customers who have computers, interest, and money. Lots of people will buy a game that interests them, even if they don't usually buy games.

5. If your current contracts don't give you the freedom to make such changes, wait them out and then seek better ones.

6. When it comes to testing, don't you folks know of a cadre of people who've devoted time and attention to testing and moding your products on an on-going basis? These are the people who may possibly be successfully relied upon for a dedicated testing pool. (If in fact your testing pool numbers end up as small as you say, then you only need a relatively small cadre to begin with to stay in a similar position numbers-wise. And the quality of your testing will improve. From what I've seen, these are intelligent people with some disposable time.) Rely on these people rather than a pool trolled from the public. The public will never be reliable. Those who've previously shown extended interest might well be reliable. It will likely be an improvement in any case, even if but a modest one.

7. Develop games with layers of features. Incorporate an event system and modability, as you have with Victoria, but don't necessarily feel compelled to use it extensively or even at all with the game as released. Advertise it as an added feature that can be used by those who want to, and then support a modding commuity on-line. That way customers who want a more-abstract "king of the world" game won't be bothered by what they perceive as determinitive events, while history heads like me can use the event system and modability to add layers of detail. And no one will reasonably be able to complain about dashed expectations, if it's made clear in promotion that depth of details comes from mods, not the release, and that the mods will be available online in due course from the volunteer community.

8. Incorporate as much detail into game systems as you find optimal, but make it so that players don't have to pay any attention to it unless they want to.

9. Never forget that if you let this become just a job you've signed yourself up for death of the spirit on the installment plan.

 

[Arado]

Having played EU2 and HOI I find it that Paradox games always stop being historical the minute you start playing; otherwise it would boring, akin to reading a history book.

 

[unmerged(17395)]

...Obviously the scope of the games we have been aiming for does not fit the development budgets we have. ...This means much simpler games...

(in addition to Theodotus's post above)

Only produce games you can personally stand for - no matter what game reviews say (don't simplify your future games just to provide a product reviewers are used to).
As most participants of this poll were satisfied with the current complexity of victoria, its likely that they will be less satisfied with less complexity.
If financial considerations lead to down-scope future projects, please make sure sources of previous occurings are identified separately, such as marketing, distributional (in)capability, apperception on the part of reviewers etc.

 

[Varyar]

Unlike HOI (or games like common valor) playing in an era better discovered I'm having more trouble identifying with the victorian era - thus my desire of historical accuracy is secondary.

If I have interpreted this line correctly, I can understand your position better. If you're not aware of historical flaws, they won't be annoying... and thus a minor problem.

Still, trying to achieve historical accuracy is something of a trademark of Paradox, right?

I'm happy with the current state of nearly 1000 country-events in V1.02, but expressing my concerns if paradox would comply with all requests for extending events (unless they're deadly bored or event-tweaking was indeed priorised).

Extension of events is usually left to the community in my experience, so people complaining isn't that big a deal... unless we're talking events that are/were plain wrong or didn't work from the beginning, like the Italian Unification event.