My Comments about the 1.2 Patch All are Welcome to Post!

[unmerged(21852)]

Thank you Benny. I now know why you're not satisfied, and there were no need to bring on any majority to it at all. Good.

Let's hope those issues will be taken care of so many will be pleased in the end.

// Rico

 

[unmerged(1104)]

Reasons Why I Do Not Like 1.02

5- But MOST OF ALL, for a gamer like me it simply is not fun to sit for hours in an early game and build factories, stare at my stockpiles and hope certain goods will come up and watching my factory create a surplus of .07 steel and needing 4 fabric factories to supply a clipper factory that makes .07 clippers and a regular clothing factory that makes .34 clothes a day, and all that after 10 years of gameplay...Challenging? Yes. Abstract and good way of simulating the slow process of industrialization? Yes.In ANY way fun and entertaining? Not in the least.

Whoaaaa Dude, hold the fort!
That is a good part of what I like about strategy games with depth.
I think what we got here is a good example of never being able to please everyone all the time. For me it is fun.

 

[dralizaar]

first off read the poll 1.02 for some of my other thoughts..

so far ive run 12 tests 3 each as prussia russia uk and france for 30 years each..and ive found the game is as easy as always but slower to develope..as it should be..the idea that a country would have maxed rails and factories all over by 1860 is ridiculous in the extreme as most nations were still industrializing into the 80's which is doable witht eh current setup..the old days of buy luxury factories right off and 4 or 5 years in be an econimical powerhouse free to do whatever you want are gone..you now have to build an infrastructure to provide the goods for those factories rather than depend on the market..ie you want lux furniture you gotta build the furniture and lumber...for lux clothes you gotta make fabric and regular clothes yourself more than before..which is as it SHOULD have been all along...countries didnt5 go from point a to z without hittign some of the letters in between you are supposed to have the building steps which are now more required than before..the game has defitnely become far more difficult for minors but frankly who cares? the game is based off trying to match history realities as best they can with choices within that framework..not about making civ fantastica where everyone starts equal with same chance to do anything.. if you succeed with a minor at anything you should be proud not bemoan the fact that you couldnt beat the uk in war...few nations could have realistically ...compared to most folks i guess this patch didnt affect me as much as i never used the extreme factory means to richness/ i always built my infrastructure and a variety of factories from which i could switch labor around as needed as different resources come up short and allowing me to stockpile goods before shutting them down till i need them again later..hence my relaince on small arms early or luxury cxlothes atillery etc was less ...

note my tests were run with minimum defence army and navy maint in off war times 50% ed/crime and startign base taxes..the ONLY tax i played with was tariffs as thus far all 4 nations have proven soluable and easy to build..havent tried mexico usa austria or ottmans yet...the key is to be honest and try the game as a major first and try all of them a few times before judgeing the patch after all that is the focus of the game and the stated goal of the game designers..if you want fantasy thats fine its fun to do whatifs but thats why they made the game so easily modable..but to expect the baseline scenarios to allow more fantastic results as a norm easily is wrong..it should be vitually impossiblew for minors to become majors during that era as few had any chance at all of doing it..thus the sense of accomplishment would be much greater when you do succeed..the days of wold conquest by bhutan are gone thank goodness

 

[Johnny Canuck]

dralizaar - Just have to say that you make some excellent points in your posts.

 

[dralizaar]

wooho a compliment ( i like those lol

 

[unmerged(21852)]

Dralizar: *thumbs up!*

// Rico

 

[unmerged(4747)]

Or do what I do, if I don't like a game: play another game.

// Rico

Ahh, but that is the kicker. Paradox has trained us to whine because they listen to user feedback and implement many of the suggestions. So those unhappy with the current game status will continue their debates on what it "should" be like because they might just get their way!

 

[unmerged(21852)]

Ahh, but that is the kicker. Paradox has trained us to whine because they listen to user feedback and implement many of the suggestions. So those unhappy with the current game status will continue their debates on what it "should" be like because they might just get their way!

Good. Then there is no need for bashing the mods or the betas.

And until they get their way, play another game or return to 1.01.

// Rico

 

[JScott991]

Of course, he agrees with the Mods and betas. He has to be right.

dralizaar - Just have to say that you make some excellent points in your posts.

 

[unmerged(1862)]

Why do 80% of the posts by players hate the patch, but 100% of the posts by mods and betas love it. Isn't that suspicious? Why should players be forced into an economic system they hate because the betas or mods love it? Actually, though, I suspect that's NOT the reason there is 100% agreement, but I'll leave it at that.

Hey, it'd be super great if someone could throw around a preposterous and dumb conspiracy theory about the patch.

Also, if you could toss in some statistics that fly in the face of direct observation to help make your "point", that'd be great too.

Next time, could you try to work in the freemasons? 117% of the forumites who are not betas actually think they're behind 1.02. I also heard Johan was on the grassy knoll in '63, and that Patric was seen in the car w/ Hoffa.

 

[unmerged(2534)]

Maybe a compromise...

I have to admit that 1.02 seems very difficult to me. I also have to admit that I don't get to practice very much so I wasn't all that great at 1.01 either !

It seems to me that players that are quite good at the game and the micromanagement aspects of it like the new patch. I can understand that - a game simply isn't fun if its not challenging. It also seems that the ham n' egg players like me are a bit overwhelmed now.

Maybe the solution is to increase the disparity between difficulty levels in the next patch. Make "very easy" well ... very easy a la 1.01. And make "very hard" like a 1.02 on steroids . Just an idea for how everyone might find their own enjoyment with the game.

It has always been my experience that Paradox is very responsive to suggestions and they do make the best historical games out there. I plan on playing (and improving :rofl: ) at Victoria in the future.

 

[unmerged(13520)]

..the game has defitnely become far more difficult for minors but frankly who cares?

*Some* people do care, thank you very much...after all, the game does make minors and "mediums" available for play from the start and thus they should be playable, within realistic limits (not hyper-deterministic ones). Nobody's asking for "WC by Sokoto" here.

Yet making most minors (and even some "not-so-minors", as can be seen from other posts) practically doomed to total economical disaster using their default setup/settings is supposed to be realistic, then?

I don't *hate* 1.02, not at all, I find it hard but still playable, yet posts like the above make me fear for 1.03/1.04/etc, if all they're going to do is "eliminate bugs/exploits and make the game exponientially harder" ad infinitum....

 

[JScott991]

I don't know the AI cheats, I just suspect it given what I've seen when I loaded the game up as Holland or Russia. It doesn't seem possible that they could have built most of the colonial buildings in the world by 1840 given their output of resources and also dollars. But I could be wrong. Its a side issue anyway. Of course, since the mods and betas like the game I'm sure its working perfectly.

After all, Russia and Holland were the main colonizers during this period, so I guess 1.02 finally has fixed that old problem.

If the AI is not cheating, then it is ignoring its AI file. Holland is set to build only one colonial building at a time, as is Russia, but they clearly ignore that setting. I'm not sure why. Also, they go outside their primary zones before their colonization there is complete, again I'm not sure why.

The economics of 1.02 make it a very low class experience, but there are other problems as well. Things that clearly weren't playtested or analyzed very closely. Of course, its always possible that its working as intended and that the results in beta testing showed these colonization results and were applauded.

How do you know the AI cheats? Perhaps the AI is just good at running its country? The Dutch start with 5 machine parts, which is more than enough to build the cement & lumber factory needed to build colonial buildings. If you look closely, you will see that the Dutch (like the Russians) start building colonial buildings early in 1837, when the cement & lumber factories are completed. Simply put, the AI is smart at how it spends its initial allotment of machine parts. Also, cement & lumber are two goods that are more available than others on the world market, as several countries produce them (I find the US quickly becomes a world leader in cement production, while the Russians & Swedes seem to export lumber).

 

[Dinsdale]

Of course, he agrees with the Mods and betas. He has to be right.

Could it be that the betas like this version because they have had it longer and gotten used to is?

Regardless whether that's the reason I do think that their practice of collective responsibility is the only way to avoid uglyness on the general forum. Let them do their arguing in private.

You are one of the posters whose opinions I respect, even when I disagree with you, because I like your critical and logical analysis of the game. However, by pursuing this labelling you are distracting from the real issues at hand.

 

[JScott991]

There's no conspiracy, I just find it frustrating that there is a percentage of posters and players who do not enjoy the patch, but that the betas and mods who have posted about it have all loved it and reflexively defended it.

Its galling to me that there has not been one post by someone who was involved in the release of this patch that doesn't voice some dissent. How can so many players hate it without any of the mods or betas even remotely sympathizing?

But very clever post. I'm glad you read mine closely.

Edit: You are correct Dinsdale that this is not the real issue. I tried posting about the real issues yesterday and was slammed by all the mods and betas as being melodramatic. Posting about the issues doesn't help. The people who don't like 1.02 are beaten. The game will not shift back in the direction of a more balanced sense of development that makes the early game as playable as the end game. And that's the real issue here that's being ignored by the gamers who love the new challenge. In a game like Victoria, the beginning of the game should be just as much fun and just as playable as the end. That's the whole point of the GC. But right now that's not the case. That's even been conceded by the mods who defended the patch. My main problem with this "race to profitability" approach to the game is that the events and history of the period are concentrated in the first half, not the second. By taking away the ability to play more slowly in the first half, you reduce the impact significantly.

Hey, it'd be super great if someone could throw around a preposterous and dumb conspiracy theory about the patch.

Also, if you could toss in some statistics that fly in the face of direct observation to help make your "point", that'd be great too.

Next time, could you try to work in the freemasons? 117% of the forumites who are not betas actually think they're behind 1.02. I also heard Johan was on the grassy knoll in '63, and that Patric was seen in the car w/ Hoffa.

 

[unmerged(1862)]

I do recommend for poeple to try and not play large nations like US, or Britain, or China or Russia, as thier the big ones normaly able to cope with the system due to thier landmass sizes and large pops...

"The system is broken the system is broken the system is broken. Minor states can't do anything."
"If you're a great power, the system isn't broken because you have land (resources) and people."

Can anyone here think of a more accurate way to describe the 19th century?


People, I think we all need to take a deep breath. This isn't the EUII timeperiod, and it's not EUII. The minors/uncivilized are minor and uncivilized

To repeat: THAT'S WHAT THE 19TH CENTURY WAS LIKE. It's sort of the whole point.

 

[unmerged(14393)]

I don't know the AI cheats, I just suspect it given what I've seen when I loaded the game up as Holland or Russia. It doesn't seem possible that they could have built most of the colonial buildings in the world by 1840 given their output of resources and also dollars. But I could be wrong. Its a side issue anyway. Of course, since the mods and betas like the game I'm sure its working perfectly.

After all, Russia and Holland were the main colonizers during this period, so I guess 1.02 finally has fixed that old problem.

If the AI is not cheating, then it is ignoring its AI file. Holland is set to build only one colonial building at a time, as is Russia, but they clearly ignore that setting. I'm not sure why. Also, they go outside their primary zones before their colonization there is complete, again I'm not sure why.

The economics of 1.02 make it a very low class experience, but there are other problems as well. Things that clearly weren't playtested or analyzed very closely. Of course, its always possible that its working as intended and that the results in beta testing showed these colonization results and were applauded.

Maybe you shold read what the betas are actually saying before you go all sarcastic? Just a suggestion.

I don´t know how you read it...but I´ve seen several betas stating that the colonisation aspect is not 100 % at the moment.

 

[unmerged(12910)]

"The system is broken the system is broken the system is broken. Minor states can't do anything."
"If you're a great power, the system isn't broken because you have land (resources) and people."

Can anyone here think of a more accurate way to describe the 19th century?


People, I think we all need to take a deep breath. This isn't the EUII timeperiod, and it's not EUII. The minors/uncivilized are minor and uncivilized

To repeat: THAT'S WHAT THE 19TH CENTURY WAS LIKE. It's sort of the whole point.

Frankly, I would love to see this sort of limitation in EU2 too.... Minor powers are just that: minor in any period of history. Until now, Paradox games were just messing up this sad fact.

 

[unmerged(1862)]

No it's not... You don't know what the silent majority, the lurkers think ... We do, since we receive messages from them.

Until the day you know all... Fare thee well

Vulture, don't go too far the other way

 

[Syt]

Unless someone knows exactly what goes on in the beta, how ideas flie around, what gets tried, scratched, retried, what ideas from the GD get picked up, tested, rebuked or implemented, how the discussions go, how many patches there are within a week, one should IMO not judge what betas say here or why.

Although, it is of course easy to observe how a game goes and then scream, "How have the betas missed this?" or "Why do they say they enjoy it if there's [insert problem]?". However, expect Paradox and the testers to be aware of such issues (or, when in doubt, check the bug forum). I will stand up and say that 1.02 is a great improvement over 1.01 - it's not making the game perfect, but it takes it a great leap forward. Granted, it makes the game considerably harder and slows down the economic development, but IIRC that was one of the things most desired on this forum, adressing the luxury factory exploit and turbo-industrialzation.