eu4 is way too restrictive in conquests, and i could never figure out how the heck battles really worked and kept losing wars, ck2 is just more fun overall, it dosent bog itself down in stupid restrictions
Number of EU4 players rapidly dropping compared to CK2
- Thread starter highsis
- 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.
Sorry but this is bullshit. For me EuIV it's still too easy. I don't know what the heck are you talking about. 
Different people have different skills. For most, the game is too hard.Sorry but this is bullshit. For me EuIV it's still too easy. I don't know what the heck are you talking about.
With difficulty at easy and player bonusses on it really is easy, it should be for anyone.
There were endless posts about it, every day (so back then the posters were described as a "vocal minority" and, according to some who wanted to explain why the minority was a majority, "a lot of sockpuppets"), before we all just stopped playing EU4 and therefore stopped browsing this board. There will be a massive influx of players back to EU4 if the game eventually hits the sweet spot of 1.0 and 1.1 again and actually becomes fun. But of course the sycophants will do everything in their hands to stop it (they almost managed to ruin CK2 too in the last patch, by defending an unintended massive imbalance in army sizes as a "wonderful change only hated by noobs").
Endless posts by the same 10 whiners. Every patch, every change, because they aren't allowed to snowball. Please stop playing this game, so you stop spamming these annoying threads. Everyone has heard your whine and rejected it.
Everyone else here (hint: its more than 10 people) is trying to have a valid discussion about their opinions on the game then you and a few others came in trying to dismiss them just because you don't agree. Form a proper argument and contribute to the discussion or don't post, so far the only person whining here is you.
"Sycophants" was thrown from the other side. Yes, they shouldn't be attacked, but they have to step down as well. They have to accept that an healthy majority of the players like the game anyway, and they can't sling insults at the other side. The most massive decrease in players was under 1.1 itself - an almost vertical fall from 14k or so players to 5k. From there, it slowly bled out players: 1.2 and 1.3 showed no real difference in the decrease. Their position - that they really are a majority and that EU4 is losing players because of the newest patches - is untenable.
Everytime when I want to play either CK2 or EUIV i always choose CK2 since it's the better game in my opinion. As many people have stated in this thread, EUIV needs more flavour, immersion and dynastic elements to be as good as CK2.
Not all are taking the stance that 1.2 was the part when things went bad. I've seen many refer to EUIV by itself with no reference to the patches, or simply stating the patches made it worse. I and 2 of my 3 friends who heavily play paradox games have been critical of EUIV from the start, and saw 1.2 not as the beginning, but the further decreasing of player freedoms.
Putting aside that, even if the majority do enjoy the game, why is it fair to lock out a minority who's play style coexisted in previous EU games and in other Paradox series?
Slow/no expansion was just as possible in EUIII for those who enjoyed it, turning AI aggression to low, no inflation and no luckies and the world would remain largely static aside from colonisation, I even occasionally played a few games like this (let alone many mods that increased difficulty of expanding). The possibility of playing a conquest heavy game in no way affected the ability of players to play a peaceful game, so in no way did EUIV require the severe nerfing of expansion methods, which is just exacerbated by the fact most non-warfare parts of the game currently require minimal strategic thought or player interaction.
Oh, I agree on all points, really - I am one of the "bleeding out" players, myself, and waiting for the day PI decides that no, complex internal management is not going to ruin the game forever. I even hoped that the nerf was a prelude to an administration patch, but they instead rolled back some changes with 1.3. I'll wait some more, apparently.
I think that's what it comes down to really. Peace in CK2 is just as fun as war. There's a lot of intrigue and backstabbing to be done. Where as in EUIV, peace is rather boring. Only thing you can do is build, and that's just a question of clicking a button and waiting for the timer to go along. Nerfing expansion just cuts out a lot of the really good part of the game.
Plus CK2 is just lighter and sillier. There's humour and drama in CK2. EUIV is just 'blah blah empires blah stability blah'. In CK2 there are actual stories about people.
Plus CK2 is just lighter and sillier. There's humour and drama in CK2. EUIV is just 'blah blah empires blah stability blah'. In CK2 there are actual stories about people.
I don't know where that "healthy majority" thing comes from. Is there some official survey by Paradox about what do EU4 players like and don't like, showing that 51% of them love post-1.2 patch to death?
The only thing we can say for sure is that an overwhelming majority of EUIV players don't play EU4, for X, Y or Z reasons (as happens, in a greater or lesser degree, with any game after release). Anything else is speculation, and assuming that most EU4 players like it in its present state just because most EU4 forum lurkers are perceived to do that is one of the wildest possible speculations. Obviously, 99% of the players who have lost interest in EU4 no longer visit this board, or they just do it 1 or 2 times a month like I do. Even the worst games ever have boards populated by people who love them, because the people who hate them just don't care enough about them to spend time there. It's self-confirmation: a very specific group of people say the same things to each other until they convince one another that everyone thinks just as they do.
We do know for a fact that there are players who have a mostly cohesive view about what EUIV should be again and what EUIV no longer is, since 1.1, 1.2 or whatever. And we do know that they are not "ten" nor "twenty" nor "sockpuppets of 1 guy", as anyone who has read any thread of this kind will easily notice. Maybe they are a minority, maybe they are a majority, but they do exist in a sizable number, and completely dismissing their existence and all their points (as many, not especially you, do) is refusing to accept reality.
I never understood why PI was so opposed to adding inernal politics to EU series. I don't want a CK clone, but there are many ways to make internal game more interesting:
- Magna Mundi wanted to split thenation into Nobility Faction, Clergy Faction, Merchant Faction, etc. with whom you have to deal with
- The Valkyrier also made something that looks fun (Link)
Personally, I think that cores should be their own internal states, with whom you deal with to further your diplomacy, military, centralization, etc. while they want bigger autonomy, making you do certain missions and spread their cores on other provinces. Unlike popular opinion, states did not disappear after annexation: their remnants continued playing a major role in provinces where their cores were.
Someone once said: "Maybe name Paradox is there in honor of its fans?" After all, you are trying to sell a speculation as a fact yourself.
Forum posts are everything but a good statistics for a majority. The CK2 GG fiasco ended up being one of major proofs of that.
Many people hate the change. Many people like the change. There are many advises on how to improve the game. Thats what one can conclude from forums for sure, but majority is not one of them. It is to be taken for granted that forum will be the liveliest after the game was released so even the drop of people visiting the boards is not a good enough statistic, especially as far as reasons for it are concerned.
What? No, what I'm saying is a hard fact: most EU4 players, by a large margin, no longer play EU4. You can check it yourself by comparing the copies sold to the actual number of gamers who play every day or every week (there are websites for that). But also, that happens with every single game (although it may "retain" much more players or much less players than EU4 does, and that's what actually matters; CK2 has managed to retain an amazing number of players throughout these years, while EU4 apparently doesn't seem to be heading on that direction), so by itself that data is not useful for anything.
In my view EU4 has only gotten worse at this since the start, while CK2 seems to have constantly improved and is now quite mature.
EU4 is more my kind of game, but right now it's just annoying. I find myself playing CK2 that I got for free when pre-ordering EU4.