Not because of how its going at EU4, but because I think it could go much better at HOI4.
HoI4 Dev Teasers (previously Podcat's Twitter Teasers)
- Thread starter pvt.conners
- 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.
Not because of how its going at EU4, but because I think it could go much better at HOI4.
I can respect that, but I wholeheartedly disagree.
Even looking just at HoI4, when you compare DoD and TfV to WtT and soon MtG, to me it's pretty clear where the rise in quality to the game is coming from.
And quality always trumps quantity imo.
i preffer back to expansion system, something so complex as hoi where pieces are hard related in between expansion with no combination posibilities is best.
the changes in hoi dlc are big changes, and some other deep dlcs are needed to complete the system.
eu and stellaries could have modular pieces for "regionals" task (i suposs ck but i dont play it), but hoi is as ww interrelatione all the glove, and dlc system mybe is not the best idea for development.
the changes in hoi dlc are big changes, and some other deep dlcs are needed to complete the system.
eu and stellaries could have modular pieces for "regionals" task (i suposs ck but i dont play it), but hoi is as ww interrelatione all the glove, and dlc system mybe is not the best idea for development.
You know though. I actually liked DoD. It was worth the money. I don’t mind giving the content designers something to do while the rest of the team is reworking game mechanics for majors. The Expansion>DLC>Expansion>DLC model works really well for Stellaris, and I think it works well for HOI. I just don’t like the “immersion packs” of EU4. They don’t really add anything but some buttons, and in the case of GC, questionable content(pirates)...The time developing pirates could have gone toward making the Spanish Main more interesting.
DoD was fine for what it was, but it didn't move the game forward in much of a meaningful way compared to the subsequent expansions.
If it had released 3 months after it did, and we got stability, WS and decisions with it, I'd be completely on board.
Content designers don't go idle while the rest of the team does major reworks either, as WtT and MtG are there to proof.
These immesion packs, for their scope, are destined to have only minor mechanical features (such as equipment conversion and licensing), which are nice to have, but are of secondary concern for the game in its current state, considering podcat's list, so I'd rather be more focused there for now.
Fair enough, on your first point.
However, I never said context designers go idle, they can be producing and releasing valued content while the rest of the team actually works on the guts.
For instance, the Stellaris team was working on Megacorp long before Distant Stars was released. However, the content designers gave us a much improved exploration experience to play with in the meantime with Distant Stars. That has really mitigated he sense of waiting between releases.
This works well with Stellaris because they have stuck with the Expansion>DLC>expansion plan.
It hasn’t worked so well for HOI4 because they shot themselves in the foot by releasing 2 DLC’s back to back and then 2 expansions back to back...probably not the most efficient use of resources, and it makes the time between releases seem like FOREVER.
Last edited:
It's funny, swapping between communities, seeing where the highest levels of entitlement and toxicity are.
Stellaris, after occasionally dire periods, has stabilised somewhat and is getting constructive comments again.
EUIV has currently gone horribly toxic, largely from the occasionally vicious individuals who are so vocal about the ways that the development team's approach and ambitions don't match theirs.
HOI4 seems to oscillate.
There's a long-term community, mixed across SP (single player) and the less obsessively competitive MP (multi-player) who seem acquainted with the realities of software development and that Paradox games traditionally get more polished with time.
And there's a smaller but very vocal, and often based around "competitive MP" group, who give the impression of never being satisfied by anything that doesn't fit their exclusive view of the game, and bombard the forum in support of their view.
Speaking as someone who bought the original Europa Universalis (when there was no need for numbers), I've seen a lot of changes and, with very occasional minor exceptions, I've almost always appreciated what the PDX teams have done.
Underneath it all, we're all playing games - and some of our brothers and sisters out there need reminding of the fact that this is all eventually predicated on fun/enjoyment, not their personal view of what should/not be shown.
Stellaris, after occasionally dire periods, has stabilised somewhat and is getting constructive comments again.
EUIV has currently gone horribly toxic, largely from the occasionally vicious individuals who are so vocal about the ways that the development team's approach and ambitions don't match theirs.
HOI4 seems to oscillate.
There's a long-term community, mixed across SP (single player) and the less obsessively competitive MP (multi-player) who seem acquainted with the realities of software development and that Paradox games traditionally get more polished with time.
And there's a smaller but very vocal, and often based around "competitive MP" group, who give the impression of never being satisfied by anything that doesn't fit their exclusive view of the game, and bombard the forum in support of their view.
Speaking as someone who bought the original Europa Universalis (when there was no need for numbers), I've seen a lot of changes and, with very occasional minor exceptions, I've almost always appreciated what the PDX teams have done.
Underneath it all, we're all playing games - and some of our brothers and sisters out there need reminding of the fact that this is all eventually predicated on fun/enjoyment, not their personal view of what should/not be shown.
I think the main problem was the expansion pass. People had paid for it and than bugxfing and polishimg took way more time and the first DLC's just didn't become as meaty as they should have been. So they had to add two major expansions to satisfy the customers.
A small-big-small-big DLC schedule would probably serve them better because one year between DLC is too long in a lot of people's mind. On the other hand the number of country packs they can do becomes small DLC is getting smaller and and smaller (Spanish civil war, South America, Middle East, Scandinavia, South/South-East Asia, Southern Balkans, relevant rest ~ Belgium, etc.). Sounds like a lot. But if you think about it if they do a big DLc every 10-12 months and small DLC in between every 6 months than they are through in 3 years, if they go for one DLC every 8-9 months they have enough for a year more. Of course they can make other content, but from the content design perspective I think new or reworked countries are the most interesting for most people.
A small-big-small-big DLC schedule would probably serve them better because one year between DLC is too long in a lot of people's mind. On the other hand the number of country packs they can do becomes small DLC is getting smaller and and smaller (Spanish civil war, South America, Middle East, Scandinavia, South/South-East Asia, Southern Balkans, relevant rest ~ Belgium, etc.). Sounds like a lot. But if you think about it if they do a big DLc every 10-12 months and small DLC in between every 6 months than they are through in 3 years, if they go for one DLC every 8-9 months they have enough for a year more. Of course they can make other content, but from the content design perspective I think new or reworked countries are the most interesting for most people.
That is my point, both of them can work at the same time, as WtT and MtG prove.
I don't play Stellaris, so I wouldn't know (pardon my plebeian self, I have my hands plenty full with CK2, EU4 and HoI4, as well as the game I never seem to be able to let go, Vicky2), but in HoI4, with the design of the game revolving around ever sprawling focus trees, content designers always have something to do.
MtG and WtT showed us the most intricate FTs the game has seen yet, and I believe that's precisely because of the extra time they got to work on them, so having content designers and programmers work on mechanics and focuses for big expansions is looking to me to be more beneficial to the game as a whole.
Instead, if content designers work on immersion packs and expansions while programmers work on the expansions, the quality of the FTs might suffer, and as I said, quality always trumps quantity.
And I said a year previously referring to what is to me the holy grail of the modern PDX expansion, Holy Fury, but even just taking WtT into account, it didn't take a year, it was 9 months, and that was just fine.
He said in his last DD that it will be submarines warfre so don't hold your breath waiting for teaser
What motivates a Swede? We need to find podcat's weak point. Someone said a barrel of fish is the way to a Swedish man's heart. I'm 1/8th Swede, and I have no idea, but a barrel of fish is just about the last thing I would want on earth, unless stuck in a post apocalyptic world and with nothing else to eat.
Beer is usually the answer. Someone in the building buy Dan Lind a beer and get him to open up, please.
Beer is usually the answer. Someone in the building buy Dan Lind a beer and get him to open up, please.
12.12 The Nautilus
Awaiting this with great suspense. More so than anything else, the success of the submarine rework is going to make or break the naval rework as a whole.
Yeah, it's quite arguable that the submarine war was the most decisive aspect in both major theatres, and it is one of the things the game has been worst at representing so far. Looking forwards to this one with great hope.
I would argue that NAV bombers is the most critical aspect for MtG to "fix".