The future of EU4 and Paradox games, a schism?

[Darkrenown]

I've barely played CK2 and haven't bought any Paradox DLCs since the Rajas of India DLC I eagerly bought with great anticipation rendered the game unable to play on my and many other computers, in addition to containing many problems that should have been spotted almost instantly by any playtesters and others which were not instantly obvious but I felt should and would have been found with any adequate testing. That was three DLCs in a row I consider to have been released in a state that made me feel like an idiot for buying them at release instead of waiting a few months for patches and 75% off sales, and three was my limit (particularly as I've seen nothing from Paradox that indicates they feel there was even a problem, or that they plan to do anything to prevent it happening in future).

Don't want to touch on a lot of the stuff in this thread, but we really haven't been happy with the quality of some DLCs. I was unhappy to the point of doing 100+ hours of QA on RoI in my spare time both before and after release. But finding bugs doesn't equal having time to fix them, and not all bugs are even present for the entire testing period. On the plus side, team CK2 has an additional programmer now, and I plan to test Charlie myself earlier in the process.

I also linked MeinTeam's post #101 about unclear UI stuff, sent the link to our UX guy although he is aware of many of them already.

 

[Johan]

I don't see how that is clear. I would argue that if they're doing that, they're not doing it effectively since MP in general still doesn't run too well and this game isn't really showing much evidence beyond the monarch point system of going casual, but casual MP has a track record of success.

SP could use a lot of help on a lot of fronts, but IMO most of those are compatible with functional MP mechanics.

Nothings changed. Same designphilosophy since 1999.

 

[Wizzington]

When it comes to AI and multiplayer I'd say the AI is extremely important also in MP. No contradictions there in a game with houndreds of nations, and only 2-32 of them human controlled in multiplayer games.

We are talking about grand strategy here, not StarCraft.

Nobody at Paradox has ever argued that the AI isn't important. Johan said he didn't care about AI for *one specific issue*, which has then been taken out of context to mean that he doesn't care about the AI at all. As the person he hired specifically because he cared about improving AI, that one is always good for a laugh for me.

 

[Wizzington]

Yeah, and I understand this Wiz, and I also admire what you have done to the AI so far. The AI of EU4 is far superior to anything I see in any other strategy game.

My response was more to those who claimed earlier in this post that Paradoxian multiplayer focus is taking away from the focus on the AI. They seem to think AI isn't important for multiplayer in this game, therfore Paradox choose to neglect it.

The whole obsession with multiplayer focus is also based on a fundamental misunderstanding of what Johan is saying. 'We make balance decisions off our MP games' and 'Making a well balanced MP game will also contribute to the SP experience' are interpreted as 'Paradox hates singleplayer', but the fact that we've repeatedly stated that we play far more SP than MP, and that most balance decisions are based off design discussions, SP, QA testing, beta/fan feedback and so on goes quietly ignored. People seem to require a simple explanation for why all the design decisions they disagree with are objectively wrong rather than a matter of opinion, and I've largely given up on debating the topic.

 

[Wizzington]

It's because people like to complain when they disslike something and say nothing when they actually like it. Ignoring the good and whining about what they see as bad is, sadly, human nature.

I don't mind criticism. In fact, one of the main reasons I come to this forum is for constructive criticism of design, mechanics, AI, etc. Every now and again a post will point out a flaw I had overlooked, a bug that had gone unreported, or make me rethink a design decision. The problem is that 'Paradox are balancing for multiplayer and don't care about singleplayer' and 'Paradox is dumbing down their games to become EA' are not criticisms that we can actually address. If you want me (or any other dev) to pay attention, start articulating the actual mechanics/design decisions you disagree with. We're neither guaranteed nor required to agree with you, but I'm at least going to read and consider your arguments, whereas my eyes will just glaze past a post going 'Paradox are balancing all their games for multiplayer now!', because it isn't anything I can use. It's just white noise.

And yes, I know that plenty of posters *do* provide constructive criticism, and I appreciate it each and every time.

 

[Wizzington]

Justifying any balance with objectivity is enormously difficult, even if that's your sole goal haha.

How can you get away from "I think this is too strong because x is working too well/often"? In games like League of Legends which are directly designed around balance (and still struggle to a degree), you can at least lean heavily on data mining success rate for each champion. However, EU IV is imbalanced by design and has to be. There's no way you can "balance" someone playing France vs someone playing Benin, MP or otherwise, in the traditional sense and still wind up with something remotely resembling history. It's a futile avenue in the first place with regards to balancing something like that.

Between idea groups, or national ideas you can make a case that for example generic ideas be less woefully terrible (cmon, throw them a bone and at least give those generic benefits better values ), or maybe one idea group is too much better/worse than another and quantify it from a monarch point cost/benefit standpoint --> impact on money/military/etc, but that's about it. I'm not sure what the goal of "balancing" a game where you can play as Zapotec, Bastar, or Ottomans can possibly be, other than some mix of plausibility and hopefully fun/playability of each for different reasons.

'Well balanced MP game' does not mean 'every nation is equal'.

 

[Wizzington]

What is Paradox's current perception of how people see the monarch point system? Is it likely to be extended into future EU titles, or is it under scrutiny for scrapping or at least serious reconsideration? I'm sorta curious.

I'm only gonna speak for myself here and not for Paradox, but from all indicators I've seen people who actively dislike the monarch point system are a small minority of players. A somewhat larger number don't dislike the system itself but dislike the randomness of monarchs. That doesn't make anyone who dislikes it wrong or anything, but you're never going to design a system that pleases everyone. I can't discuss anything in regards to design of potential future titles, so no comment there.

 

[Wizzington]

The problem with DLC is that it encourages paradox to create expansions that focus mostly on moving the timeline backwards or forwards, for Hoi4 this won't work well, and for Ck2 they just made more and more groups of people playable - but they can't make a DLC focused on events, features etc because locking them out for those without the DLC will seem harsh, and it won't sell on its own

Games like EuIV and Ck2 need lots more internal features and events, and more flavour

That won't sell as DLC so we won't get it as Paradox won't give this for free (not in a considerable manner anyway)

CK2 has had 7 major DLC (including Charlemagne), EU4 3 (including Art of War). Of these, a total of 2 (20%) have changed the timeline or announced changes to the timeline.

 

[Wizzington]

I can't really support the argument - too random. If you're a good player you'll thrive despite the bad circumstances. Not to mention the fact that now the player has more control over the point distribution through national focus. As for its abstractness: it is a game, rather than a simulator.

Personally, I think Monarch Points are a fantastic system and I enjoy the randomness because it adds a sense of difference between different games / different times in the game, while providing enough control to get through the rough spots. I don't really enjoy playing Republics because I can always optimize my Monarch Points with them, and don't feel as though I have to adapt to circumstances. However, people aren't *wrong* for preferring predictability over randomness... they just have different preferences in games.

 

[Wizzington]

The problem with a game that is 100% random is that it's impossible to balance it in any way. You're either Lucky or unlucky with Your monarch. If you get 2 good Monarchs in a row the game is a cake walk, 2 bad and it can quickly become nearly impossible to get anywhere. It's better to go the middle road and reduce random from 100% to 50%.

Monarch Points are not 100% random.

 

[Wizzington]

The range is from 0 to 6 though. I've had strings of 4-5-5 serveral times in a row and other times 0-2-1s. Just example .

Rulers are actually 2d4-2 rather than d7-1, but you're also ignoring the +3 base, advisors, and if you have the appropriate DLC, National Focus and Power Projection. One can argue about what exact degree of randomness is appropriate, but saying that it's currently 100% random is quite misleading.

 

[Wizzington]

Keep in mind Advisors are also random. I've been stuck in situations before where I can afford and want 3* advisors and have a pool of 1*s to pick from. Technically, 8 points are therefore 'random' to a degree. National focus on the other hand was a fantastic change.

I still can't stand the points system and almost always end up playing republics for this very reason, and I still don't see why the tech system shares this resource instead of having its own.

Advisors are actually weighted towards trying to give you a spread of skills (and not give level 3 advisors to opms), but that could probably stand to be even less random to be honest. I don't think anyone enjoys having only 3-stars to choose from when you make 20 ducats a month.

 

[Wizzington]

Maybe all the praises and good reviews got to Paradox s heads.Indeed,the comparation with CA and SEGA is accuarate,as the Total War series started a rapid decay,because of their multiplayer orientated and holywood type action path.

Sadly Paradox is taking the same steps,dumbing their games with every new release,making it more apeassable to "the vulg",instead of continuing to make the game for their fans who made it possible for Paradox to get this far aka the history geeks,who love strategy games not RPG Turn Based multiplayer games.

Also their decision to NOT make a ROME based game,and rather make some rollercoaster bull... game,or worse some RPG Magical nonsence games,will only drive their real fanbase further.

Pity...

We're making a rollercoaster simulator? I love Rollercoaster Tycoon, why hasn't anyone informed me about this?!

(I think you're confusing PDS developed games with PI published games)

 

[Wizzington]

What about technology? I love monarchy points but find it strange that country focusing on military ideas and actions doesn't have spare points to advance military tech and peaceful country has nowhere to drop all those military points so they become master warriors. Do people complain about this?

Yes, people complain about this. I find it perfectly fine from a gameplay perspective as it means you have to make hard choices between tech, ideas, keeping revolts down, etc, and frankly real technological progression is such a complex thing that whatever model you have is going to be completely unrealistic anyway. EU3's model of 'you acquired some poor land, now you'll have to wait longer to get new guns' wasn't exactly a model of realism, and was a lot less interesting gameplaywise.

 

[Wizzington]

It's a bit of a counterintuitive internal narrative, but at least it's fundamentally balanced. It could be fixed by making tech progress a function of MPP spent in that category, rather than something we actively spend points on, but rebalancing MPP gain over the course of a game to account for that would be non-trivial, so it's probably not worth it.

It'd also remove the choice dynamic between tech and ideas which is one of the more interesting choice dynamics in the game.

 

[Wizzington]

I honestly think it was in some ways better, since it made an incentive to conserve expansion. (if you assume technology=implementation it even makes a certain amount of sense, the larger the country the more complex and costly it would be to implement say, a new system of taxation, or military drill)

Nah, it was an incentive to only take rich provinces until you hit the 100 province mark where more provinces no longer counted towards tech cost, then you could blob all you wanted.

 

[Wizzington]

As others, most notably Wiz have pointed out the "balancing around multiplayer" catchphrase is ludicrously overblown. At this point I'm beginning to automatically dismiss people that parrot this line ad nauseum.

I'd also dispute the idea that the EU franchise is being "dumbed down" or "streamlined," if anything EU4 suffers from being more complex than it's predecessors. AE over simple badboy, MP and branching ideas vs the simple tech and idea system, the new trade system, and the order of magnitude increase to the complexity of diplomatic relations. A good chunk of the complaints every patch stem from the unintended consequences whenever the devs tweak them.

EU4 isn't perfect, but as others have said it's still overall an improvement over what came before. The big problems with it right now are the underwhelming DLC and poor maintenance of them (The American Dream is still broken from CoP with no plans to fix it, which is simply reprehensible), and the way balance jumps around each patch. For example, aside from AE jumping around, the rebels in 1.6 were practically the same as the rebels in the version at release which had previously been patched out.

The only major design decision in EU4 which I dislike in theory and in implementation are how Monarch Points are used for tech. Others again have pointed out their particular faults much better than I could, but overall I dislike it compared to EU3's tech system as it changes technological advancement from a system that depended mainly on the strength of your country's economy to something that you advanced from the "top down" with a simple click of a button. I would actually prefer to see technology advance more organically with less direct player control than it does now, i.e. rather than directly advancing technology, the player should create conditions in the nation which then lead to technological advancement.

Which parts of American Dream are still broken? I thought we fixed the issues with TC->USA not firing the events in 1.7?

 

[Wizzington]

Wiz is reading this thread so I'm fairly sure he's seen it. Besides, I doubt anything can be changed very drastically because EU4 is a mature game now. It's more food for thought when it comes to Victoria 3, because I will be very sad of EU4's monarch point system is ported into V3. But thank you for reading and liking.

Yeah, I've read and considered it. I'm usually not going to engage in debating sweeping mechanics change proposals (because then I'd never have time to get any work done), but your feedback has been read and noted.