How Many More Planned DLCs Are Left?

[Darkath]

Both CK2 and EU4 have no limit on when we plan to end. As long as you play and buy, we'll keep making expansions.

Wouldn't you feel limited in what you can add or by the engine of these games at some point ? You could have done more expansion of EU3 rather than doing EU4, but i think it was good to start from an updated engine, and allow yourself major reworks of some game concepts that wouldn't fit in an expansion.

 

[DàbiànLājīdàrén]

How far can these expansions take the mechanics of these games? For example would it be possible to change the trading nodes at some point or implement a whole new trading system altogether?

 

[Quaade]

Both CK2 and EU4 have no limit on when we plan to end. As long as you play and buy, we'll keep making expansions.

It was announced that CK2 was ending it´s cycle though and DLC would stop, or has something changed during that announcement?

Also... Plz don´t keep rolling out DLC just because they sell, be the responsible company that know when and where they need to revamp EU4 into a 5, instead of pushing DLC... Keep pushing DLC is good to keep the game alive, but there has already been talks about the massive amount of DLC scaring off newcomers... And I suppose, not being a programmer and all... At some point, you would benefit more gameplay-wise to work on EU5 over DLC sales...

 

[VoodooEconomist]

Both CK2 and EU4 have no limit on when we plan to end. As long as you play and buy, we'll keep making expansions.

Wait, what?! I'm confused...

https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/crusader-kings-2-dd-14-the-road-ahead.957206/

CK2 ending was confirmed last July. Has something changed?!

 

[Anaeri]

Wait, what?! I'm confused...

https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/crusader-kings-2-dd-14-the-road-ahead.957206/

CK2 ending was confirmed last July. Has something changed?!

That reads to me like, they have two expansions planned/ making progress on them. He even says right in that post that CK2 isn't ending.

But in the end me going on about this isn't going to change anyone's mind, so I'll just say this:
TL;DR: Try out M&T 2.0 when it releases and see if it's your cup of tea, it has far more stuff AND better performance than the current version of the mod!

Eh, I bring up the state limit because it's a very decidedly un-meiou like mechanic, because there's very little ways you can influence it and the cap is so low for seemingly no reason (. The way VeF has handled administrative bureaucracy is way better (lands administered directly by the crown tax it heavily, you can slowly improve either its size or quality through policies, and if you're having issue with it you can always do stuff like grant land to the nobles, the church, etc.).

I complained the same way when CE first came out, for very similar reasons, which were later iterated and made more interesting. Although, it still has the issue in 1.27 that there's really no way to control inland stuff like a steppe empire, other than with the regional capital which is difficult to judge how to use and gets more inefficient the larger you become. CE in 2.0 seems much improved though.

 

[VoodooEconomist]

That reads to me like, they have two expansions planned/ making progress on them. He even says right in that post that CK2 isn't ending.

Well:

After that, it might really be time to let go, but it’s also possible we’ll wind down with another small expansion (nr 15).

Of course, this may be interpreted like you say. However, everybody's been interpreting as an announcement of the end of CK2 and this was never before corrected by anybody at Paradox.

 

[Nyrael]

Wouldn't you feel limited in what you can add or by the engine of these games at some point ? You could have done more expansion of EU3 rather than doing EU4, but i think it was good to start from an updated engine, and allow yourself major reworks of some game concepts that wouldn't fit in an expansion.

Even if they felt limited by it, it wouldn't matter as they won't make a sequel for several more years (read: until their other major games got a sequel and they try out another new franchise). So stopping with expansions would not bring a sequel sooner, it would just end the development and another game would get the manpower.

 

[Shock360]

Even if they felt limited by it, it wouldn't matter as they won't make a sequel for several more years (read: until their other major games got a sequel and they try out another new franchise). So stopping with expansions would not bring a sequel sooner, it would just end the development and another game would get the manpower.

Actually it would. If they never stopped until two years from now they wouldn't be working on the sequel at the same time. And more manpower on other teams means less time until they finish other games

 

[Sun_Wu]

A pretty complicated mod being released, is only really going to bring old players that are tired and loved that mod back. I seriously doubt it will really help get new players..

There is going to be less micro in 2.0, a lot less micro.

To be honest, I like M&T quite a bit and enjoyed it in EU3. The problem is it slows the game down so much from a performance standpoint, and that's just prohibitive.

Game is much faster in 2.0, testers reporting a year being under 90 seconds (there is a lot more going on in game so most of the time that is too fast).

I'm just afraid that the game engine will eventually just not be able to handle all the stuff piled on top of the core game.
I would be pretty hyped for the time when EUV would be made, stronger engine, and all the best features that came to EUIV over the years simply being part of the core game.

It will likely use the next generation of Clausewitz.

This concerns me... at some point, a version of the engine used by either games will eventually show its age. I've heard people saying that CK2 is already showing its age but I don't know if that is necessarily true or not. Basing this on "play and buy" has a potential to stretch out the game for a pretty long time despite its age. It's almost like pushing the limits here.

Unless... existing games can be upgraded to newer version of engines? But I am not sure how feasible that is. Is "buy and play" really the only factor in decision on whether to continue developing the game before moving to the next generation?

Existing games can be quite hard to upgrade to newer versions.

If they want to stick with the current dlc model, my stance would be to just release every dlc for free after a certain period of time, say 2 years.

That way we don't have 1000 permutations of the game knocking around depending on who owns what DLC, and instead of just 4 or 5.

And on a cost basis, with each DLC being on average 10$. A person who bought each DLC at release would have spent the equivalent of 4 times the cost of the base game. Given the game is 4 years old, mathematically it's basically the same as re-releasing the game every year with minor updates.

I think this would be better for fans, as if they take a year or two off from playing, and want to come back, they don't have as much of a cost in DLC to pay.

Also, I basically can't recommend this game to my friends to play, because the upfront cost of the DLC is too high. With the old DLC, they've already made their money, so I would just roll them into the base game.

Thing is, while there are lot of permutations PDX's data shows that most people who play regularly already get the DLC before the next one comes out.

That reads to me like, they have two expansions planned/ making progress on them. He even says right in that post that CK2 isn't ending.



Eh, I bring up the state limit because it's a very decidedly un-meiou like mechanic, because there's very little ways you can influence it and the cap is so low for seemingly no reason (. The way VeF has handled administrative bureaucracy is way better (lands administered directly by the crown tax it heavily, you can slowly improve either its size or quality through policies, and if you're having issue with it you can always do stuff like grant land to the nobles, the church, etc.).

I complained the same way when CE first came out, for very similar reasons, which were later iterated and made more interesting. Although, it still has the issue in 1.27 that there's really no way to control inland stuff like a steppe empire, other than with the regional capital which is difficult to judge how to use and gets more inefficient the larger you become. CE in 2.0 seems much improved though.

States work substantially differently in 2.0 at least, by repurposing mechanics we can make it less clunky.

 

[Shock360]

There is going to be less micro in 2.0, a lot less micro.

Game is much faster in 2.0, testers reporting a year being under 90 seconds (there is a lot more going on in game so most of the time that is too fast).

It will likely use the next generation of Clausewitz.

Existing games can be quite hard to upgrade to newer versions.

Thing is, while there are lot of permutations PDX's data shows that most people who play regularly already get the DLC before the next one comes out.

States work substantially differently in 2.0 at least, by repurposing mechanics we can make it less clunky.

That doesn't change anything. There's not a single person who will get EU4 just because of this mod. Just because there's less micro doesn't mean someone like me will download it

 

[Limith]

I would say there is less micromanagement in M&T than vanilla EU4. Most decisions operate at a higher level such that managing large countries is much easier. Many of the game mechanics work at a macro level. For example, development no longer is "click and spend monarch points" in specific provinces. Instead the direction you steer your country towards determines development growth. Thus, problems of "Paris in Africa" tend to not happen.

Similarly, in 2.0, provinces with high autonomy will no longer result in your country losing money into thin air. It will go to local wealth and estates who will spend the money on militia and province buildings for you. This means no more need to remember to check the autonomy tab every so often, the buildings tab to make sure something is being built in each and every province. Does this make steering a smaller country harder than vanilla? Possibly. In the long run though, I find M&T's simplifications make running a medium to large country much better. There are cases where I am busy fighting a minor war with a small power in one corner of the world and forget to build buildings for a year. Having the local provinces slowly improve themselves means I can focus on the war instead of remembering to pause and go on a building spree.

The idea that M&T is a "complicated" mod is a grave mischaracterization of the mod. Does it have different game mechanics than vanilla? Sure. But I would not consider them "complicated". As an average player, you do not need to know so much about the inner workings of the system. For example, if you are peaceful for a long period of time then your country's development will be higher than your neighbors. If you are overrun and your cities sacked, then your development will fall. Generally what happens in the game is a natural extension of what happens in real life.

The difference between M&T and Vanilla EU4 in my opinion can be best described by the type of agency you want as a player. M&T gives you macro tools. You build stability automatically over time and you can choose to increase it if needed for corruption in the future. While in vanilla EU4, you have immediate solutions that rely on monarch points. Press a button to increase stability whenever you want.

Another difference is that if you play M&T, you will find the game is not so reliant on monarch points. Many systems, such as the aforementioned stability and development, are no longer tied to monarch points. Thus, you won't find yourself choosing to save all your MP to dump into developments (to get institutions) and falling behind in technology for 10 years. Min/maxing monarch points is no longer so important, which leaves you free to explore other things to do.

 

[Politic Revolutionnaire]

Why has this thread turned from a discussion about the paradox DLC policy to someone trying to convince everyone about playing eu4 with M&T?

 

[Zerodv]

That doesn't change anything. There's not a single person who will get EU4 just because of this mod. Just because there's less micro doesn't mean someone like me will download it

Actually I bought this became because I know of Meiou from eu3 being there as well.

 

[Shock360]

Actually I bought this became because I know of Meiou from eu3 being there as well.

Though that's fair enough, the amount of people doing that would still be minimal and require you to already be a paradox fan

 

[Zerodv]

Though that's fair enough, the amount of people doing that would still be minimal and require you to already be a paradox fan

True.

 

[Don_Quigleone]

Game is much faster in 2.0, testers reporting a year being under 90 seconds (there is a lot more going on in game so most of the time that is too fast).

If this is indeed the case, I might actually play M&T. I liked what you guys did with development (and like the sound of what you're planning), though the size of the map less enthused me, but I was always held back by it being so slow as to be basically unplayable.

Thing is, while there are lot of permutations PDX's data shows that most people who play regularly already get the DLC before the next one comes out.

Why should PDX continue to maintain the illusion of choice then? That most people who play regularly own all DLC proves that the game is much more compelling and playable with all DLC installed, and perhaps points to new players being put off. The DLC model might work for a game like Total War, where you can sell new factions as DLC, but when it comes time to create new core mechanics, it just doesn't work well, as without the DLC some group of players will have a compromised play experience, that the game designers have spent little time designing for (IE not owning all DLC). I buy all non-cosmetic DLC, so I don't mind the price point (I judge myself to get my money's worth), but I'd prefer we ditch the charade for a more flexible development model. My biggest criticism of the current gen of PDX games is that they all suffer from feature bloat, which is largely a result of the DLC policy. You can't cut a bad feature if players paid good money for it, and every current gen PDX game has dozens of such half baked features (Native Americans in EU4, Muslim decadence in CK2). Good design involves creating AND cutting, and PDX DLC policy means there's only 1 direction for features -> more. More features does not a better game make. Those features also have to be good.

I mean the above as constructive criticism, I continue to love and play PDX games. I just think the current direction has some deep flaws.