Ruler Designer DLC Complaint

[KPJ]

Wish they would make an option to change cosmetics of existing characters in savegames too. Sure, I get the balance stuff (which should have a simple toggle for all the impatient cheating players), but appearance changes nothing gamewise, but can improve player immersion. I know personally I hate when I get certain silly looking faces.
ALSO
Why was there no new ears/eyes/chins? I was sure there would be.

Overall, highly disappointed. Considering I spend 30-50$ to get a game from Paradox, there must be a certain amount of work that goes in on their part for each of those dollars, and in return each of those dollars is paid back in hours and hours and hours and hours of entertainment. The DLC seems like it was thrown together in a few hours, and it certainly gave me about 10 minutes of entertainment, so maybe it should have cost 50 cents?

 

[unmerged(133356)]

@Warhammer - Have you tried manually editing a character's appearance or CoA via text file? That alone is worth $5 to me.

@KristopherWG - The AI isn't another person, but it is another player. Gaining an unfair advantage over it is cheating.

Mods adjust the gameplay with different mods adjusting different aspects. Some mods could be considered cheat mods, but most aren't specifically designed to give the player an inherent advantage over the AI. Creating a god character via the character designer on the other hand does just that.

For full disclosure, I should add that I am a world class cheater. I never play games without cheating. God mode in action games, debug consoles, editing files via text editor, I do it all. I have yet to play a legitimate game of CK2. Also, like many others, when I first saw the character editor DLC announcement, my first thought was "Sweet, a cheat tool, now I don't have to edit the text files anymore!". I even jumped on the hater bandwagon when it first came out Tuesday and people started complaining about the limitations. However, when I got home and tried it out for myself, it was immediately apparent and understandable why PI chose to limit it as they did. I still would have preferred an uninhibited version, but I'm not going to complain that they tried to make it fair. If it was unlimited, there would be a thread 3x as long as this one complaining that PI sold a cheat tool for $5.

The AI is neither a person, nor a player.

Cheating involves dishonesty / deceit to gain an unfair advantage over another player.

The gaming community uses "cheat" far too broadly.

 

[unmerged(133356)]

Bull... You are cheating yourself.

Not at all.

I paid money for a product to enjoy. I'm getting enjoyment out of it. I'm losing nothing and cheating myself of nothing.

 

[Lord Xia]

The concept is ridiculous. No two historical characters, either in stats or in lands are identical. Some are great, some are not, why can't I at least make my character the equal of the greats in history, then? That's what the DLC should at least do, is give that option.

 

[DominusNovus]

Just played around with it a bit more. Did anyone else realize that you can't give your 'new' character the same name as the one its replacing? If you want to make William the Conquerer different, you can't! You have to call him something completely different. I'm even less impressed than I was before!

 

[KPJ]

Not to mention William the Bastard will be hangin' around your court

 

[Nostalgium]

Personally, I think this is a golden tool for roleplaying purposes. You can tailor your own character and dynasty name, their heraldry, etc., and feel much more connected to them. However, I do believe the name of the DLC is a bit misleading. The current name of the function, "Edit Ruler" (or something to that effect), implies that it is used to edit existing rulers, whereas in fact, it forces you to create brand new ones. A better name, perhaps, would be "Dynasty Founder" or "Character Creator", something like that.

 

[DominusNovus]

Also, playing a game with it, my character's features keep changing. Not just the clothes, but the hair, too. He went from having a nice head of hair and some stubble to being bald with a villain goatee and mustache. Fucking hell, P'dox, what gives?

 

[VaIidus]

Also, playing a game with it, my character's features keep changing. Not just the clothes, but the hair, too. He went from having a nice head of hair and some stubble to being bald with a villain goatee and mustache. Fucking hell, P'dox, what gives?

That sounds bad! Spent ages picking mine

 

[Etrs]

Also, playing a game with it, my character's features keep changing. Not just the clothes, but the hair, too. He went from having a nice head of hair and some stubble to being bald with a villain goatee and mustache. Fucking hell, P'dox, what gives?

Same. It keeps getting the appearance wrong.

 

[Exakter]

I get called ignorant... for differentiating between a designer and editor. Taking Game Design as a clue, design is creation. Then using "well they promised us.."

First, never believe what you read. Advertising for game products is usually not made by the developers, so holding them responsible for that is laughable. Second, even with what they have promised us, I never saw the need for any of it..

because apparently I'm one of a few select few capable of reading text files. Which, starting off... took me no more than 30 minutes to learn what I wanted to do, and since then I can make the necessary changes I want in 15 minutes or less.

I'm so glad I'm ignorant and saved my money.

Grow a pair folks and spend 40 minutes to learn how to make all the necessary changes you want, while everyone who is too lazy to do so complains here. Then, when they here have finally received a response, and an update/change to the editor you can get it too... with much less hassle and frustration.

 

[DreadLindwyrm]

I get called ignorant... for differentiating between a designer and editor. Taking Game Design as a clue, design is creation. Then using "well they promised us.."

First, never believe what you read. Advertising for game products is usually not made by the developers, so holding them responsible for that is laughable. Second, even with what they have promised us, I never saw the need for any of it..

Well, since the advertising was all we had to go on, and it suggested that we could edit historical characters, we were expecting something that let us do that.

because apparently I'm one of a few select few capable of reading text files. Which, starting off... took me no more than 30 minutes to learn what I wanted to do, and since then I can make the necessary changes I want in 15 minutes or less.

How nice for you. So you're saying that just by reading the text files you can handle appearance and coat of arms generation, and all of that took less than 30 minutes to learn, and you can whip up a character in that time, complete with setting (at least the initial) appearance of your character how you want, and with the shield design and colours you want from the available parts?

I'm so glad I'm ignorant and saved my money.

Grow a pair folks and spend 40 minutes to learn how to make all the necessary changes you want, while everyone who is too lazy to do so complains here. Then, when they here have finally received a response, and an update/change to the editor you can get it too... with much less hassle and frustration.

It isn't a matter of being "too lazy". It's a matter of having bought something that was advertised as having certain functions, and finding that you can't do everything you thought you could with it, and that it is handled in a (slightly) different way to how it appeared in that advertising.
If I told you that I wanted a character that resembles (for example) Prince Michael of Kent, and found you a picture, and then told you I wanted the shield to be black, with a gold cross with a red cross on top of that (think like the norwegian flag when suspended by the hoist, but different colours), you could do that in 40 minutes of editing? With the designer, it's a matter of a minute or two to get the visuals, but I've then got to mess around with the traits.

 

[unmerged(436066)]

If you replace a guy, like the king of france, you actually get that guy as a courier at the start of the game. But he and his family no longer have claims on his old title.

Indeed, which is proof in my opinion that the designer is perfectly capable of simply editing a historical character, but they disabled this feature for unknown reasons. The lack of comment by Paradox suggests this is WAD, and Lord knows why, but it's very frustrating. The fact that we have people in this thread defending this laughable state of affairs actually disgusts me, especially the needlessly hostile one a few posts up.

First, never believe what you read. Advertising for game products is usually not made by the developers, so holding them responsible for that is laughable. Second, even with what they have promised us, I never saw the need for any of it..

Firstly, does it offend you that people are attacking a bad product they paid for? Regardless, it actually was advertised by a developer (a well known one at that), but I take it you didn't you read the original post . The developers advertised a product that wasn't delivered and was apparently intentionally misleading. That's bad business, and the fact you defend that is laughable.

because apparently I'm one of a few select few capable of reading text files. Which, starting off... took me no more than 30 minutes to learn what I wanted to do, and since then I can make the necessary changes I want in 15 minutes or less.

I know how to read the files and I had extensively edited them in 1.4, but I and many other paid $5 to use a product. We may have paid out of laziness, general support for Paradox or any number of reasons, but this doesn't justify ripping your consumers off.

Grow a pair folks and spend 40 minutes to learn how to make all the necessary changes you want, while everyone who is too lazy to do so complains here. Then, when they here have finally received a response, and an update/change to the editor you can get it too... with much less hassle and frustration.

Now you're just literally defending bad behavior by a developer that had been doing decently lately. It's amazing how blind gamers tend to be and the amount of crap they tend to justify. Look around you at the gaming industry today, and watch what key figures say, then tell me to "grow a pair". If it isn't crap like Mass Effect's 3 ending, it's the nonstop barrage of horrible DLC's that either should have already been in the game (usually big developers are guilty of this, but thankfully not paradox), useless DLC (which is fine with me actually, as it's up to you to buy it), or misleading DLC, which is what this falls into.

Stop defending bad business and stop ruining the gaming industry.

 

[jpinard]

I'm confused/worried about this DLC now. I haven't played the game so I don't understand how it works, but are you all saying if you buy this DLC, you lose the ability to use the normal rulers included in the base game? Or are you talking about editing a historic character that is already in a game you're running? I just assumed it added some new options for making your own character and didn't change anything else?

 

[Isaios]

I've found a complaint! Two actually. Similar.

I'll take the second first

If I select d'Hauteville or Capet, I get to modify their CoA with one of the sigils, the golden lion or the white horse etc. But I cannot use any of those CoAs UNLESS I'm modifying that particular group. And I'd really like using the Montforts white lion on red for something.

And there's a dearth of dragons. Seriously. There's the one red one, but that's IT. Nor any wyverns, only one gryphon, a single sea-serpent (and only the Sforza one at that), only one crown (and a not very nice one). Frankly, I'm missing a whole LOT of other sigils, symbols, colours and combinations from classical heraldry.

 

[Arko]

I've found a complaint! Two actually. Similar.

I'll take the second first

If I select d'Hauteville or Capet, I get to modify their CoA with one of the sigils, the golden lion or the white horse etc. But I cannot use any of those CoAs UNLESS I'm modifying that particular group. And I'd really like using the Montforts white lion on red for something.

And there's a dearth of dragons. Seriously. There's the one red one, but that's IT. Nor any wyverns, only one gryphon, a single sea-serpent (and only the Sforza one at that), only one crown (and a not very nice one). Frankly, I'm missing a whole LOT of other sigils, symbols, colours and combinations from classical heraldry.

that sea serpent you described IS a wyverns.
OC we need more variety and the possibilty to mix up landed title coa.

 

[DominusNovus]

Also, I'm pretty sure that there's a lot of portrait options that you're not allowed to pick; notice how sometimes the number of an individual component is outside the range of what you can choose?

 

[Matthaios]

The ability to easily make a new wacky character ingame without the need to start to manually edit text files would be worth of 1.99€ to me but definitively not 5€. When I bought Ruler Designer I believed that you could edit existing historical character, like for example easily give my fav character Isaakios of Antioch little bit better stats and change his looks but it just creates new character with no connection to Komnenos dynasty. So I feel little bit ripped off.

The idea of Ruler Designer isn't bad but the current implementation sucks...

 

[Isaios]

that sea serpent you described IS a wyverns.

A question of definition. It is properly a Biscione, made famous by House Visconti. The Biscione is clearly a leg-less, wing-less scaled, sesrpent-like creature, whereas the Wyvern properly has two fore-limbs and a pair of wings. There is also the Sea-Wyvern that has a fish-like tail, rather than the barbed dragons-tail of both the Wyvern and the Biscione.

So you could call the Biscione a Wyvern (and it certainly has been called so), but in heraldry, they are properly not the same
Incidentially (and this is probably only of interest to me ), the Cockatrice is almost identical to the Wyvern, with the two fore-limbs replaced with two rear-limbs or legs, but is comparatively rare in heraldry.

But as you say, being able to use landed title CoAs for dynasties would itself be awesome. If your dynasty is the von Oldenburgs, using the CoA of Oldenburg with a ... thing added would be nice

 

[Arko]

A question of definition. It is properly a Biscione, made famous by House Visconti. The Biscione is clearly a leg-less, wing-less scaled, sesrpent-like creature, whereas the Wyvern properly has two fore-limbs and a pair of wings. There is also the Sea-Wyvern that has a fish-like tail, rather than the barbed dragons-tail of both the Wyvern and the Biscione.

So you could call the Biscione a Wyvern (and it certainly has been called so), but in heraldry, they are properly not the same
Incidentially (and this is probably only of interest to me ), the Cockatrice is almost identical to the Wyvern, with the two fore-limbs replaced with two rear-limbs or legs, but is comparatively rare in heraldry.

But as you say, being able to use landed title CoAs for dynasties would itself be awesome. If your dynasty is the von Oldenburgs, using the CoA of Oldenburg with a ... thing added would be nice

-ok a bit of confusion on it I saw the visconti's Biscione named wyvern in heraldy, didn't remember the "second" version of it -sea-wyvern-. Those monsters differs somewhat depending on regions. Cockatrixe is an epic one too.

-on last point, i'm trying to achieve something along the line by modding, playing with patterns. But until we can't change coa when loading a saved game, it has a limited interest.