.png){kind=avatar}
.png){kind=avatar}
Didn't know about forum situations but WHO:AoR had also other issues. Over ambitious oRvR map design (whoever thought that, it is fine to design whole zone with chokepoint few character models wide, in which few thousand players will have to push through; was not blessed with foresight) leading to poor performance on engine that was already not as well polished as main competition. Not exactly mirror-like balance also hurt (the game went from dominance of Witch Elves + Witch Hunters to nerfing them and thus Bright Wizards/Sorceress overpopulation - previously kept in check by stealth classes) Also EA graciously, was siphoning away devs from project for it's own MMO (Star Wars), which definetely helped content draught. First update/expansion added missing classes, then we got something that looked like half an expansion (Land of Dead) and by the time last content (Skaven) arrived the game was already in terminal state. Also funnily all those were PvE additions for... PvP mainly game.
You must be new to the internet... Initially that would most likely trigger a much more "toxic" environment. But that's just my experience based on 25+ years using the internet.
I have always found that article (and its sources) to be a bad look for Paradox, but I rarely visit the HoI4 forums which seems to have been the initial trigger for it. The most effective way to fill the forums with positive feedback would be to release products they can be reasonably certain the vast majority of customers will be satisfied with. Nothing anyone ever says can convince me that was the case with releases such as Imperator and EU4 Leviathan (which is referenced in that article).
It doesn't matter how good or bad the content other companies releases are. The core of the issue is that a lot of people aren't happy with the quality of the content Paradox released. Paradox has been selling significantly more games in recent years, and as a general rule, more unhappy customers will generate more negative feedback. More happy customers will generate more positive feedback.
I think you misunderstand. I am not complaining about what other people say about the devs. I was merely sharing a pet theory of mine, in a post filled with obvious absurdities mind you, as to why people behave as they do and why such behavior is unlikely to change. No more, no less.
Someone compared PDX to Mythic Entertainment/EA Mythic, so I offered some insight/history. It just didn't seem to be a fair comparison nor constructive one. Also let's not forget that internet landscape changed over last decade with advent of reddit. I'm tend to believe reddit has more positive vibe, as it is more of hands-free experience (people will see related pdx topics in their feed while looking for 1000 other things, while this forum requires more direct intent to interact with). Thus forums keep changing in direction of more hardcore/critical audience. Also there is generational shift - numbers aren't bad for currently playing people. So chances are that people like you or me, not happy with direction of changes in product might just be phased out. Also the world and people approach to digital product evolved across years (because of plethora of options): good things are expected, bad things are much less tolerated.
Did it define it, perhaps not. But it still respected its importance in the time period. This is a time period where there's supposed to be two opium wars, the Crimean war, the Brothers war of Austria and Prussia, the Franco-Prussian war, the two Boer wars, multiple invasions of Afghanistan, the Spanish-American war, the first Sino-Japanese war, the Russian-Japanese war, and of course the great war. Vicky 3 can barely even get a single Opium war to function and forgets entirely about most of the list.
The first month was abysmal. Stuttering and complete absense of developer feedback at the forums or anywhere else. Devs were absent.
I would argue not. It might fit the beginning of the timeframe and arguably WW1 because of how width worked, but I personally don't think it simulated well some of those wars you listed.
Good. sliders were unnecessary.
Something like this is actually really unlikely. The worst version of something like this that could realistically happen is them adding more to warfare for free in an patch, but put some flavour or minor mechanic in an expasion, like with how NSB for HoI4 handled the new supply system.
Except of course there are those of us who enjoy a non-warfare focused Paradox game where we can play tall rather than wide. I get that there are those who want to play a war focused game in the Victorian era, but that doesn't mean everyone does. I'm happy to got to HOI4 for my PDS warfare fix and EU4 for map painting. And personally, if I want WWI wargaming, I play Commander: The Great War (really good game btw).
The people that left or didn't recommend the game didn't do so necessarily because of warfare, though.Well, there is not much of your kind it seems
Victoria 3 is green.
Well two thirds like it, one third don't. I suspect most of those who don't like it were expecting something different. Victoria 2 reloaded, or EU4 1800 perhaps.Well, there is not much of your kind it seems
Victoria 3 is green.
Even less of yours, if you want to use that argument, since Victoria 3 is the most popular iteration of the franchise by a country mile.
This is what frustrates me the most. After I played Victoria 2, I thought it was obvious that every Paradox GSG from then on should have mechanics like POPs, militancy, consciousness and autonomous private sector economy, because they elegantly solved almost all issues GSGs had with senless blobbing and being a omnipotent dictator of your country. They didn't do so perfectly, but I said to myself that this was just the initial version of these mechanics and they would get more refined in time. Victoria 2 wasn't some kind of ultra-complex economy simulator - it was a sequel to EU3, but with the added Chemical X of the above mentioned mechanics, which truly made the genre work.
