Manual Exploration gone? If so why?
- Thread starter AdAstra
- 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.
- Status
...okay. I was on the fence for the whole day. I decided at the last minute to buy it.
As of now, I regret it.
As of now, I regret it.
You're correct, they said automated exploration would be an addition, not that it manual exploration would be disabled. I dont see the point of removing the ability to do it manually.
You guys are patting yourself on the back so hard about "beating me" you have impaired your ability to read. Also, TMIT - you used to give good feedback, now you just seem to be a hateful troll. That's the sad thing here.
Anyway, to help you out:
"1)Exploring the New World can be very rewarding, but also a bit tedious, as you have to manually control your explorers and conquistadors while they seek out new land for you to colonize and conquer. 2)In the El Dorado expansion we’ve added new systems for both land and sea exploration, but we’ll leave the land exploration for a later dev diary and instead talk about naval exploration.
3)Those with the El Dorado expansion will have an ‘Exploration Mission’ button in the unit panel that opens a list of possible missions that their explorers can undertake. "
1) Manual control is the tedious factor in exploration.
2) So we're gonna change that.
3) ED will add missions [instead].
No, it does not mention the range cap, but you said
Anyway, to help you out:
"1)Exploring the New World can be very rewarding, but also a bit tedious, as you have to manually control your explorers and conquistadors while they seek out new land for you to colonize and conquer. 2)In the El Dorado expansion we’ve added new systems for both land and sea exploration, but we’ll leave the land exploration for a later dev diary and instead talk about naval exploration.
3)Those with the El Dorado expansion will have an ‘Exploration Mission’ button in the unit panel that opens a list of possible missions that their explorers can undertake. "
1) Manual control is the tedious factor in exploration.
2) So we're gonna change that.
3) ED will add missions [instead].
No, it does not mention the range cap, but you said
The "Or" there means you would accept being shown one of the two things, you do not require both. I belive the range limitation was mention in a video, but I don't know for sure and I didn't mention it for that reason.
Yeah, I didn't see such an implication then, and still don't see it now. I think people were asking for clarification given Paradox's history of stealth changes. The fact that no one deigned to answer a question asked repeatedly is pretty pathetic.
No. We've all read it. We've been allowing for the possibility that we were mistaken. But your statements still don't communicate what was apparently intended all along. And your inability/unwillingness to clarify in that thread still strikes me as disingenuous.
Maybe it's more accurate to say that the DD was unclear enough to assume the worst case scenario as I've come to do with PD
It's just the way I figured, adding such an elaborate new system would really only make sense if the old one was going to be replaced. There are some "cues" in that regard in the DD. Please note that I'm in no way defending PD, it's bad communication on their part anyway.
Also, I'm increasingly coming off as a twat boasting about his incredible talent of precognition so I'll just leave it at that.
Last edited:
Reading that DD and concluding that manual exploration would be gone would be like reading the DD for AoW and concluding that you would no longer be able to manually create armies but would need to use the template tool. . .
For your #1, I can agree that manual exploration is tedious, but on #2 I have to call shenanigans. It doesn't say that it was changed, it says it ADDED features. Adding implies an addition to what is already in the system, not replacing said mechanic. Also, people on this thread have asked numerous times why it wasn't added in the patch notes and also why when directly asked in that DD thread not a single person from PDX deigned to respond back. Now you are coming on here and acting like those three sentences explain everything clearly, this is not a Robert Jordan novel and we shouldn't have to RAFO
Wait am I crazy? I totally expected to no longer be able to manually explore, I can see why it can be a problem, but I don't see of it as big as an issue as many people are making it out to be.
There is absolutely no reason to assume that manual exploration would be removed.
1) Manual control is tedious.
2) We'll improve/change that.
3) ED will add missions.
That's fine. That's what's written. That's clear. Your [instead] is the bit that is not actually mentioned and can only subjectively be considered to be implied. Nowhere does it actually clearly state that manual exploration will be removed entirely.
Again,
"adding B" =/= "replacing A entirely"
"adding B" =/= "removing A entirely"
So, let me get this straight, they added a system where exploration is now done a few sea zones at a time, with returns to the homeland inbetween them, and you expected to be able to keep exploring huge amounts of territory using the old system?
Sure, they could have worded it better, and they really should've told us that it would be dependant on colonial range, but the implication here is pretty clear to me.
Sure, they could have worded it better, and they really should've told us that it would be dependant on colonial range, but the implication here is pretty clear to me.
Hmph. At least I'm not stooping to name calling people here, speaking of "sad" things. I'm still happy to help members of this community with strategy, and I still regularly do it. I still regularly post suggestions to make things better, too. There are numerous occasions, even over the past two weeks, where I have defended mechanics and EU's changing them.
That said, this patch is pretty foul, and unlike you, I've no need to rely on name calling individuals. It's the practices I'm calling out here. It's frustrating and tiresome, especially in the face of a game I enjoy playing. You need a little arrogance to make a game like this good, because there are so many voices pulling in different directions. But you also need reality, and not the historical kind. From a design perspective, the team makes mistakes but it would be hard for anyone to do better in MOST cases. From an implementation standpoint, however, it's been awful at times, including right now, and that goes WAY beyond the issue presented in this thread. But, to humor you:
Adding features is not the same thing as removing or replacing features. Not only is it not explicitly stated that you removed manual exploration, quoted passage does not imply it, either.
The existence of a mission says absolutely nothing about the existence of the previous feature.
The problem is, your DD left out that "instead" part and #2 does not imply removing manual control. And as a result
You have satisfied neither. Now we get a claim that the other thing was explained only verbally in some video. I realize you guys value video pretty highly since you'll make esoteric changes based on watching certain ones, but the challenge was in the 1st developer diary, not the videos.
@Darkrenown's response is akin to the Scheming Bureaucracy event.
"This is simply a normal assumption of the executive office, as laid out in form 32B, on the administration of the Kingdom, whitepaper 48:53-D, on the transfer of power under certain circumstances, as modified by protective clauses 3, 8 and 12b, law 48-9 and edict 3W-4. What is there not to understand? Your majesty has signed all of them."
Uh, they advertised that they were adding a system that removed tedium. They did not indicate they were a removing a perfectly functional system that many people found perfectly satisfactory, if you gave them money.
Oh, but if you didn't pay them money or if you disable the DLC, you still have access to the much less problematic system.
In a hypothetical game where both the old and the new system coexist, I would much rather use the new system if I've got something else (like an important/complex war, or several wars all over the place) to think about. I couldn't count how many times I've lost explorers by forgetting about them and leaving them in open ocean somewhere under the manual system.
Neither system is actually clearly better than the other, insofar as the old system requires you having nothing else to work on to work to its full effectiveness, whereas the new one brings limitations with it.
Well, yeah. That's what 'adding' means. If they meant reworked/replaced, then they'd use that wording. If I expected them to remove or rework the old system, they'd have used that wording, much like they did when they redid the Curia for 1.8.
..... WTF.....
This along with natives having no ships to build is very disappointing. I hardly ever complain on these forums as I often think it all gets to carried away, however the removal of manual of exploration with out explicitly stating it is complete rubbish. Exploring by mission should be encouraged by it's benefits (no attrition etc) whilst manual is an option with draw backs.
Also exploration restricted by colonial range.... Shakes head.
This along with natives having no ships to build is very disappointing. I hardly ever complain on these forums as I often think it all gets to carried away, however the removal of manual of exploration with out explicitly stating it is complete rubbish. Exploring by mission should be encouraged by it's benefits (no attrition etc) whilst manual is an option with draw backs.
Also exploration restricted by colonial range.... Shakes head.
Fully support the decision to get rid of the old system
New one is great, h8rs etc.
- Status