Imperator - Development Diary #5 - 25th of June 2018
- Thread starter Johan
- 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.
The question is, will it be represented historically? because every Grand Strategy has women represented.
Proof is here in the thread, like I said based on the data set available (this thread) it is very clear what the majority is saying. again, based on the data set we have available right now which is ALL I am pointing out
Very well. Here's my reasoning. Like some people posted before me, drawing conclusions about the larger group (the customers) from a sample that is not random is shaky. My own example would have been drawing conclusions about Christians at large by talking predominantly to the Westboro Baptist Church. The data you have shouldn't be used that way.
The opinions *may* be shared between the larger group and the sample but there is no basis for *assuming* so, since there are important differences between the group and the sample. In our case, I'd argue that those who engage on the forums are the most dedicated and interested of PDX's customers. Presumably that also entails some previous experience with PDX games.
For instance, some people brought up Vicky 2 as having a superior pop system and argued this was a step down (and in complexity, it is). I assume many people on this forum have played VIc 2 and know why I:R just won't compete. But have the majority of the people who will play I:R played Vic 2? What if their first game was Stellaris, CK2, or EU4? To them, the pop system could arguably be seen as a step *forward*. Point is, we can probably assume that any forum disproportionately draws in the more experienced, skilled and interested parts of the playerbase. And with that, their perspective becomes disproportionately salient in the forum.
The reason I reacted earlier was not really due to any percieved faults of reasoning on anyone though. I felt that some posters (not you personally) justified some uncivil postings and dismissed conflicting opinions with representing the majority opinion.
Edit: This discussion has probably gone on longer than it should. Let's just agree to disagree at this point.
Last edited:
I reckon it's more on topic than most of crap posted in this thread. This is a thread about population and demographics - seems like representation of women is entirely on topic to me.
For some reason a lot of male snowflakes get really offended whenever anyone mentions anything about representations of women in computer games, though. It's quite sad, really.
Almost any "Pop" system is a step forward when it comes to Stellaris. That Dev Diary was the first Red Flag, and frankly it should have prevented me from giving that Dev Team even a Dime of my money.
When Vic 2 Pops are Mentioned, it seems as if some decide that Vic 2 Pops need to be adopted in their Entirety. Well, needs have been severely abstracted, so that aspect is already out the window. So I've instead come to the Conclusion that people might not want them entirely, but certain aspects that made nation building Organic and Flow with Player Influence. While clunky in their implementation, PDX was definitely onto something, otherwise people wouldn't be groaning at all about it.
To name a few:
Cultural Assimilation?
Migration?
Hell, even a basic promotion system CAN work in the case of the flow of produced goods and wealth in certain areas of the various Empires to centralized areas of Development.
Player Influence, leads to results that don't involve me pressing a button to do it instantaneously. For me, it makes it feel more satisfying and deep that the game will change based on my choices, not how many buttons I press. Which im now starting to speculate that Johan has hired Peter Moleneux as a Personal Consultant...how pressing a button to change a Pop's Religion to increase Happiness made it past QA as a Good Design decision and to ANNOUNCE IT IN A DD, is shocking to me.
People who actually give a Damn about this Game's Future come onto the Forum and Pay Attention to it and give their input. The Game is on Steam, if you Like PDX Titles, you'll look into other stuff they Develop, and what has been Announced, especially with E3 wrapping up. The Like and Dislike Ratio is HEAVILY Polarized among a Community that is strongly Passionate about GSGs, and Paradox as a Company to continue making them. Sure, they're a drop in the pond as compared to overall sales...
But dismissing the opinions of the most engaged and passionately supportive base, no matter how large or small, is just as Equally Stupid.
And to Wrap Up.
Given how quickly Polarized this DD got due to the lack of Information given about these design decisions...and no, no, no is the only response we get without any reassurances about why these decisions were made and what led to them being implemented that way doesn't do you service. In fact, I and many others no longer support one of your titles for similar reasons, but at least they made it off the Starting Line. You're going to lose people before we even enter the Starting Blocks if this is what we're to expect in the future.
Last edited:
- Dec 14, 1999
- 18.402
- 38.945
What reassurances do you need, if you can't trust me to know how to make a great GSG?
My question would be: how dynamic is the system you plan to create?
The main reason a lot of people use CK2 or V2 is because their systems are dynamic - characters in CK2 have their own goals and live their own lifes (so to speak), same goes for POPs in V2, while EU4 was on the opposite end of the spectrum.
To give an example: in EU4 in order to change culture of a province you had to pay mana, which came from your ruler. It was much less interesting as a result. In CK2 you weren't the only factor governing these changes, which at some point presented interesting challenges (such as having Catholic king in charge of an Orthodox kingdom). Even troops are a very good example as well. Vassals in CK2 provide troops, but when they rebel they take their troops away and turn them on you. In V2 soldiers associated with rebelling POPs would also turn on you. There was no such thing in Stellaris and I didn't notice it in EU4 either, back when I was playing these games.
We do know that generals can rebel and take their armies with them but, realistically, how much of a threat will one army be? Can a multiple discontent generals form an agreement between themselves to force "Senate" (or you - the player) to give in to their demands (like vassals banding together to force a ruler to see things their way, like in CK2)? How dynamic will be the social status of POPs in Imperator? Are they basically bound to grow and die only (unless manually promoted) or will there be more in store that you simply didn't want to spoil?
I wouldn't be opposed to an idle/Fallout Shelter-type game where you only have to make decisions once a day. That isn't a GSG though.
Lack of information? Wait until the next development diary.
Pop dynamism that reflects the pop dynamism of the period. Military that does not just appear from a big pot like EU4 - preferably tied to pops, so that wars feel real. If pops are not tied to militaries then general rebelling will have no meaning, because the imperium of Rome will be large enough that you can just recruit more men. Basically what Holy.Death said.
Also, who are you in Rome? You're definitely not a person, which means you could be the Senate. If you're the senate, do you have to vote on things? This means you're not really the senate, it means you're a subset of the senate. The smallest division of the senate is a person, but you're definitely not just a person.
Last edited:
So would you say that HOI4 is not a GSG because it doesn't require an insane amount of clicks/action like HOI3?
Sorry, but amount of clicks/action is a very dumb criteria to decide what is or isn't a GSG.
If Paradox is going to provide us with bare-bones diaries, they can hardly complain when we complain the diaries are bare-bones. I highly doubt the next DD or any DD for the next several months is going to say "yeah look so those pop things we said earlier? those were wrong and we're going to do another dev diary about them". I know they did this with HoI but I don't think it's a good idea to just assume Paradox is feeding us bogus information on purpose.
I'm really uncomfortable saying this but...
The fact that you are indeed capable of creating great GSG doesn't equate that all your design decisions will be flawless or without question. Despite how great, you're human after all.
Bare bones DD's are generally fine. They take time to make after all, time detracted to development time.
On the other hand, when controversy seriously arises, like case in point, I think expanding the DD to justify design choices would do everyone a favour.
On the other hand, when controversy seriously arises, like case in point, I think expanding the DD to justify design choices would do everyone a favour.
If DDs are purely marketing choices, then this DD has serious flaws in that department, because it's making me like their game less. If DDs are to allow us to help them make good design choices, this DD is a failure because it is either misrepresenting their design choices or they are making (in the opinion of many, and also of myself) bad design choices - generating controversy.
If a DD is a combination of the two then it fails on both fronts at the same time.
In any of the three cases, that's why it should be expanded to justify the decisions within
And look I just 100% agree with you friend, but I'm not expecting that kind of diary from Paradox.In any of the three cases, that's why it should be expanded to justify the decisions within
Just no
Every POP is a rapresentation of a certain amount of population, not a single person. Else rome would be like 40 people? Absurd of course.
If a single pop is 1000 people, in those 1000 women are included.
Sure, in certain societies women were more important than in others (Sparta, for instance has am economic system that ran on women. Etruscans had women in their upper class, while in Rome women had power only if their chili/hausband were in a position of power and she was very influential on him.) and i'd love to see those represented in an appropriate manner.
But not now, not concernono the general populace.