Please, Paradox, don't hurry with the 1.25 and Expansion

[Xetfield]

Dear Developers, I really love EU 4 and appreciate your work but personal experience for previous two DLC's encourage me to write here.
I'm ready (and I assume that most players two) to wait for additional week or more to make the patch 1.25 and upcoming DLC better, more balanced and cleaned from bugs as it's possible. I was really impressed by the last DD to the HoI IV. Didn't play this game but the fact that team found the time to improve something beyond their goals for the upcoming patch is very pleasant.
I want 1.25 to improve performance once again, to improve AI to the point when he will not stuck his troops in colonies/islands, to change some idea groups according to the mechanics of innovativeness, drill and naval doctrines (Like economic ideas finisher gives different bonuses with Common Sense and without it), to put some ideas about economy that are voiced by the community into basic game.
Also Anglicanism bonus (-10% development cost) make no sense for people who didn't bought Common Sense, there should be an alternative

 

[Piotrzeci]

Yeah, Paradox just seems to forget that some of their core mechanics are in DLCs. I fully support the idea of either giving alternative effects for people that don't have DLCs or a big change in DLCs that would move all the "why isn't it free anyway?" mechanics into the game... Transferring occupation man.

 

[Hribor]

Why should the mechanics included in the DLCs be for free? What about those of us who paid for them?

 

[PhoenixG]

Also Anglicanism bonus (-10% development cost) make no sense for people who didn't bought Common Sense.

iirc for people that don't have Common Sense or don't have it active, all the -% dev cost is replaced with +% goods produced

 

[Xetfield]

iirc for people that don't have Common Sense or don't have it active, all the -% dev cost is replaced with +% goods produced

Don't know where it was stated, though, if it's true than it's even more horrible: they will get bonus to goods production and later the coal with furnaces will come.

 

[Piotrzeci]

Why should the mechanics included in the DLCs be for free? What about those of us who paid for them?

What about them? Do they lose anything? I would be more than welcome to changes like that even though I have all the DLCs. We paid to have this mechanics and we did have them. The fact that someone could have them now without paying is not a harm to me.

 

[PhoenixG]

Don't know where it was stated, though, if it's true than it's even more horrible: they will get bonus to goods production and later the coal with furnaces will come.

imo increased goods production is one of the best eco thing you can get. It's like all the province you own gets some free scaling extra dip sank into it. Plus it scales with time, unlike taxes.

 

[grommile]

Yeah, Paradox just seems to forget that some of their core mechanics are in DLCs. I fully support the idea of either giving alternative effects for people that don't have DLCs or a big change in DLCs that would move all the "why isn't it free anyway?" mechanics into the game... Transferring occupation man.

I'm quite happy for Mare Nostrum's extra espionage options to stay paywalled so that I don't have to let the AI use them.

 

[Piotrzeci]

I'm quite happy for Mare Nostrum's extra espionage options to stay paywalled so that I don't have to let the AI use them.

I am only talking about things like: transfer occupation, support independence, increase development. Things that should be in base game.

 

[Mingtastic]

Whilst I have all the DLC I definitely agree that there are certain features that need to be given to everyone (namely the ones Piotrzeci mentioned and possibly also the strengthen government option),especially when Paradox updates the game with free patches making it so that these features are near mandatory (Looking at you institutions). Personally I think some sliding scale of dlc cost is needed. With dlc being a couple of years old becoming a reduced price and after a certain number of years becoming free (maybe three? I dont know this is just an idea). This would be a good idea as A-The list of dlc has become so immense and costly it puts so many new players off the game and more importantly B- As the list of dlc becomes longer there are more combinations of dlc players can have, all of which Paradox have to code for and QA test. This results in worse optimization and longer dev times, as well as semi clunky mechanics as they all have to work separately and stand alone. If they started integtating these dlc after a certain amount of time then they could go back and rework them in future patches, allowing them to synergise better, and at the very least would stop the increase of combinations of dlc, meaning they have to work less and we get a faster game. I dont see why any player, even ones like me who have bought all the dlc, wouldn't want to see something like that.

 

[grommile]

I am only talking about things like: transfer occupation, support independence, increase development. Things that should be in base game.

If it wasn't borderline-compulsory for satisfactory RotW play under the Institutions system, I would rather play with manual development increase disabled.

 

[Nyrael]

What about them? Do they lose anything? I would be more than welcome to changes like that even though I have all the DLCs. We paid to have this mechanics and we did have them. The fact that someone could have them now without paying is not a harm to me.

Nice that you have that outlook, but too many customers out there would feel offended by it. Even if you give them a brand new feature, they would complain if for no other reasons than for the sake of it (which is bad enough as those complaints usually affect potential customers, much more than just leaving it as it is).

 

[XYN]

Why should the mechanics included in the DLCs be for free? What about those of us who paid for them?

Suck it up?

This attitude holds the game. I don't see anything wrong with making older DLCs part of the base game for free.

 

[R.Graymarch]

It's interesting that the argument of "what will the buyers think if some features go for free?" never comes when we deal with sales. I don't think I ever read "Hey, it's not fair that for [Whatever sales occasion], people got this DLC at -50% when I paid full price when it was published".

 

[Hribor]

Suck it up?

I have expressed my opinion in a respectful manner I don't see why you should answer with that sentence.

I have paid for every DLC so I could have the complete game. Paradox is offering alternative mechanics for those without the DLC, if people would prefer to have that mechanic for game experience then they could buy it, isn't it? There have been plenty of offers and reduced prices.

Nice that you have that outlook, but too many customers out there would feel offended by it. Even if you give them a brand new feature, they would complain if for no other reasons than for the sake of it (which is bad enough as those complaints usually affect potential customers, much more than just leaving it as it is).

If they give me any kind of compensation (even a symbolic one) I would accept it.

It's just my opinion, I understand yours too.

 

[Xetfield]

I think we moved off from the topic. Do anybody here agree that later but more polished, balanced and clean (from bugs) release is better than slightly underdeveloped patch and DLC?

 

[R.Graymarch]

In theory yes, but in practice, perfection is a myth. And not even "perfection", it's just that the critical mass of players finding bugs while playing cannot be matched by the company's employees. Unless you wait your patch for months, or more.
And we could also take into consideration, the release of Rule Britannia, or of ofther PDS or PDX games/DLC. There is a timing window also for this.
So it will come, it will have some bugs and unbalanced stuff that will be patched.

 

[XYN]

I have expressed my opinion in a respectful manner I don't see why you should answer with that sentence.

I have paid for every DLC so I could have the complete game. Paradox is offering alternative mechanics for those without the DLC, if people would prefer to have that mechanic for game experience then they could buy it, isn't it? There have been plenty of offers and reduced prices.

It isn't about what could and what couldn't those people buy. Honestly, I couldn't care less what they do - but I care that the devs can't seriously improve the DLC mechanics because of this reason - "people who paid for it back in days would be offended".

You got offered a DLC, you agreed on the price and that you want it. That should be the end of it. Why on Earth would you care what happens with thit particular article, its price and availability in the future?

 

[XYN]

I think we moved off from the topic. Do anybody here agree that later but more polished, balanced and clean (from bugs) release is better than slightly underdeveloped patch and DLC?

It is better to be rich and healthy than poor and ill, so yes, it would be better. Unfortunately, it doesn't work that smoothly.

 

[Brynjar]

The only deciding factor for whether or not I'll buy Rule Britannia is the AI getting fixed. Yes, AI changes are free, but after 1.23 I've played most of my campaigns on 1.22 due to the terrible AI in later patches. If the AI isn't returned to something close to 1.22 levels, chances are I won't be playing on 1.25 much, and there won't be any point in getting the DLC. In addition, I'm of the opinion that the biggest AI issues in 1.23 should have been discovered before launch, and never been implemented. 1.24 was a step forward here, as many of the announced AI changes was never actually implemented.

Both Chaingun and DDRJake have said the AI colonizer issue is being worked on, but I'll try 1.25 before deciding myself.