Number of EU4 players rapidly dropping compared to CK2

[Filena]

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.

This !!!

played Ck2 for over 6month every days, and eu4 played like 4-5 game and make a lot of wait next patch, over 2 week i don't have played now, i just find coalition and vassal feeding boring as hell...

But parts of problem is how A.I just hate you so much with rival and go on, even if you ally with someone for 100 years they just break for no reason then ask you again for ally.... yeah sure..

Event in Ck2 was amazing... in eu4. you just pray to not see bad event kill your work every years..

 

[LodovicoAriosto]

perhaps EU4 is a bit too repetitive, mostly due to the monarch power system which reduces many gameplay mechanics into a single resource. coring mechanics is just terrible and boring tbh. the streamlined power system is easily playable from the start but gets boring shortly.

let us see what new content they release but the first expansion is not exactly appealing. They should have improved overall mechanics first, not just focus on natives Americans while everything else remains the same. too much area-specific focus in DLC will lead to incosistency (how come some have unique advisors while others do not?) and imbalance. 30+ DLCs for a single game means more clutter and problems balancing stuff if some people have only some DLC while others have all etc. just compare a situation in CK2 patch 1.3 when 1. you have retinues (LoR) and when 2. you do not have LoR. they certainly put much responsibility and burden on project lead Henrik because it is very hard to make sure the gameplay is balanced with any combination of DLC. this is the road to hell IMO. not even EA's DLC have such impact on gameplay. in CK2 or EU4 one DLC or combination of several of those can mean a difference between a good game and a broken game. A minor change in one DLC can lead to massive unintented consequences in other DLCs or base game etc.

what they did basically is that they cut the game into 10+ pieces of software which can 1. allegedly be freely combined so that the game is modular and you can enjoy it with any combination of expansions. They also said 2. we no longer have to spend money on 2-3 big expansions but we can save money by picking only some DLC and ignore the rest. In reality though, both this premises failed - people have to spend more money to get a solid and balanced experience and also suffer from terrible imbalances when another piece is released and PI tries to somehow make it work with both all other DLC and no DLC by patches.

I only hope that HoI4 development is more responsible (and respectful to the players' time), with a long-term design plan. I hope they will release big expansions only plus graphics dlc only - too many gameplay-changing DLC can break the game again and again which happens in CK2 and EU4.

 

[Sekuj]

I don't really think depending on being forcefed DLC to make a game better is a good idea.

 

[Sun_Wu]

Isn't MEIOU & Taxes just using another mod that you can just play with that mod on vanilla if you wanted?

I think our version of DG has more religions.

Dei Gratia has. M&T adds much more than that, and could well not be apt.

True

Are you the CEO or Microsoft or something? Try 5 hours, 6 after taxes, 7 if you need to convert it to US dollars.

Try 8 if you make federal minimum wage and 9 after taxes...

Don't forget that CK2 has been in tons of sales on STEAM (every time I log on it seems CK2 is on sale) and also PC Gamer gave away a free CK2 code in one of their magazines, I think the one from November or October. I have to say though, as much as I love EUIV (played for 4-hours nonstop yesterday because I was enjoying it so much) CK2 just feels more immersive. I can see my ruler and his family and interact with them all as well as directing the nation. In EUIV you can only direct the nation. It can get awfully boring at times when you're at peace, whereas in CK2 when you're at peace you can engage in strategic marriage or whatever to get your own family members raised to the throne of other nations. Stuff like that.

You're lucky really... if Rome 2 had been the game we all wanted it to be both CK2 AND EUIV wouldn't even have half of the numbers playing that they both have right now. However that's not something we need to worry about because Rome 2 ******* sucks big time donkey balls.

Also everyone who preordered EU4 got CK2.

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.

Hence the need for internal gameplay, and not the crappy ming factions type either.

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.

Not everyone has time to play everyday or week.

 

[hwoosh]

I don't really think depending on being forcefed DLC to make a game better is a good idea.

Sorry, did you wander onto the wrong game company’s forums? Paradox improves their games with huge free patches accompanied by optional DLC. I wonder who you were thinking of instead . . .

 

[mcmanusaur]

perhaps EU4 is a bit too repetitive, mostly due to the monarch power system which reduces many gameplay mechanics into a single resource. tbh. the streamlined power system is easily playable from the start but gets boring shortly.

I hadn't considered it, but his might actually be part of the problem. Certainly the monarch points are the main resource whose accumulation you end up waiting for, even more so than money. The system's simplicity and ease of use is definitely a plus, but it does seem to facilitate limited options and long waiting periods.

 

[Chamboozer]

I don't really play EUIV anymore, mainly because the game doesn't feel rewarding. Unlike the character and realm management of CK2 or the deep internal mechanics of Victoria, EU really is just a 'paint the map' game. There're trade, ideas, and buildings to make, but that's more or less how deep the non-map-painting aspects of empire-building get.

 

[POOCH2007]

My first and last purchase from Paradox. I find EU4 a pathetic attempt at a strategy game.

 

[Fishman786]

My first and last purchase from Paradox. I find EU4 a pathetic attempt at a strategy game.

Why 'last' purchase? You should try CK2, it is a really excellent game now that it's matured fully. Hopefully EUIV will be like that eventually.

Also try EUIII.

 

[grisamentum]

Sorry, did you wander onto the wrong game company’s forums? Paradox improves their games with huge free patches accompanied by optional DLC. I wonder who you were thinking of instead . . .

Typically the "optional" DLCs enable core content that should have been included in the first place. Like retinues in CK2, which never work unless you own LoR. Or the fact that you could convert to Islam before SoI came out, but the SoI patch made it so that you automatically lose if you convert to Islam without owning SoI.

We don't know exactly what the breakdown will be with the first EU4 expansion but you can guess it'll be a pretty unsatisfactory patch if you don't own CoP.

 

[Penguintopia]

My first and last purchase from Paradox. I find EU4 a pathetic attempt at a strategy game.

Have you looked at any mods? There are some pretty amazing free add-ons. That's the strength of EU4, in my opinion.

 

[Fishman786]

Have you looked at any mods? There are some pretty amazing free add-ons. That's the strength of EU4, in my opinion.

It used to be that everyone played mods.

Now people just whine that they can't do ironman mode with mods active.

 

[Penguintopia]

It used to be that everyone played mods.

Now people just whine that they can't do ironman mode with mods active.

The whole 'achievement' thing. For some people, that's their main objective. For me? Meh. I played one ironman game for a few hours and decided I liked mods WAY more than I cared about any achievements!!!

 

[LodovicoAriosto]

Like retinues in CK2, which never work unless you own LoR.

I hope that they do the development of possible HoI4 in a more responsible and consistent way than CK2 or EU4. I am a bit worried about too many gameplay-changing DLCs plaguing it.

 

[Beagá]

The whole 'achievement' thing. For some people, that's their main objective. For me? Meh. I played one ironman game for a few hours and decided I liked mods WAY more than I cared about any achievements!!!

I only played Ironman and not for the achievements, but to prevent save scumming AND prevent loss of saves due to unexpected power outages etc.

 

[VolitionNewlove]

Why 'last' purchase? You should try CK2, it is a really excellent game now that it's matured fully. Hopefully EUIV will be like that eventually.

Also try EUIII.

I'm not sure about EUIII... While some changes between EUIII DW and EUIV may have been a step back in a way (and I stress there were some good additions as well,) the overall game is still built upon EU: Divine Wind. If the person doesn't like EU4, I'd say EU3 wouldn't be something they'd like. Still, CK2 is vastly different, and is my favourite Paradox game of all time.

However, given the poster's comment "a pathetic attempt at a strategy game," they are evidently looking for a strategy game, yet feel this game doesn't fit their usual "strategy game." This additionally implies that there are several games that do meet their criteria for "strategy game." I believe they're either looking for a wargame or a real-time-strategy battlefield game... There is Hearts of Iron and March of the Eagles, even if I'm not really a fan of either, they feel somewhat shallow to me. As for RTS, that's not really Paradox's area. The Clausewitz engine evidently isn't remotely similar to Command and Conquer's engine. And again, not really a fan of real-time strategies. I did enjoy Rome 1, however, though that was due to the fact that I could build cities and improve them into metropolises. I always skipped battles, in fact.

 

[thesodality]

Why must the CK players keep posting these pointless threads in the EU forums? I don't really visit the forums that often so I'm sure there are probably similar long winded diatribes posted about EU in the CK forums as well.

What is the point? Play the game you enjoy the most and respect other peoples right to do the same.

 

[Solo4114]

I hadn't considered it, but his might actually be part of the problem. Certainly the monarch points are the main resource whose accumulation you end up waiting for, even more so than money. The system's simplicity and ease of use is definitely a plus, but it does seem to facilitate limited options and long waiting periods.

It's not purely that monarch points are simplistic. It's more how you use the points that's simplistic. You spend them on adding cores, raising stability (although that's a waste past +1), and technology stuff.

Personally, I think we should be using the points system to do a lot more with things like national decisions, which in turn could be used to fuel the events system and give events a lot more context. So, XYZ event happens because you spent monarch points to implement ABC decision, and now that sets off a chain of events that you play through. As it stands, the events system is just random stuff happening, you respond, take a stability hit, and then you wait for the next one.

I appreciate the move away from sliders, but we haven't really moved towards anything less abstract. If anything, the game has gotten more abstract and purely mathematical. It'd be nice if the game gave us more opportunity to craft policy rather than just click our favorite flavor of "-1 stability" so that we can click "boost stability" and so on.

 

[dstarsboy]

Wow, I can't believe some of you are so critical of EU4. I find the game ridiculously addicting, staying up till 4AM sometimes without even realizing it.

However, if you play the 2 main gameplay styles (Colonization & HRE) at least once each all the way through, you're pretty much done at that point (assuming that you think playing any nation outside of East/West Europe is an absolute chore).

 

[TheBloke]

My first and last purchase from Paradox. I find EU4 a pathetic attempt at a strategy game.

Yet despite all you'd been through, you still found it within yourself to register your game and come here and post.

So that others might read of your experience. So that we all might learn from your journey of discovery, and loss. So that we could understand the wretched wastage of your hard-earned funds, the senseless squandering of your precious time; the soaring peak of your hope shattering into the dizzying dive of your crushing disappointment.

Truly inspiring. You sir are one of a kind.

I very much hope so, anyway.