The future of EU4 and Paradox games, a schism?

[Invader_Canuck]

But this diminishes the overall quality of the game, you might think its great now but what about later? the Call of Duty series and Activision are great example how quality diminishes when it has little regard to it's hardcore gamers and opens it's doors to casual players thus reducing what once made it a great series/company, basically selling out.

I've got probably 10,000 hours (It's probably even more than that) combined in Paradox titles over, HOI, HOI 2, HOI 3, EU 2, EU 3, EU 4, Vicky 1, Vicky 2, Rome and CK2. I'm about as hardcore as you get and that extends beyond just paradox titles.

EU4 is the best EU in the series so far. It isn't perfect (nothing is) some of the decisions they've made are dumb (scaling truce timers) but this is just the typical "end of the world" mentality people have. The ship isn't sinking, Paradox haven't changed their values. Paradox is better than it has ever been. They've progressed from making purely aspergeresque games (which I love btw) to retaining that essential essence but streaming lining the UI and easing the accessibility of the title. More people than ever are playing them. They retain their fundamental depth.

I've been decrying the decline of PC gaming since the advent of the 3d graphics card where games have been reduced in complexity and have become formulaic in design. Where the selling point of the next big game has often been "per pixel shading bit mapping version who the hell cares". I've been raging against consolization of gaming in general. "Stream-lining" has become synonymous with dumbing down, removing depth and Electronic Arts in general. That isn't what EU4 represents. Making the UI more navigable isn't dumbing down, it is stream-lining as it should be. Making the game more playable without stripping it of its character.

Yes EU4 has some arbitrary design decisions. At the same time, EU4 has made some pretty big strides forward that people have been asking for, for over a decade. The normalization of unit stats (huge change)

EU4 is a great game. CK2 is arguably their best game. Victoria 2 might be even better than CK2, and the next stop is HOI. I personally can't wait to see the new iteration of HOI which is my personal favorite in the series and I've loved all 3 instances of it. Decline? Paradox is in their prime, better than ever.

 

[BarrosRodrigues]

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.

I noticed several AI improvements lately; like one I’ve asked a while ago: the AI waking up from siege mode and reinforcing crucial battles (kudos for that). If it was taught to leave a regiment behind to not lose the siege progress it would be even better. Another thing that still needs fixing besides the” mountain across a river” attacks is the AI responsiveness to attach and detach orders as it is still too unreliable to the point that sometimes vassals do whatever they please and/or only respond if several regiments (with attach turned on) are in the same province. It would probably better too if the AI did not knew about faraway player troop movements (i.e did not cheat) or the war goal had less priority than going after the player stacks, because that behavior can be exploited big time. I can keep a superior foe doing literally nothing, stranded between my 2 faraway stacks simply because I am ordering one of them to go after the war goal>AI doom stack goes protect the war goal/kill my stack that is still very far away> I cancel the movement and the AI comes after my weakest stack that is sieging> rinse and repeat until I won.

 

[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.

 

[Delta107]

A bit talkative aren't we, Sgt. Pepper1947? As EVE Online players like to post on the forums intended as a joke: EVE is dying. Except it is very much alive. I think Paradox is more alive than ever before.

 

[NCreepy]

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 go 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.

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.

 

[raw]

That EU IV is focused on singleplayer is readily apparent from the awful mechanics.

 

[Andy_Dandy]

That EU IV is focused on singleplayer is readily apparent from the awful mechanics.

What awful mechanics? I like the design decissions they have taken so far, and I see only improvement on it from patch to patch, DLC to DLC. I'm a very satisfied costumer, and think the game is more epic, have more interesting choices, and greater and better interwoven game mechanics then ever before.

Of course there will always be alternative design decissions that could have been made, but it's easy for a common forumer to forget how fundamentally even the smallest decissions on mechanisms can hugely effect the game in so many ways. Most of the alternative suggestions by forumers on how some mechanisms should be changed makes me cry out in pain when I forsee how they would change the overall game experience/balance and the intentions of what this game should be.

 

[Wolfmaster1979]

Recently a user on Reddit who had played and enjoyed past Paradox titles was asking why there are so many complaints about EU4 and the upcoming HoI4.

What are the complaints about HoI4? Limiting a players opitions like in EU4 or is it something else?

I think much more people agree with me, whether it has to do with Paradox or not, there is a general consensus that popular game franchises are becoming washed down and marketed at the casual gamer for profit. Many people would agree game series like COD, Halo and Total War(all revered as quality games) all went down the path Paradox is going now so by proxy I have much people in agreement. I'm not saying go back when you weren't successful but why would you would leave behind what made you successful in the first place, just so you could sell out? and opt for quantity vs quality; things said games franchise have all done. It's not a guess that they Paradox would follow the same path, just look at other companies who went with the MP casual gamer path, the evidence is everywhere suggesting my conclusion is more likely. current examples take a good look at HOI4.

I have not been following HOI4, so could you please provide me with some examples or provide me with links to where those examples would be?

Thanks in advance!!!

 

[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.

 

[Delta107]

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.

I think I can bet a great deal of the EU4 bashing threads are just plain old trolling... That coukd be the reason of this warped "interpretation" of PDS statements.

 

[Kljunas]

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.

Yeah it's baffling how a lot of people still have this idea that EU4 is focused on MP, even when actual developers have explained that it's not the case.

I guess that posting "the game is crap because MP!!!111" is easier than making actual constructive criticism.

 

[Sgt.Pepper1947]

What are the complaints about HoI4? Limiting a players opitions like in EU4 or is it something else?



I have not been following HOI4, so could you please provide me with some examples or provide me with links to where those examples would be?

Thanks in advance!!!

Just go to the HOI4 forum it's filled with all kinds of information and discontent for its new simplistic game style.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

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.

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.

 

[Outrider]

These "predictions" aren't based out of this air, the trend today for a game franchise is to build "fan-boy" base that is complacent in its every move and then milk the series to death, there are examples everywhere in the gaming industry.I've seen this before many times in others gaming series and i can tell Paradox is moving in that general direction albeit slowly. I think the "predictions" are justified considering it happens independently to other gaming series, it's almost like natural evolution to sell out as a gaming company these days.

I think you get my general point, basically expand on whats good now UI, complexity maybe graphics. The thing is many game franchises go through a peak(which we might be at) and expand their base then like COD start churning half-games to their "fanboy" base that require you to buy the rest of the game.In the end the game loses what one made it great.

So several console driven titles have had too many releases (FPS, instrument games) and somehow this correlates to an industry trend that uniformly applies to games made on all hardware, in all genres, and by all developers/publishers? In the forecasting industry, that's what we call pulling it out of your ***.

I won't even get into the nonsense of the game becoming "more casual". That's been addressed quite adequately elsewhere.

 

[Andy_Dandy]

Just go to the HOI4 forum it's filled with all kinds of information and discontent for its new simplistic game style.

Finally it seems the focus will be more on the grand strategy again. I was one of those who loved HoI2, but never got too much in love with HoI3. To me HoI4 seems extremely promising so far.

 

[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'.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

So several console driven titles have had too many releases (FPS, instrument games) and somehow this correlates to an industry trend that uniformly applies to games made on all hardware, in all genres, and by all developers/publishers? In the forecasting industry, that's what we call pulling it out of your ***.

I won't even get into the nonsense of the game becoming "more casual". That's been addressed quite adequately elsewhere.

Well, misuse of stats might be starting to show as a trend on the forums though, not that I've data to substantiate that .

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

You can completely ruin MP balance simply by placing players poorly, no matter how well it is otherwise balanced.

Can you easily say what it DOES mean? How likely is anyone to agree with that definition ? Balance might not be the best word to use in this context, as a lot of power balance requires diplo interactions by necessity. If 4 players collude as France/England/Spain/Burgundy and nobody else can set up a counter-weight, there's nothing you can do as a developer to change the "balance" of such a game favorably, without impacting the balance in games that progress more sensibly.

We're not talking about parameter tweaks here, the best you can really do IMO is that the mechanics work well to allow diplomacy to create balances of power...or at least to provide that opportunity in a way that doesn't evolve the same way every time.

 

[Delta107]

Just go to the HOI4 forum it's filled with all kinds of information and discontent for its new simplistic game style.

What the bloody hell are you nagging about? The game hasn't even reached alpha yet, barely a couple of dev diaries have been released, yet it is already simple and dumbed down?

 

[grommile]

Are POPs and RGOs a difficult thing to incorporate into the game? Of course. But if we're not paying Paradox to produce quality games, then we're paying for nothing. It's a fact that the EU series could benefit immensely by incorporating Victoria's mechanics and anyone can see this easily by comparing the two games.

Victoria 2's mechanics as they stand would be a terrible fit for 1444 or even 1744 (and are a slightly questionable fit for 1844) since they don't have any way of accounting for things like distance-dependent shipping costs.

This problem is compounded by a serious lack of sufficiently finely distinguished demographic data for most parts of the world. You will notice, for instance, that Vic2 has two start dates. EU4 has twelve bookmarked start dates, and over one hundred thousand possible start dates. I think it's fair to assume that Paradox don't want to kill off bookmarks and don't want to have to do the tedious research of producing plausible POP sizes for every province in the world for all twelve bookmarks, let alone for a sufficient density to produce an acceptable basis for interpolation to arbitrary start dates.

There are certainly things from Vic2 that would benefit EU4 (I like Vic2's colonization system rather better than EU4's), but the systems that provide Vic2's core gameplay (economics and demographics) are not, as they stand, remotely suitable for use in EU4.

 

[CrabHelmet]

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.

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.