Stop wasting production time on bad tweaks

[User4035]

Deleted due to Disagree.

 

[Wizzington]

Nope.

 

[LoriKe]

I don't know how others feel but i think what makes the difference between an usual strategy game and Europa Universalis are these small things which really improves the historical acuracy and the quality of it.
In my eyes these chnges are as important as the other 'bigger' ones so i have to thank to the developers for their passion which with they take care of this game.

 

[CommunistCookie]

This is dumb. None of those "tweaks" are inconsequential.

 

[grommile]

The subject line of this thread is essentially confused.

It asks the developers to stop making bad changes - but pretty much by definition, if the developers are making the changes, they're unlikely to think they're bad changes.

 

[Sindai]

What he meant to say was "stop making changes I disagree with." It's a common typo.

 

[Krajzen]

I always find threads like this hilarious -one guy walks in and just says 'okay I don't like your ideas, I know better, change them, bye'

 

[User4035]

Nope.

Do you mean it actually takes very little Time for these minor tweaks? So it literally is no big deal?
If it literally I no wasted time then my suggestion is wrong.

What he meant to say was "stop making changes I disagree with." It's a common typo.

I don't disagree with the changes.
My point I the changes don't actually do anything useful.
Military access is only granted to war leaders while the allies still get stuck. And if an ally turns hostile towards you during a conflict they will revoke access as soon as you leave their lands.

Changing the ability to stop troop movement will just make the time you decide to stop 1day before half way.
It wont force the player into more battles but it will force the AI into nor battles in bad locations which can be reinforced.

Now I gotta ask to those who disagree, how have the minor changes like military access made the game better?

Edit:
Wiz. I just read elsewhere on fourms that alot of these tweaks aren't intended for balance but really to just increase performance.
If that's kinda true then you might want to add that info when you announce the changes for us non-programmers who don't know that stuff. Many of us gamers just look at how a change affects balance and strategy.

Because when we see a minor change that does nothing for strategy or balance we wonder why the heck it was even bothered with.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

The subject line of this thread is essentially confused.

It asks the developers to stop making bad changes - but pretty much by definition, if the developers are making the changes, they're unlikely to think they're bad changes.

There's a pretty easy litmus test. "Can this mechanic be justified on a gameplay basis within the framework of the game's level of abstraction, and can it be implemented reasonably within time/budget/development/practical constraints?"

Two obvious examples of absurd tweaks are the primitive ship building (which causes Wiz to question his own credibility, or claim that primitives were overperforming and needed nerfing, take your pick because it must be one of the two) and same-continent colonization (a case of deliberately nerfing disadvantaged positions for the sake of it and saying as much). When pressed for what these add to the gameplay at EU IV's level of abstraction, the developers can give us nothing at all. The same goes for the idea group restriction, a few of the horde nerfs, and quite a few more mechanics I can list if anybody involved in decision making is willing to take this thread seriously, and the truce timer which failed to do its stated intended purpose outright. Military access is an amazing example too, it went from straightforward, but unrealistic, to convoluted beyond rationality and equally unrealistic, to no purpose and with several bugs.

This should come off as odd, even to the developers, because a large number of their mechanics they have managed to justify easily to the point where even heavy scrutiny can't overcome it. Isn't that a red flag? Doesn't it strike anyone as odd that PI can easily and soundly defend the majority of its mechanics, but then falls to utter silence or stating wrong things outright on a few of them, and can't even go so far as to explain the rationale on obtrusive changes that, too often, have been the source of some of the game's larger bugs?

I agreed with the OP in spirit, but not in its construct. Wiz's answer to it, however, tells a lot about what's wrong here. Too often, these changes aren't holding up under scrutiny or even doing what it's claimed they do.

 

[User4035]

I agreed with the OP in spirit, but not in its construct. Wiz's answer to it, however, tells a lot about what's wrong here. Too often, these changes aren't holding up under scrutiny or even doing what it's claimed they do.

I really don't understand how people have taken offense to how I worded my thread topic and post.
My post was straightforward and to the point in stating that these minor tweaks don't do anything in terms of balance or gameplay.
With military access changes you still get paths where you can't march through so net change is zero. The change did not improve or decrease gameplay or balance. It essentially did nothing. And goes to my point that it simply wastes development time.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I really don't understand how people have taken offense to how I worded my thread topic and post.
My post was straightforward and to the point in stating that these minor tweaks don't do anything in terms of balance or gameplay.
With military access changes you still get paths where you can't march through so net change is zero. The change did not improve or decrease gameplay or balance. It essentially did nothing. And goes to my point that it simply wastes development time.

In my case (since it's me you quoted) It's not that I'm offended, it's that I think you can build the case for what effectively amounts to improving project management more strongly, and stay away from subjective assessments levied as points against current practices. A dev team that struggles with basic UI descriptions, tracking changes that are actually made (or not made) and putting them in the patch notes, and that implements mechanics against its own statements (or conflicting with previous statements) does show some merit in the "please stop overextending into more aspects of the game than can be handled effectively" argument, and you/others do give some examples of how that has (consistently, patch to patch) manifested. However, even the bad changes in that framework weren't "inconsequential" (if they were, we wouldn't care to this extent). The changes are consequential precisely because they have the unfortunate combination of requiring developer time and making the game worse.

 

[Me_]

Silly OP aside, why does this thread not get a platypus?

 

[smoo1979]

I suspect army and navy movement are the most complex and difficult part of the AI coding. I doubt PI makes any changes to these systems lightly. I think the fact that these parts of the game still need work is due to the scale of the problem and not PI making arbitrary decisions.