[Megathread] Golden Century - is this it?

[Bayes]

I see your point, but they chose their timing poorly then. First dlc to directly address Iberia in 5 years and they pull this off, yes they will piss off a lot of people. And I think that has shown in the forums, especially today. The region glaringly needed a facelift to improve gameplay.

I think you are right, personally I wish that someone so iconic, and that usually takes up as much space in the game as spain and portugal does could benefit alot from some more attention.
That being said I think giving pirates a couple of spins could be fun.

 

[iNFERnozz]

I don't think developing EU5 is the right step for now. Abandoning EU4 at the current state isn't going to improve players' confidence towards EU5 as players have invest so much on the DLCs in addition to the risks and costs of designing a new game from scratch.

IMO, what EU4 really needs right now is a huge overhaul of the base game mechanics (something like Patch 2.0) instead of map reworks and new modifiers. Trade and production mechanics haven't changed much from the base game as it remains heavily abstracted. Wars heavily favor vassalization/taking land as trade wars aren't even worth it. Even the current peacetime mechanics in EU4 feels lacking other than just pressing develop province button as estates interactions can be mostly ignored after the Dharma updates.

What I've also noticed in EU4 is that a lot of the mechanics tend to be a binary of positive bonus or none at all. A good example of this is mercantilism and patriarch authority. Unlike the older version, there is no benefit to stay at 0. It doesn't make players consider the trade offs going for one way or the other such as piety for Muslims (even then there is no malus). Most of those "get bonus for some malus" bonus are relegated to decisions instead, which are generally permanent choices if taken. Basically, this gravitates players to "stack 100 absolutism/mercantilism/innovativeness etc." and make choices one-sided.

Realistically, I feel that a huge overhaul, at the current state of EU4, is rather unlikely because it isn't guaranteed to both please the current player base and make the game more appealing to newer players. In particular, I've mentioned in an older thread that this is going to be a huge mess as it will screw with mechanics locked behind past DLCs. Players are going to complain if an important mechanics they paid for in an older DLC suddenly gets revamped to the point that the DLC doesn't feel necessary anymore.

 

[silentmajority]

Mismanagement of expectations entirely. Putting the Europe back into Europa sure thing.

who's fault is it that you had expectations that were unrealistic for a non expansion, but an immersion dlc?

 

[silentmajority]

Woops, I'm suppose to be silent and not comment on the minority position.

 

[Franciscus123]

Woops, I'm suppose to be silent and not comment on the minority position.

Clear troll account is clear. You could at least have been original with the name.

And when one says expectations it means what they made people believe the dlc was about in the first place when they announced it. But no point in explaining that to you.

 

[silentmajority]

Clear troll account is clear. You could at least have been original with the name.

And when one says expectations it means what they made people believe the dlc was about in the first place when they announced it. But no point in explaining that to you.

Nah I've had this account for years, just never bothered associating it with a forum account. I just couldn't resist today since all the redic I've read. Who on earth would buy games just to make a troll account, I mean seriously. Maybe you make a crap ton more than me, but even on sale not gonna pay money for an account to discuss how wrong you are about your opinions. Maybe I should point out to you the obvious about opinions???

 

[silentmajority]

there added one of my hidden items from way back when to my um, under my name

 

[Franciscus123]

Explain how our opinions are wrong them. There are many threads and posts so feel free to discuss the points we have put forward.

 

[silentmajority]

Explain how our opinions are wrong them. There are many threads and posts so feel free to discuss the points we have put forward.

Unrealistic expectations or just shoving a view down everyone's throat without wondering if it could effect game play? Or just that you aren't getting what you wanted/ hoped for?

 

[silentmajority]

Love the spam disagrees that have nothing to do with the discussion, such a wonderful tactic. Ya all must be proud!

 

[Franciscus123]

Unrealistic expectations or just shoving a view down everyone's throat without wondering if it could effect game play? Or just that you aren't getting what you wanted/ hoped for?

Ah but you see we have explained those points extensively and how gameplay would be affected, most likely for the better. But I see you are simply jumping on the bashing wagon for the sake of it and haven't actually bothered to look into it.

 

[silentmajority]

Ah but you see we have explained those points extensively and how gameplay would be affected, most likely for the better. But I see you are simply jumping on the bashing wagon for the sake of it.

Not at all. I mean yes I may have missed some and I apologize if my comments fail to take those in, but from what I've read, the gameplay expressed is immersion and doesn't take into consideration the actual GAME and how it might break balance (as seen by the devs as lets face it there are some things about the AI ) I use to be a programmer, and my first thought is always about, if there are underlying things that could cause idea A to break all the crap in the background. So in explaining how great your ideas are, have you seen the code?

 

[Golladan]

I just reviewed the DD which introduced the holy orders and the map changes to the Americas, and even though I know the latter were needed, I am quite angered again at how much interest they actually put into this region at the neglect of Iberia. A shame.

Americas was done by someone outside the Paradox development team.

Mismanagement of expectations entirely. Putting the Europe back into Europa sure thing.

You were expecting a Third Rome (dlc with mechanics limited to the countries that were in focus). You got a Rule Britannia (dlc with mechanics broader in scope but with extra stuff for the countries in focus).

Third Rome was hated because of its limited scope. That's why Rule Britannia was how it was. Which was better received than Third Rome. So they followed that route. But now they're being hated because it's not limited? =/

 

[silentmajority]

Americas was done by someone outside the Paradox development team.
You were expecting a Third Rome (dlc with mechanics limited to the countries that were in focus). You got a Rule Britannia (dlc with mechanics broader in scope but with extra stuff for the countries in focus).

Third Rome was hated because of its limited scope. That's why Rule Britannia was how it was. Which was better received than Third Rome. So they followed that route. But now they're being hated because it's not limited? =/

dude you're gonna be so down voted by the same peep that down vote anything that doesn't conform to their worldview. Hope your ego can handle it.

 

[HydroAC]

I've disliked the last few updates, especially Dharma. My visceral response to recent DLCs, immersion packs, and updates since 1.25 has been **yawn** or **ick!**.

So for me EU4 is set at 1.25.1 and from what I've seen there is no reason to change.

EU4 is on the shelf and my free time is now spent with CK2. I'm finishing up a CK2 campaign and when that is done I'm REALLY excited to start one with Holy Fury!

 

[Franciscus123]

Americas was done by someone outside the Paradox development team.
You were expecting a Third Rome (dlc with mechanics limited to the countries that were in focus). You got a Rule Britannia (dlc with mechanics broader in scope but with extra stuff for the countries in focus).

Third Rome was hated because of its limited scope. That's why Rule Britannia was how it was. Which was better received than Third Rome. So they followed that route. But now they're being hated because it's not limited? =/

You're right on the Americas part, went back to double check so will withdraw my statement. Still they could just have done the same and gone outside the team with all the proper feedback that was provided as follow up, but let's not go into that again.

On the 2nd note, I think it has more to do with how a lot of people have been, before GC was announced or was even in the pipeline, waiting for a long time for Iberia to get a proper look at. You can't say it has been either historically accurate (but there is a lot of room for debate in there of course) or competitive - player controlled like with any other nation it does well, but it will end up struggling to assert itself against its more competitive neighbours (in multiplayer it is particularly harder given RNG prone Iberian Wedding and if there is a specially aggressive France player). The same can be said of Portugal, which was barely touched. They could have taken the chance to spice up the naval challenges in Europe and beef up a Tier 1 nation just a bit (ideas as stands are ludicrous, I think we can agree there no?). We did get kind of a RB but still the changes are disappointing as pointed out by many in other threads and also in this one.

I get your point on the scope of the pack itself and the IP is still being defined. But the hate comes not only from the features themselves, but also from the lack of response. These dev diaries I believe have had the greatest negative feedback ever in all of EU4 (correct me if I'm wrong) and have had the most amount of player suggestions. However, barely any of the feedback was addressed or mentioned, or acknowledged. Yes, I know they are not obliged to, but I think the amount of work that the community on these forums put in - and a lot of people really were involved, it wasn't just one or two spotted cats - warrants some attention. The silence is deafening.

 

[Lepaso]

I feel like we should get a proper response as to what qualifies as an Immersion Pack, since what they think is acceptable, what they've given us, is just baffling and where a lot of the anger comes from, I think.

Should we expect all future Immersion Packs to contain:
1-3 new government (reforms)
1-3 new (small/localized/insignificant) mechanics
1-2 new set of tributtons
1-3 big new mission trees that will take up the vast majority of dev time since they're so difficult to make
1-5 national idea changes/additions
a host of questionable map changes
some other miscellaneous thing

If that's all we can expect from an Immersion Pack, then GC is the "perfect" example of what we can get.

You were expecting a Third Rome (dlc with mechanics limited to the countries that were in focus). You got a Rule Britannia (dlc with mechanics broader in scope but with extra stuff for the countries in focus).
Third Rome was hated because of its limited scope. That's why Rule Britannia was how it was. Which was better received than Third Rome. So they followed that route. But now they're being hated because it's not limited? =/

People hated Third Rome's scope because they didn't understand the concept of an Immersion pack and were expecting something like Mare Nostrum or Res Publica, I guess? After we got the disaster that was Rule Britannia, it became abundantly clear that Third Rome at least did what it said on the tin - giving stuff to Russia and thereabouts - while RB was lackluster because of a completely misguided conception that awful, irrelevant global mechanics are better. Sort of like the Henry Ford quote - faster horses, and whatnot. People thought they wanted a more global focus for Immersion Packs. Turns out that was a pretty stupid request and RB/GC/Iberia got screwed over as a result.

 

[Had a dad]

just to set the record straight since conspiracy theorists have descended here... the devs are not the ones deleting posts, infracting people or locking threads, that is all done by the moderators which are not tied to the developers in any way. sorry if this seams a bit out of place but I've just deleted and infracted some post

 

[Ben119]

who's fault is it that you had expectations that were unrealistic for a non expansion, but an immersion dlc?

What were your expectations for GC? And do you really feel like the features are going to change how any nation in Iberia plays?

 

[Xdevo]

Third Rome was poorly received because it was the DLC immediately after the disastrous price increase. Rule Brittania wasn't 'better' received as a DLC because it had more global features; it was because it didn't coincide with an atrocious business decision.

Rule Brittania not containing a lot of UK unique features was "okay" because England and UK had insane amounts of flavor already, including a unique govt, the most DHEs in the game, and never had a huge issue with being eaten every other game. Spain on the other hand does lack flavor compared to historical importance, doesn't have a unique govt, really doesn't have that many DHEs, and is constantly being eaten by France and/or Morocco.

Even if GC weren't supposedly focused on Iberia, it wouldn't be a great "small" dlc. Most of the pirate mechanics won't be seen unless the player specifically spawns them. Minority Expulsion costs more than it'll benefit. Naval Barrage is solely going to be useful for the pre-cannon era. Establish Orders isn't useful since it has such terrible requirements. So at the end of the day, this DLC contains units (1 of which exists without being released), ship models (!!!!!), 3-4 songs, and mission trees.

I get that EU4 is low on developing staff thanks to Rome 2, but that should mean longer development cycles, not a 3 month - 3 patch cycle. The DLC was incredibly rushed, and it really shows. Immersion Packs already have a super-duper low standard set, but each one somehow seems to be worse than the last.