I don't like adressing people directly, but I don't think I have much choice here, Groogy. I feel the need to challenge you on a couple of things, and I believe that by participating in the forums like any other user and taking active part in discussions (i.e. not just communicating the news but exchanging opinions and participating in disagreements), this comes as part of the job. Also considering that this is a
discussion board, not an RSS channel for something which could be described in military parlance as 'transmission, not dialogue'.
I'm adding bold to show which part I'm focusing on, for brevity's sake:
Either way there's no point in providing claims of proof for historicity or what not to justify the mechanic. Its in there under the same grounds as Messalian, Cathars or the Zun religion is in CK2.
That comparison simply doesn't work. Messalians, Cathars or the Zun religion are all historical. Those and other things or people — such as descendants or ancestors of famous dynasties from different eras or the firsts and lasts of certain cultures or religion — may have received some buffs in order to make them more playable, and, of course, that is okay. They are, however, not massively taken out of proportion.
Next and more importantly, there isn't really anything controversial about them, which renders the comparison moot.
Because we have a large audience that really wants it.
How do you know, actually? Do you research the forums and compile statistics? Certainly there are no public polls. I see you and others using that argument, but I never see actual data to support it. Can you prove that you have a large audience that really wants it? Otherwise it's mostly speculation based on simply visiting the forums from time to time and forming a general impression, which is hardly the kind of data that could back up such a claim.
Next, you don't seem to be considering that a large audience that really wants something isn't necessarily the majority of people. There may be an even larger audience that's against something. You shouldn't presume infinite patience on the part of those customers whose preferences are consistently ignored; such a presumption may simply prove wrong at some point. If you want people to show loyalty to your company, your company needs to show loyalty to them.
Nothing prevents people from deciding that they don't like the idea of the whole mass of them being ignored because there is a niche with some underutilized spending potential that can be tapped into. If you're going to be so adamant know, you shouldn't act surprised and claim that life's unfair when the ignored groups of people start voting with their wallets, as they have every right to do.
If you don't like the idea whatever your fantasy in your head has said that this law means, then don't use it just as you might not play the Cathars.
Unfortunately, that comparison doesn't really work, either. You can avoid using it yourself if you don't want to dabble in it, sure, but 1) what about the AI?; 2) you still get to see the interface all the time and be reminded of the ideological view injected in the game.
For the record, this isn't really about me, but I was one of the posters who actively pestered you guys to relax the restrictions on females, starting from independent queens (who don't really get told what to do much) and perhaps martial-educated daughters of borderland barons etc. (who don't get much oversight and are going to lead the raid on dad's enemy if dad lets them), and siege leadership (which was a large part of a feudal lady's duties). I certainly am going to play around with that slider, and I'm glad it's there.
… What I don't like is your attitude about it (as shown here) and the choice of presentation (graphical + presentation) that makes it ideological. And I frankly suspect that marketing considerations were involved in choosing to make that statement, though I may be wrong, and it may just be someone seizing the opportunity to make a statement and be heard by a large audience, despite that statement not having much to do with the subject (i.e. the game). Either of which is tolerable in small doses, but not when it's just too ostentatious.
And with those final words, the discussion should be over. With pretty much me saying "it doesn't matter".
I don't know you in real life, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt, and I know English isn't your first language, but do you realize how arrogant and self-centred that sounds?
You spoke, so the matter is resolved, not even the decision made by the developers, but any discussion of the subject. I'm not saying that's what you meant, but that's how it sounds.
This isn't the first time something sounds like that from you or someone else from the company, either, or I probably wouldn't even be commenting on it. Honestly, I can't help being at least a little worried that a similar attitude applies to the design process too, which just may actually be part of the reason why some things are the way they are (e.g. ideas not found to need testing before they go live, where in fact they could use some). Again, if I'm going to be totally honest, this was partly responsible for may negative feelings towards that large 'Status of Women', even though I'm going to use that slider myself (and was one of the people who had called for a relaxation of the restrictions on women, originally). A bit more humility and criticism would help, especially the design process and QA/QC (in any job that has a creative element, and I've learnt this the hard way in my own job).
Next, players — who are also customers, not just 'fans' — but also simply interlocutors, people who comes to company forums to talk, need to be shown more respect. Or actually, the way things are, they need to be shown less disrespect. From something of a rockstar perspective it may look or feel like you guys are dealing with a mass of hangers-on (like fans trailing after a band) who will take anything and can be taken for granted, but that's just not true. It's also not a way to treat a customer. Yes, we certainly aren't giving you guys our money for free, but you aren't giving us your games for free either. Nobody gets to lord it over.
To elaborate a bit, a proper, concerned response would be something to the tune of (with a spice of corpo speak): 'We are sorry if that last change is not to your liking, but as you know we have other players too, and a large part of them want something different. We still hope that our game is overall enjoyable to all players.' But I never hear anything like this from Paradox in the context of CK2, and I've been here since before the game released. Instead, I see the company/individual devs take antagonistic approaches, talk down to players, ridicule them (by cracking witticisms) assert their own importance, down to the point of an individual developer's
I. Almost like you're fighting against someone or trying to prove something. Please change that. I think it will also help players like you more and will help those who disagree with your decisions to understand you better and live with it better (unless you don't care, but in that case I'd say shame on you, it's not okay to not care, and caring is a two-way street, it's not just up to the players to care about your company, you need to care about your players too).
Excuse the length, but I didn't have the time to condense it further.
