Ideas for 2.2

[vanin]

So in my hopes of seeing a second patch for VV once HoI3 is released, I gathered a (very) small list of things that I think should be changed or added:

Marriages, I still want to be able to choose who the ruler and his/her children should marry, rather than seeing them marry idiots or people of the 'wrong' culture, wich ruins roleplay when my next ruler is persian and I play SE.

Throne Claimaints, i.e. siblings of the ruler or heir apparent. If such a claim isn't used it will die with the claimaint, so that the possibility of cicil strafe doesn't spiral out of control. Or these claims should stay and force you to have relatives removed to secure your power, wich was usual at the time. These claimants should be able to flee to other countries and get support. Connected with the point below.

Republic civil wars and Monarchy civil wars shouldn't be the same. In a monarchy, the only ones who should be able to launch a civil war are those who have a claim to the throne, not a governor and not a general. If a governor or a general revolts, it should be a region defection, and other governors with low loyalty should be able to join the revolter. A general who revolts should take the region he is in with him, as if he ousted or convinced its governor. The current system works well for republics, but imo it doesn't suit monarchies.

As you can see these ideas touch monarchies the most. I think that republics in their current state are rather fun to play, but I'd love to see the same diversity for monarchies. A neat element in-game as a monarchy would be that you, in the end, would have to dispose of everyone who have a possible claim to your throne. The Seleucid Empire is a prime example, its last years show how bad it can go if you let too many heirs stay alive.

 

[Bertouch]

Fix memory leaks.

 

[Cheexsta]

What I'd like to see for monarchies is the ability to form a co-regency, where the ruler and his heir rule the state together. It was very popular with the Hellenistic monarchs at the time.

There are a lot of things that can be done with monarchies, in fact. Other states should be able to support pretenders to the throne; conquering a monarchy should give the conquering state the opportunity to replace the king with one of the pretenders (or even just the heir), or keep the current ruler in place but take the heir as a prisoner to ensure good behaviour; kings should be able to divorce and remarry, leaving the current heir the choice of fleeing the country or starting a civil war, etc etc.

And yes, fixing the memory leak would be great, too

 

[Duke of Bavaria]

Nice ideas, but it would be somethign for version 10.21...i would say fix the random crashes first and major flaws...

 

[unmerged(117434)]

ya. fix what you've got first. then move on...

 

[Sute]{h]

Crazy people. The current version isn't so buggy, that we can't have new features in the next patch. Also some bugs might take a whole lot longer to fix than adding a nice new feature. I think of this in cost-benefit terms. For instance fixing the crash on exit bug might cost a lot of time, but it doesn't really add much in terms of enjoyment. So I don't see why we would want Paradox wasting time bughunting every little detail. EUR isn't ment to be running the life support system on a spaceship or anything like that. This isn't the same as saying, that i don't want gameplay affecting bugs fixed, but the priority should always be measured according to an enjoyment per manhour spend ratio.

 

[Bertouch]

Crazy people. The current version isn't so buggy, that we can't have new features in the next patch.

Perhaps if you'd been around since the first release, and seen the requests for very similar bugfixes, you might have a different perspective. And then again, given the way you've jumped in with assumptions, you might not.

Also some bugs might take a whole lot longer to fix than adding a nice new feature. I think of this in cost-benefit terms. For instance fixing the crash on exit bug might cost a lot of time, but it doesn't really add much in terms of enjoyment. So I don't see why we would want Paradox wasting time bughunting every little detail.

Of course not! A game that crashes every hour or so is perfectly sensible to settle for. After all, who do we think we are, paying customers, entitled to products that actually work?

 

[Sute]{h]

Perhaps if you'd been around since the first release, and seen the requests for very similar bugfixes, you might have a different perspective. And then again, given the way you've jumped in with assumptions, you might not.

Assumptions? Compared to what? Your "facts"? I fail to see how your experiences with Rome could be more real than mine or vice versa.

Ohh... and I've been around here since EU2 was the newest Paradox game, and pre-ordered Rome before it was released, so trying to shoot down my opinion based on seniority should be out of the question.

Of course not! A game that crashes every hour or so is perfectly sensible to settle for. After all, who do we think we are, paying customers, entitled to products that actually work?

I agree Rome shouldn't crash once per hour. Crashes can be caused by a lot of other stuff than crappy software though. Personally I don't experience that many crashes with Rome (not counting the crash on exit). Are you using the hotfixes mod? It solves the only CtD bug I've encountered so far.

 

[Bertouch]

Assumptions? Compared to what? Your "facts"? I fail to see how your experiences with Rome could be more real than mine or vice versa.

And I fail to see how your experience--that Rome's bugs are not severe, that Paradox shouldn't be "wasting time bughunting every little detail" (to use your own phrase) is any more real than mine. For the rest, if you're been around since EU2 was the newest game (about my term, as well), I'm frankly surprised to note you writing something as insensitive as this. This forum has witnessed a plethora of bug complaints, and not simply "little details," but major game stoppers, even recently. If I mistook you for a new arrival, it was because of your tone and your apparent lack of awareness of these serious issues that many players still face. You seemingly aren't among those players, but that doesn't render either their numbers or problems any less real, you see.

I agree Rome shouldn't crash once per hour. Crashes can be caused by a lot of other stuff than crappy software though. Personally I don't experience that many crashes with Rome (not counting the crash on exit). Are you using the hotfixes mod? It solves the only CtD bug I've encountered so far.

Ah, the less combative, less-telling-us-all-we're-Crazy-People approach. I can live with that. As I mentioned, there have been numerous threads about these problems--not just here, in the main forum, but on the tech page, as well. The latest patch didn't deal with some very important issues along these lines. There have been at least 3 threads since then in which quite a few people asked for those fixes.

Telling us they take time to fix, or that new features are more important, comes across (to me, at least) as your saying we haven't waited long enough since the game was initially released, or that it's a matter of bugfixes vs features, rather than both. I don't see why we can't have both, but if it becomes a choice, I would prefer to play a game that didn't crash on me, first. Besides, Paradox can always charge for the latter--as you know well they frequently have, in the past.

Still, as I wrote, I think any such distinction is artificial. CTDs in the game that cause problems for quite a few people--as those threads attest--should be fixed, and rolled into new patches along with features, if new features are still to be added. And assuming Paradox doesn't simply backburner the title seemingly forever, as they did to Crusader Kings.

 

[unmerged(117434)]

why you a smart a*s Bertouch?

 

[Cheexsta]

why you a smart a*s Bertouch?

That's not really necessary. He makes a valid point that, regardless of how stable the game is for some of us, some people are still having problems. If it's within PI's power to fix those problems, then they absolutely should. And he's right, I'd much rather a playable game rather than one with lots of features but constant crashes (I'm not getting constant crashes, but there are people who are getting them).

I can also see Sute]{h's point, that many new ideas that are suggested by people really aren't that hard to implement, and adding new features is more likely to increase sales of the product since they're more 'visible' to people outside the community than a few people being badly affected by bugs.

I'm inclined to agree with Bertouch's statement that it shouldn't be a question of one or the other, but more about getting both fixes and features. Fix whatever bugs you can, and add a few extra features. A patch doesn't have to be dedicated to just one or the other.

 

[unmerged(119342)]

While I do not have any crashes aside from those self-induced by my own tinkering with save games, it must stink for those who do get crashes a lot.

The general feeling I get is that once you are into VV 2.1 the game works well for most people. I only get the "exit the game" crash which still irritates me, but everything else works alright.

I save and backup a lot. I also come out of the game every few hours to shut it down and clean up temp files.

I agree that any patch should be a balance of bug fixes and new features that have been tested.

As to any major work on VV 21, do not hold your breath. Paradox is onto other games before any Rome 2 will come out. It seems that making mods and talking on the boards is where we are and will be for quite awhile to come.

Let's play nice and try to make the best of what we have by pooling our knowledge and skills rather than tearing at each other.

 

[Sute]{h]

I agree with Dgotrek that it seems like that for most people VV 2.1 works fine. Which is what I based by earlier statements on. If being utilitarian in my approach to patches makes me insensitive, I guess I'm going to have to live with that. I never stated that any of you guys were hallucinating or anything along those lines though. Obviously you do experience problems, and if it was within my power to solve them I would. When I used the word "crazy" note the smiley behind the sentence. Damn... I hate the fact that pranking doesn't come across right in writing.

Also I'm NOT saying that Paradox shouldn't fix bugs, I'm just making a case for the fact that a lot of people have suggest good minor improvements that would be easy to implement. And putting all of those ideas behind fixing EVERY bug would be wrong IMHO. No matter how much work they put into it a complex game like Rome will never be bug free.

Anyways this debate is quite moot. Paradox will fix the bugs they can, and they will add the features, they deem within the scope of a patch and good additions to the game. My main problem with saying "bug fixes" in a thread like this is that it isn't constructive in any way. Ideas for new features on the other hand might give the good people at Paradox some inspiration they wouldn't have thought of otherwise.

 

[Darthvegeta800]

Actually bugwise i never encountered many problems.
I can count the times the game crashed on the fingers of my hand.
Only odd thing i have is an error i occassionally get AFTER quitting the game.
There are bugs and problems but clearly not as severe for everyone.

 

[ForVictory]

I want more modding options like relationsip ratings.

 

[out]

Save hotkey groups in the savegame! Honestly this has got to be the most inexplicably missing feature in EUR/EU3. Is there any reason this hasn't been included already?

And for more wishes, I'd like to see the scenario files able to predefine more stuff at gamestart, including character, country and province flags, national ideas, laws, jobs, titles and armies.

 

[Cheexsta]

I want more modding options like relationsip ratings.

You already can...

Just not alliances.

Save hotkey groups in the savegame! Honestly this has got to be the most inexplicably missing feature in EUR/EU3. Is there any reason this hasn't been included already?

And for more wishes, I'd like to see the scenario files able to predefine more stuff at gamestart, including character, country and province flags, national ideas, laws, jobs, titles and armies.

Agreed. No more need for the Pyrrhus event...and no more underpowered Carthaginian navy.

 

[Altipueri]

A variable auto pause function?

So you can set the game to pause daily, weekly, monthly, quarterly or whatever - for those who are prepared to delegate, be deliberately inattentive, or keep emissaries waiting to the last moment.

(Hope this feature doesn't already exist - must RTFM)

 

[out]

So you can set the game to pause daily, weekly, monthly, quarterly or whatever - for those who are prepared to delegate, be deliberately inattentive, or keep emissaries waiting to the last moment.

(Hope this feature doesn't already exist - must RTFM)

No it doesn't already exist AFAIK. And yes it would come in very very handy for all the repeated diplo missions and ministers shuffling.

Talk about diplo missions, it should be tweaked a bit that envoys need 1 month minus one day to do a mission, rather than exactly one month. This way, when you send an envoy on January 1, you will have him back and ready for another mission on February 1 instead of February 2.

 

[ForVictory]

You already can...

Just not alliance

No u cant but we can do the alliances! :wacko: