HOI4 - Development Diary - October 12th 2016

[hkrommel]

Thats not what I said. I said this forum is seemingly in a big negative place and its not good for anyone and we should try and get it out of there. I also care a lot, otherwise I would not be talking to fans on the forum at midnight.

While I understand that there's a reason why this forum is negative. Perhaps addressing this underlying reason (or promising to, I understand this stuff doesn't happen overnight) would alleviate the negativity? The longer this sits the more negative it becomes.

 

[Ancalimé]

...and partly because well, HOI players are HOI players.

A bit of a Freudian slip there I think.

That attitude actually explains the overall unresponsiveness you (the company) have shown towards the community in the last few months.
"Oh well, HOI players are HOI players, they're impossible to please or come to an agreement with."

I don't agree with that. I think many of the forum contributers here are hardcore and long time supporters and while they may be unhappy with the new direction you have decided to take with HoI4, I think people are mostly negative because we feel like we aren't being heard. Putting essential, basic gameplay elements behind a paywall is also not helping.

Insuniating something to the tune of "HoI players will complain anyway" then turning a deaf ear and pushing on with your ideas regardless, is not helpful.

The forum is full of constructive criticisms and ideas. You need only look.
(Not all of them are in the bugs section; you mentioned once that you don't have the time to peruse through the long threads, but it's where most of the brainstorms are happening.)

Frustration builds up, people turn cynical and eventually angry. Next thing you know, you've lost most of your fan base that got PDX to where it is now.

Just the views of a concerned fan.

 

[Demosthenest]

Guys come on. It's a complicated game, a lot of work is yet to be done. MP is perfectly playable and enjoyable right now with a decent set of rules.
It's like 40 angered players against a couple mods right now who obv feel overwhelmed by the amount of negative input they're receiving.

 

[cobychr]

in this case, adding value to people who actually pay and for people who already did through the field marshal edition

I think that many people (including myself), that have pre-ordered the field marshal edition have been very clear in how dissapointed we are for the current state of the game. Right now there are several game breaking things in HOI IV, and the battle planner was one of them. The blitzkrieg feature was supposed to address this, when should have been there in the first place. It's just wrong to charge for this.

 

[podcat]

I think people are mostly negative because we feel like we aren't being heard.

To turn this constructive, do you have any ideas for how we could improve this? We already spend a lot of time on forums (the people who dare), and you have to remember that is time we arent working on say coding a new feature or something else so we need to spend it wisely where it matters the most.

 

[sabasNL]

Its something I think partly is legacy of HOI3 release, partly our fault for managing communication less than optimal, and partly because well, HOI players are HOI players.

It's because we want the best for the game (just like you do and have always done), and with this DD you announced a decision which was anything but the best for the game. We're upset because this isn't what we expect from you and the team, not because we're some kind of trolls. We care for the game too. And this is constructive criticism, because you're moving a core feature fix behind a paywall, whereas DLC should be for extensions of the game only.

Hearts of Iron IV still needs some fixing, and we were hoping that those would be free of charge.

 

[lort683]

It's because we want the best for the game (just like you do and have always done), and with this DD you announced a decision which was anything but the best for the game. We're upset because this isn't what we expect from you and the team, not because we're some kind of trolls. We care for the game too. And this is constructive criticism, because you're moving core feature fix behind a paywall, whereas DLC should be for extensions of the game only.

Hearts of Iron IV still needs some fixing, and we were hoping that those would be free of charge.

Couldn't agree more. DLC should add on to the game. It should be playable without it. It shouldn't be necessary if you don't want ti. Something like a blitz command that accounts for the broken frontline/attack system and that should have been in the game originally isn't an expansion.

 

[sturnado]

To turn this constructive, do you have any ideas for how we could improve this? We already spend a lot of time on forums (the people who dare), and you have to remember that is time we arent working on say coding a new feature or something else so we need to spend it wisely where it matters the most.

1. Add an option to battle plans to fix their maximum width.

2. Add some ways to organize and distribute air forces more easily.

3. Add some UI feedback features to give players more of an idea as to what is happening with the war, and why it's happening. For instance, how many planes are being lost in an air region.

4. The AI really, really, really, really needs work in a bad way. Entire fronts are abandoned by the AI and single player is zero challenge at all, even with maxed sliders on your enemies.

There's four things you can work on right now which will dramatically improve the quality of the game. Please do not charge us for these things.

 

[ruzen]

I'm sorry, but I am not sure if this is sarcasm or not HOI4 release was probably one of the best and most stable in PDS history, but this forum has been overwhelmingly negative to a large degree since release (and was also very negative the week before release when a lot of other gaming communities were very positive as they watched streamers etc play). Its something I think partly is legacy of HOI3 release, partly our fault for managing communication less than optimal, and partly because well, HOI players are HOI players. We will need to work together to overcome this stuff, because its not fun for us or you with such a climate on the forum. payed or not aside people have spent 99% of their energy in this thread on being negative, posting ultimatums and critic. Now, to clarify there is nothing wrong with speaking your mind and giving constructive critic, and has sent a clear message, *but* the fact that there is no talk about the actual features is sadly not so surprising and pretty depressing. Its pretty clear the current community climate only really accepts negative opinions which is driving away a lot of people who are having a good time.

also since this is moving fast, I have recognized the feedback here. check my post last page

I wrote that with no sarcastic intentions. All those are my original feelings. It was my true opinion and It was my general opinion since after the release. Not that you should know one specific person from 1000+ population forum. I read my post again I didn't feel any sarcasm.

Actually, my original thinking about HOI4 is this( but since I expressed It very much and didn't feel like the context was need for this issue):
HOI4 release is the best release in the Paradox history. Content is there, It's working&playable, multiplayer is playable. HOI4 release were so good It made Stellaris an early access game.

Yes, People impatiently demanded fixes for incomplete things ( especially for AI), now the fixes are in and more are on the way but this shouldn't happen.
I too was in the forums since release and beyond; majority of veteran players supported HOI4 and liked the overall changes. Vets remember the glitchy HOI3 supply system, where a sudden bug in the port could kill the whole campaign. People understand how this game is more stable and playable. People only want improved version of HOI3 not completely removed.

Veterans remember how HOI3 AI was just standing there. They do see the potential and seeing with patches.

I watched the Q&A section and understood some of the design choices like "I'm trying to remove ledger, message pop-up, mini-map" and now It does make me question the "old" design and getting rid of my previous habits.

But this, is not about a design choice! Please don't do this. Please don't create this paywall. CK2's last DLC was huge success considering how people were fed up by the lack of enthusiasm the other team provided and stop playing the game. Reapers Due had very little in It but still sold enough. Same goes for EU4 last DLC. Main features are so little considering the patch it self. Most importantly they don't include paywalls. Art of War DLC had paywall in It but now they are more carefull about this.

I've written too much. It is my honest opinion. Please don't go this road. Most of the people feel like HOI4 is the best release in the Paradox history too. People bought the game and all editions because they understand how much effort you put in while making It. People do compare to other things and people are well aware of things.

 

[podcat]

1. Add an option to battle plans to fix their maximum width.

2. Add some ways to organize and distribute air forces more easily.

3. Add some UI feedback features to give players more of an idea as to what is happening with the war, and why it's happening. For instance, how many planes are being lost in an air region.

4. The AI really, really, really, really needs work in a bad way. Entire fronts are abandoned by the AI and single player is zero challenge at all, even with maxed sliders on your enemies.

There's four things you can work on right now which will dramatically improve the quality of the game. Please do not charge us for these things.

We were talking about how people should feel like we listen to them. I'm not sure that must translate to "work on this stuff we want".
If you check out what we did in the patch it was the most talked about issues. The diary today also highlights two things improving areas people have been complaining about a lot. So if people still say that we arent listening there is something else missing, and its not work more on stuff we want, because thats what we do basically.

 

[Demosthenest]

Can I ask a question? Will the MP-dlc policy be the same as in EU4, where only the host needs to have bought all the dlc for everyone to enjoy them? I'd hate for a chaos of 20 different versions of this game.

 

[UseTax2005]

To turn this constructive, do you have any ideas for how we could improve this? We already spend a lot of time on forums (the people who dare), and you have to remember that is time we arent working on say coding a new feature or something else so we need to spend it wisely where it matters the most.

My .02 USD would be explaining the balancing act that you perform with different parts of the game. We're all PDS players here, we understand that there are tradeoffs and opportunity costs for decisions.

An obviously oversimplified example:

Should subs have high detection values?
a) No! The U-Boats shall sweep the Atlantic clean!
b) Yes. Game balance will be wrecked if U-Boats run rampant.

I for one understood more of the issues involved when you discussed the sub warfare issues prior to release of the (beta) Sunflower. And I understand that adding the "blitz" function impacts how the AI conducts offensives and defends against counter-attacks against it's flanks, which is why it's more complicated than it looks.

 

[podcat]

Vets remember the glitchy HOI3 supply system, where a sudden bug in the port could kill the whole campaign.

Veterans remember how HOI3 AI was just standing there. They do see the potential and seeing with patches.

Thanks, lets look at your comments which more reflect my memories on how developing hoi3 was and compare it to how people actually talk about it.
Check the previous dev diary. It had a lot of disagrees and arguments for how both AI and supply system were perfect in HOI3. By a big majority (there were a few people who argued otherwise of course).

But this, is not about a design choice! Please don't do this. Please don't create this paywall.

I'll see what can be done.

 

[podcat]

Can I ask a question? Will the MP-dlc policy be the same as in EU4, where only the host needs to have bought all the dlc for everyone to enjoy them? I'd hate for a chaos of 20 different versions of this game.

yes. without it it would be really messy

 

[sturnado]

We were talking about how people should feel like we listen to them. I'm not sure that must translate to "work on this stuff we want".
If you check out what we did in the patch it was the most talked about issues. The diary today also highlights two things improving areas people have been complaining about a lot. So if people still say that we arent listening there is something else missing, and its not work more on stuff we want, because thats what we do basically.

Frankly your AI fixes in 1.2 didn't work too well. Now the AI abandons whole fronts randomly. That's not a functional AI nor is it a challenge.

Your air wing UI improvements (the buttons you added) don't do much to help with the sheer amount of micromanagement needed.

These are some integral parts of the game that need major work. This is the time to communicate your plans to address these issues with the community, and it is not a good time to talk about extra features you want to sell us.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, I love this game. MP is insanely fun when you get decent players in a game. SP, however, is zero challenge for the aforementioned reasons, and addressing those issues would do wonders for HOI4.

 

[podcat]

My .02 USD would be explaining the balancing act that you perform with different parts of the game. We're all PDS players here, we understand that there are tradeoffs and opportunity costs for decisions.

An obviously oversimplified example:

Should subs have high detection values?
a) No! The U-Boats shall sweep the Atlantic clean!
b) Yes. Game balance will be wrecked if U-Boats run rampant.

I for one understood more of the issues involved when you discussed the sub warfare issues prior to release of the (beta) Sunflower. And I understand that adding the "blitz" function impacts how the AI conducts offensives and defends against counter-attacks against it's flanks, which is why it's more complicated than it looks.

yeah, this is stuff we can do more of. Did you listen to the stream today when I talked about the air spam issues?

 

[sabasNL]

2. Add some ways to organize and distribute air forces more easily.

3. Add some UI feedback features to give players more of an idea as to what is happening with the war, and why it's happening. For instance, how many planes are being lost in an air region.

These are definitely two of my biggest issues with the game, and they're pure UI issues. In Hearts of Iron III, I could clearly see at all times how I was doing with regards to air warfare by just looking at the map or bringing up the statistics report. In Hearts of Iron IV, I have to click individual zones constantly. It's a nuisance, and it's very confusing.

On the topic of UI feedback, I'd like to add one more:

Naval battle notifications should be seperate from convoy raids with one-sided damage (the fleet sinking the convoys). It's so confusing when you get a naval alert every single in-game day.

We were talking about how people should feel like we listen to them. I'm not sure that must translate to "work on this stuff we want".

I think the problem isn't the lack of you listening to us; you are listening, you always have. I think the problem is us knowing whether you're listening. More mention of what you're working on (even if you don't have anything to show yet!), more discussion of things that need work and more clarity on features, especially on paid / free features. I think the CK2 team has always done best when it comes to communication, whereas EU4 was often very confusing resulting in plenty of negative feedback. When we find issues in the game, we often don't know whether you guys know about them already, or whether you are working on fixing them. We have no way to know except for the DDs in which you already announce the fix coming soon, which is already late in the process.
All we need to hear is a "Thank you for your report, I think we'll have to fix it, I'll put it on our to-do list".

In this thread however, the real underlying problem is Blitz being a paid feature. We expect such a thing to be free, and we're upset about it being behind a paywall. That is where all the red crosses come from, not because this forum is hostile. This is one of the best forums of any gaming community and if anything, you should be proud that you have such an engaged community. I think the Paradox Gathering showed that we love these games as much as you do.

 

[keynes2.0]

To turn this constructive, do you have any ideas for how we could improve this? We already spend a lot of time on forums (the people who dare), and you have to remember that is time we arent working on say coding a new feature or something else so we need to spend it wisely where it matters the most.

I would love to give a detailed feedback if you want it but I think the gist of my feelings are this:

1) The whole notion of the battleplanner and the offensives feels like it's supposed to be so much more then a bonus but right now a bonus is all it is. You just set your troops in motion and the AI picks places to attack without rhyme or reason. I have no clue what is going to happen when I click the "Go" button. I cant do things like steer troops one province north of the Maginot Line but no farther north, let alone have a deep battle operation where I have my mechanized force ready to start the attack while the Germans are reorganizing. I want to know what happens after I click go! I dont want the frontline to erase my plans!

2) I can't trust the AI. North Africa is a great example. Try giving the AI an offensive order in North Africa and it will immediately march your troops off into the desert while only leaving an division or two on the coastline that actually matters. And the second I turn my back the AI will start redeploying troops from where I actually want them. So I basically have to tell the AI to butt out and micromanage things in order to avoid stupidity.

3) The AI thinks it's WWI and not WWII. It deploys all the troops in a thin frontline. This leaves it horribly vulnerable to exploitation. This means it's possible to grind your way through a province through attrition because the AI never sends reinforcements until the line breaks, even if it takes the 30 Italian divisions a month to grind through 2 French mountain divisions. It also creates a feeling that offensives are just units "going over the top" and attacking the enemies directly in front of them. There is no staging in rear areas for a spearhead or a mechanized wave.

The battleplanner and frontline feels like something that has so much potential but it's so half done. And then you come up with this blitz thing that is moving in the right direction but you say it's not a core feature. But it should be a core feature! This is exactly the sort of thing that is essential to being able to do!

So that's just the gist of my feelings . I would love to bore you with a longer feedback.

 

[podcat]

All we need to hear is a "Thank you for your report, I think we'll have to fix it, I'll put it on our to-do list".

In the bug report forum we have QA (and devs) who do this. Doing it elsewhere in random threads would be incredibly time consuming. If a QA has answered on of those threads you can be sure its in our internal databases.

 

[Ralle2]

To turn this constructive, do you have any ideas for how we could improve this? We already spend a lot of time on forums (the people who dare), and you have to remember that is time we arent working on say coding a new feature or something else so we need to spend it wisely where it matters the most.

Maybe you have to understand that we want you to be working in chains and under the beat of drums... Ever seen Ben Hur? That`s the rythm to program patches to.