Calling Vic 3 a "Build Queue Clicker" is about as fair as calling Vic 2 just a "Research Queue Clicker".
- 24
- 20
- 3
- 1
Player retention comparted to CK3 first 2 weeks after release
- Thread starter Faronizer
- 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.
Because that is already the case. The differences between pop types are so much less pronounced than they were in Vic2.
Sure, we have some foolish individuals claiming that its "gamey" to do national foci and that that somehow makes Vic2s pops less impactful (lol) but the fact is, the literacy of your pops makes a huge difference when it comes to tech speed, moreso than it does in Vic3 by FAR, so encouraging clergymen or intellectuals depending on what mods you play, makes a huge difference. Moreso, if you run out of soldier pops, you wont reinforce your army at all, so while you could have a really strong army at the beginning of a war, after a few battles, if you dont have the soldier pops to back it up, you could end up deflated and weak. Again, sure, there are soldier pops in Vic, but to nowhere near the same extent is the impact of these pops felt.
Pops in Vic3 promote and demote so incredibly fast to whatever jobs are available that, again, the only meaningful distinction, the only one with actual impact on the way you play and how you act during the game, is whether they are employed, or whether theyre working on subsistence farms.
Well the first is true and the second isn't so I would heavily disagree with this statement.
- 30
- 11
- 1
IDK why people say hopes are "fading" it took Stellaris 5 major updates to even START fixing the game and it took 12 to really finish the job. Honestly, the devs seem to be moving a bit faster here (thanks to the pressure the anti gang is putting on them).
- 13
- 1
Can I join this club too? I have the receipts to prove my worthiness. Indeed, it seems he's been a busy little quasi-stalker.
- 9
- 3
This really deserves it's own thread, which I'll make once I put my thoughts properly together.
Not at all.
- 4
- 4
- 2
- 1
Whilst I consider something similar, the thought reoccurs that the game would function just as well (mechanically, and probably in terms of performance) without its map.
- 5
- 3
- 2
That's depressing. I'm curious if official release of patch 1.2 (13th of March) will help, because current Beta is definitely not enough to keep players interested with the game. Will it jump above 10k players (I think that's the minimum for PDX to keep releasing DLCs) and stabilize? Or it will fall again?
- 1
- 1
- 1
Probably will increase but not for long. Maybe it will hit 10k and start to drop like you said, but not as fast.
There are chances the numbers will only start to increase and stabilize with the release of the next dlcs, the most important content to measure whether or not the development of the game will continue, at least in my opinion.
- 9
Stellaris was a game that was completely new for the Paradox team to work with, alongside mechanics and gameplay that didn't know what it wanted to be yet. So of course people stayed around to find out because, it was new and the work invested (no matter the scummy business model) added to the experience that the dev team was nailing down (and then fumbled more and more)
Victoria 3 on the other hand, is the third instalment to a series based mainly around two uniquely complex features...Pops and the complex economy, with a recently third new addition of law implementation. All of which fail for various reasons that have been explained previously, so no wonder people are uninterested...
Last edited:
- 7
- 3
- 1
I don't really have a vested stake in this (I don't even own Victoria 3) but I'm surprised at just how many more players Crusader Kings 3 has compared to Victoria 3, especially since CK3 has a myriad of problems and is honestly pretty boring without mods. With the massive hype over years for Victoria 3, I didn't expect it to be so barren just months after release.
Last edited:
- 14
- 1
- 1
I think that while qualifications are too easy to get and literacy isn’t important enough, it’s easy enough to mod, and I do think paradox will eventually get around to rebalancing qualifications.
For literacy, they already seriously rebalanced it in the beta patch. It’s pretty good now.
There’s a severe case of rose-tinted glasses going on here about vic 2’s pop system as well. I mean for gods sake, we can actually have differentiated education access by pop type so that bureaucrats just straight up start out more literate.
Eventually with Vic 2 I had to move to mods like PDM or HPM to get what I wanted and the nodding tools for Victoria 3 are just so much more powerful and specific with that can be achieved.
For literacy, they already seriously rebalanced it in the beta patch. It’s pretty good now.
There’s a severe case of rose-tinted glasses going on here about vic 2’s pop system as well. I mean for gods sake, we can actually have differentiated education access by pop type so that bureaucrats just straight up start out more literate.
Eventually with Vic 2 I had to move to mods like PDM or HPM to get what I wanted and the nodding tools for Victoria 3 are just so much more powerful and specific with that can be achieved.
- 5
- 3
- 1
I also think people are mostly remembering and loving V2 for what it was/is after years and years of patching and careful modding by a few dedicated people - and I'm counting myself here. The smooth and rich, flavorful experience of HPM V2 is not indicative of what the game is in its vanilla version, even less so of what it was as a 1.0.
Admittedly, I didn't play V3 until the recent 1.2 beta, since I didn't have a lot of time to play at all before that, but I must say that I really had a blast. I like all about its core mechanics and I really feel like it's such an upgrade over V2 in terms of gameplay, and I'm saying this as a long time V2 fan.
In truth, I don't think the two games are even that different at the moment. You build things (way more complex and time consuming in V3, sure), you set up a research order (very similar between the two), you use focuses (called decrees in V3) and events to influence your POPs, and the influence minigame is gone - you have a capacity instead of diplo points, which I prefer. Oh and in V3 you actually have a governement and passing laws is a little more interesting than just spamming elections in wait for reform support - again, another slight upgrade.
Edit - I forgot colonization, already way better in V3 1.2 than in V2.
No, but the big difference is in a shift of gameplay focus. It's mostly a trade off between war and economic micromanagement. So obviously, the people who prefer the former will prefer V2 for the ability to move stacks of armies around the map. This isn't a fixable situation, I'm afraid. I don't like to tell people what they should do, but if you hate V3 warfare in its essence, then I would suggest you to move on with your life. I don't think it's going to go away anytime soon. So you're probably wasting time and energy hating on it.
Fortunately, I'm in the opposite camp - I enjoy the very detailed economic gameplay way more than warfare and the fact that it's harder to just cheese the AI during wars when it's mostly hands off, so you don't have an 'easy' way to win a war you should have no business winning if you were playing 'fair'. I've also played enough of EU4 for a whole lifetime so doing away with stacks warfare is very refreshing to me.
Long story short, at least in its 1.2 version, I feel like V3 is really solid, and I enjoy it a lot. That's not to say that the game is perfect though. It still lacks quite a bit of polish, balance, and flavour. But these will come in time, I have no doubt about it. The only question is, will it come fast enough to help the game really take off and sell enough DLCs to be supported for years like others PDX franchises? Well, I do hope so.
Last edited:
- 17
- 5
- 4
- 1
Why is release version Vic2 the benchmark to judge Vic3 by and not the fully updated, patched, and hell, even modded version?
- 17
- 9
- 1
- 1
EU4's primary niche has been something I've tried figuring out a long while and I'd go so far as to say unlike crusader kings' roleplay, victoria's economy and hoi's warfare EU4 is impossible to neatly categorize, which really works to its benefit with it being able to scratch many different itches. It's a bit bloated to the point of being maybe too unfocused lately but hey it's old so I guess that's fine. Stressful in MP but what isnt.
When it comes to the topic of the thread I gotta say it has come as a bit of a shock to me how quick the population started disappearing. I was wary of the game for a long time before release and in my friend group I was the only one that really disliked it but none of the peeps that liked it or even praised it highly seem to play it anymore and I wonder why. I am looking forwards to seeing what improvements have been made in 1.2 though, hopefully we will get in game chat soon.
- 7
- 1
- 7
- 5
- 3
- 1
Does it even matter? Your mind is made up, and nothing he says will change that....
Honestly, this whole thread was fine and interesting when serious people posted graphs and tried to put them in context.
But this circular knee-jerk whining about the past (that never was) and future (that never will) is just pathetic. Grow up. Move on.
[Or if you really have to keep on, then at least say something new....]
And I feel bad for moderators who need to read all this...
- 18
- 2
- 1
I think that approach isn't something special for Vic2 - it's a thing for any Paradox GSG release: The v1.0 release of a new installment of each of the IPs is always "less" content-rich/balanced/polished then the v17.2.4 of its predecessor.
- 8
- 4
- 1
Honestly, I was revisiting HoI4 and after seeing how refined its warfare became, it's unsurprising to witness how Vic3 playerbase withered. It certainly doesn't even feel like the same company who did these games. I checked the warfare changes thread and people seem to be overjoyed for apparently no changes whatsoever except moving some numbers back and forth while it remains the same. The so-called 'changes' however present no incentive to give Vic3 another chance. I suspect it'll take a big expansion to two to overhaul and flesh it out with the dev diaries telling us "remember how dreary it was, it's no longer!" Gee thanks, I hadn't noticed!
I'd say the only silver lining would be if Paradox drew some lessons. They went like Nolan did with Tenet, self-absorbed in previous success and fan hype blocking their view so they didn't realize until people actually picked it up and told them "this is no good".
As for Vic3, my hope is very low after seeing how CK3 has the same exact problems 2,5 years after its launch and remains a bland game. I hope this wasn't the case but Paradox games appear to have peaked during 2010s. And they don't seem to have realized that snipping parts of their games isn't helping out.
I'd say the only silver lining would be if Paradox drew some lessons. They went like Nolan did with Tenet, self-absorbed in previous success and fan hype blocking their view so they didn't realize until people actually picked it up and told them "this is no good".
As for Vic3, my hope is very low after seeing how CK3 has the same exact problems 2,5 years after its launch and remains a bland game. I hope this wasn't the case but Paradox games appear to have peaked during 2010s. And they don't seem to have realized that snipping parts of their games isn't helping out.
- 9
- 6
- 2