Making Development/Estates Free?

[Mr_Hobo]

Given the news that Stellaris is making a stripped-down version of Ascension Perks a free feature (formerly paid; https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...ascension-perks-surveying-in-cherryh.1054985/) is there any chance this could happen with Estates/Development? I know there's been discussion of this before, but seeing a reduced-feature version be available seems like a good compromise.

Estates could have three basic options (nobles, clergy, and burghers) with unique estates available to owners of the DLC. This could also be an opportunity to add those cool event chains we were promised a while back.

Development could have the three basic upgrade buttons with unlocking building slots. The DLC would give access to unique development events and maybe some sort of urban expansion feature.

These changes would allow development and estates to have integrated features, something that would really help the game's depth.

 

[Dalos]

Yes, I'd love to see them expanded in the future DLCs.

 

[LukeCorn]

This. No need to keep features paywalled if we can improve the game by making (a part) of them free. I really hope that a next patch wi focus on uniting the disparate systems of the dlc's. It would really help the game

 

[lolada]

There was a discussion about this earlier. I was surprised to see Stellaris unlocking some features, while EU team kept them locked.

If there's no legal issues there, EU4 should also unlock development and estates (and whatever else is needed), because some locked feature punish vanilla players in really ugly ways (it feels the game is pay to win). And we also know that it would enable better/easier development and integration of the game mechanics. Win-Win scenario for both players and devs.

 

[FleetingRain]

Put Estates in the base game and the MP-granting interactions behind The Cossacks paywall.

People will still buy it.

 

[al.gb]

The developers themselves confessed that they screwed up with the estates. Let's hope that they fix their mistakes and improve and expand estates system.

 

[Mr_Hobo]

I can understand being against it if it's just "this DLC's features are now free." But if the DLC still unlocks some of the cool stuff and it allows for mechanic integration then I completely support it.

Development and Estates are related but can't be connected right now, which is frustrating. They're also lackluster and deserve to be updated.

 

[MiniaAr]

Basic Estates and interactions as part of the base game: Burghers, Clergy, Nobility, Tribes, Dhimmis.

Special estates and interactions under a relevant DLC:
- Cossacks estate with cossacks special units under the Cossacks DLC. It's the name of the freaking DLC after all.
- Further DLCs can add country specific flavourful estates. Mameluk estate for Mameluke government and Qizilbash estate for Persia, given to owners of CoC DLC come to mind. Maybe Streltsy estate for owners of Third Rome...

As an owner of the Cossacks DLC since day one, I would welcome such a change.

 

[Mr_Hobo]

@DDRJake Is there any Dev interest in something like this?

 

[cplfernandez]

I'd literally pay to have them make it free so they could actually expand upon it lol.

 

[Badesumofu]

I don't get why anyone has ever thought there could be 'legal issues' with this. What possible legal issues are there with giving something away that has previously been sold? You don't buy an exclusive right to use certain features when you buy a DLC, just the right to use them.

Making Estates baseline seems like a no-brainer to me. I don't think too many people would complain about it once they realise that it allows the devs to make the game better. And it's not like anyone is losing anything, either.

 

[cplfernandez]

I'm actually curious to know what kind of sales numbers they get selling old DLC. I wonder if it would be more beneficial to just release all non-flavor DLC after a year or two. Not like I would wait an entire year if it is actually a cool expansion. Sadly their current setup is the opposite, if I don't like the DLC I wait until it is 5 dollars or less before I buy it, especially considering DLC features are nearly abandoned once the next DLC is released.

 

[in heaven]

Development is too important to be locked behind a paywall, I agree 100% with making it free.

 

[GRWalker]

As a recent precedent, Blizzard has made the base Starcraft II game (single- and multiplayer) free. I haven't followed if there has been any legal or social backlash.

 

[cristofolmc]

Basically this. They need to stop throwing shitty DLCs focusing on parts of the world and fix the core mechanics system and work on the core mechanics of the game for the next patch. The Estates system REALLY needs to be improved upon A LOT since it had a lot of potential but they failed to do so because of the paywall. It could be something huge and make the game much more dynamic. This, along with the implementation of the development system in the vanilla game, making them both interact with each other, would improve IMMENSLY the game.

I dont agree though with the proposal of removing events and make them paywall. The point of this is so it can be improved and part of the improvment is the ability of adding events and flavour to the core mechanics (such as development and estates) of the game. I agree tho that in future mini DLC focused on certain countries they could add paied estates but thats about it. It needs to be as core as warfare or trade to be fully functional and make the most of it patch after patch
Otherwise there is no point in implementing such good ideas as the estates if you are going to left them barebones when it could be a core part of the game like war or trade is. Many of the complains about the estates i think comes from the lack of effort the devs put on it. It could be so much more fun if they could make it a more "organic" and dynamic feature, influencing the decitions of your kingdom, having to fight and negotiate with them to impleent certain decitions and policies (such as colonization, wars, alliances) as much as fighting the estates themselves if you so desire to reduce the power the have to force your decisions.

Plus, it would also be cool they took a look at the MEIOU and taxes estates. Its super cool because they have ACTUAL money and ACTUAL troops thepending of how much of the autonomy of each territory they control. I think this could be easily implemented and improve the game LOADS.

I'd like to know what @Johan thinks about it.

This. No need to keep features paywalled if we can improve the game by making (a part) of them free. I really hope that a next patch wi focus on uniting the disparate systems of the dlc's. It would really help the game

 

[Mr_Hobo]

The events I was references were ones that would happen when (for example) you used the Call Diet action. They were never implemented, and it would be nice to actually have them in game. If it takes adding them to a DLC, so be it.

 

[hwoosh]

Tying development to monarch points was a mistake from the start. I'd like to see that entire system ripped out and replaced with something better.

 

[Dalos]

I think Jake played it safe this time (probably because it was his first expansion without Johan) since there is no big change for core features in CoC. (correct me if I'm wrong)

For me it's ok, but we had two DLCs in a row that haven't had this kind of change (Third Rome was "Content Pack" though) so hopefully next time we'll get rework of trade or something of similar importance.

Jake also promised to wrap up his plans (probably at the start of the next year) so I'm really looking forward to that.

 

[Sfan]

We all know what the plans will be. The game starts without independant Byzantium, and Scotland and Ryukyu are allied.

 

[CoolSpin]

Didn't we have like 3 threads with umpteen pages long on this exact topic a few months ago? If someone could link them (I didnt read past the first 5 pages), please link them here..