Independent empires are too flexible, and vassals are not flexible enough

[Azhcristokos]

It seems really easy to convince an ally of similar strength to become your vassal. I just found it odd how an empire that was my equal in almost every way didn't hesitate to swear fealty and give up diplomatic freedom in exchange for shared sensors, the freedom to expand, and my back in its wars, all of which it already had via our treaties. I am over the moon that diplomatic subjugation is possible now, but maybe it's a bit too easy.

Conversely, I don't feel like I am able to make full use of the new vassal system because my vassals have a phobia of tribute and would rather embrace annexation than give me 15% of their basic resource income, not to mention the fact that none of them will agree to become any type of specialist subject other than a bulwark.

Overall, Overlord is cool and I like the new vassal mechanics, but how the AI weighs its diplomatic decisions in these unequal relationships could use some tweaking.

 

[SirBlackAxe]

There's currently a game-breaking bug where AIs don't take relative power into account when determining if they're willing to accept being subjugated.

 

[Baro]

Imagine if paradox tested their game for balance and bugs before release.

 

[Yalson]

Imagine if paradox tested their game for balance and bugs before release.

Yeah but why pay employees to test the game when the gaming community / customers will do it for free? And buy the game to do it?
Isn't this pretty much the accepted norm now?

 

[Ffc]

Exact same experience

I've a bulwark vassal which is too strong for me, it drains my economy, it's a bit dumb

 

[Skyfus]

Yeah but why pay employees to test the game when the gaming community / customers will do it for free? And buy the game to do it?
Isn't this pretty much the accepted norm now?

Thing is, they could pick a halfway compromise by having a volunteer tester team of players who just want to help improve the game, and who may occasionally receive a free DLC. They used to do that, at least, because I knew someone who was on there. Then around the time of EU4 Leviathan I guess they just stopped listening or scrapped it.

 

[Xenith_Shadow]

Yeah but why pay employees to test the game when the gaming community / customers will do it for free? And buy the game to do it?
Isn't this pretty much the accepted norm now?

To be fair pretty sure they have already stated before that more testing can be done by players in the first hour of release than can be done by the QA stuff in the entire development time.
As an example lets give them 25 QA tester who play the game 5 days a week all day for the 3 month development time. If you have 50000 players playing they will have equivalent player time to the testers in 0.72 hours.
The point is that it's infinitely more feasbile to release a mostly work product with some minor bug's/ exploits than try to internally test for them.

 

[currylambchop]

Yeah but why pay employees to test the game when the gaming community / customers will do it for free? And buy the game to do it?
Isn't this pretty much the accepted norm now?

The obvious compromise is labelling 3.4.2 a beta

 

[PedroLuiz]

Yeah but why pay employees to test the game when the gaming community / customers will do it for free? And buy the game to do it?
Isn't this pretty much the accepted norm now?

and they won't even remember it happened a month or two after the fact

 

[Arngrim]

Imagine if paradox tested their game for balance and bugs before release.

It's like this is a different version than the one featured in the content creator multiplayer feature...

 

[Jean-Luc]

Exact same experience

I've a bulwark vassal which is too strong for me, it drains my economy, it's a bit dumb