The future of EU4 and Paradox games, a schism?

[Skavian]

I really think we should be celebrating that Paradox games are as popular as they are. If people are saying that somehow (mostly) historical strategy simulator games are going to seriously become the next Call of Duty franchise that warrants some skepticism. I think the niche that's been built up will remain and improve over the years. Having played all the way from Crusader Kings on I've always had my frustrations with Paradox games but mostly it has been with what I see as a lack of access to resources to make the game as good as they could. With recent popularity their war chest has grown and now they are adopting platforms such as Steamworks that I strongly agree with (even though I was one of their Gamersgate people). I think their processes will get refined, and as Wiz indicates, the development team is paying attention to what people post here.

 

[Pornek]

Some mods use a suggestions thread. Ive always wondered why there is no stickied thread here but rather being pointed to the bugforums. There are threads each day with good or bad suggestions and I assume a single topic which is heavily moderated would help a lot more to get valuable input from the community. While it also removes the "white noise" and derailing which those threads often suffer.

 

[Andy_Dandy]

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

Very true. EU4 has to be balanced by other, and may i say deeper and complex, means. Balance choices that are harder to explain to the public then Civilization A gets +1 movement to all his units, but then again Civilization B gets +1 attack to all their melee units.

 

[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.

 

[NCreepy]

If i were in charge of Paradox i would change the system to 3 Monarch Points for everyone. This would make it more Strategic and less luck based. So 5 Points per month before advicors for everyone. I think the game would be easy to Balance when it's less random with regards to these Points.

Same With generals. Make it a point buy system based off of army traditions. More balanced i believe compared to totally random like it is now + idea bonues of course.

 

[Sai Gon]

My main problem is the DLC system. DLCs are nothing more than bad excuses for not including something into the game what was supposed to be there from the beginning and instead demand money for it. Personally I'm outraged that many development studios release half completed games and then they demand extra money for the other half of the game in the form of DLCs. That's why I always download them from alternative sources. And if any developer has a problem with that, then cry me a river! You were supposed to finish the game by the release date. I'd rather pay 5 Euros more for a finished game on a two months laer release date than paying 5 Euros for a separate DLC. It's your choice

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)

 

[Andy_Dandy]

I really think we should be celebrating that Paradox games are as popular as they are.

Yeah. The more people playing the games, the more people comes to the forum, and naturally there will be more whining as well. Lots of people have a huge passion for this game, more people then ever before, and we all have our ideas on how the game should develop further.

 

[Glen_Runciter]

According to you changes to the game is to get profit and overall reduces the quality of those games.

I am asking you. Would you buy the very same game without changes but better graphics for another 40€/$40 ?

you are really not good at arguing.
nobody here said all changes are bad.
the changes that have happened to this franchise are bad.

 

[CrabHelmet]

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.

I don't think anyone is saying that things need to be lifted wholesale from Vic2. It'd probably be pointless to simulate quite so many industrial mechanisms. However, having a much more simplified system that tracks culture, religion, and relevant social class would definitely be useful. Additionally, Vic2's market system doesn't need to be identically replicated. Just adding a distance modifier to trade would work fine. Finally, I'd be fine with guesstimates, even very inaccurate ones, because once the functionality is there, modders can do the rest.

 

[CrabHelmet]

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.

That's a fair and well thought-out answer, thank you.

 

[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.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

If i were in charge of Paradox i would change the system to 3 Monarch Points for everyone. This would make it more Strategic and less luck based. So 5 Points per month before advicors for everyone. I think the game would be easy to Balance when it's less random with regards to these Points.

I've been thinking about doubling the base income rate of monarch points and halving the ruler cap in a mod I'm messing with here and there (IE guaranteed 6/category, but can't possibly get more than 3 from rulers), but only the former is in the defines from what I can tell. The latter is probably in a different file, but I haven't gotten around to hunting that yet.

 

[Delta107]

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.

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.

 

[Hamalcar Barca]

I really think we should be celebrating that Paradox games are as popular as they are. If people are saying that somehow (mostly) historical strategy simulator games are going to seriously become the next Call of Duty franchise that warrants some skepticism. I think the niche that's been built up will remain and improve over the years. Having played all the way from Crusader Kings on I've always had my frustrations with Paradox games but mostly it has been with what I see as a lack of access to resources to make the game as good as they could. With recent popularity their war chest has grown and now they are adopting platforms such as Steamworks that I strongly agree with (even though I was one of their Gamersgate people). I think their processes will get refined, and as Wiz indicates, the development team is paying attention to what people post here.

I agree 100% with this post. More people playing is always a good thing. It gives the developers more money to create what they want to create. These games becoming more and more accessible only makes them better. Accessibility does equal watered-down. The more easily these games are played, the more people will play them, which means there will be more content in the future.

 

[Glen_Runciter]

Yeah. The more people playing the games, the more people comes to the forum, and naturally there will be more whining as well. Lots of people have a huge passion for this game, more people then ever before, and we all have our ideas on how the game should develop further.

another PERFECTLY logical argument here.
because of making the game more accessible, the fanbase grows.
those new players then come to the forum to "whine" about how the franchise used to be better. as in, BEFORE they were even playing the game.

do you even understand how illogical what you just said?
but nooooooo, it's always us, it's always "the whiners", we are the unreasonable ones, not those who are blindly defending their point without making any sense...

 

[Andy_Dandy]

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.

Yeah, and I'd never play a mod where all kings had the same amount of Monarch Points. Sounds extremely boring to me. I like the changing challenges and with different Monarchs and heirs, how it forces you to rethink your gameplay, and how it makes no long term plans of Monarch Point use a safe strategy (think for instance choices of idea groups).

 

[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.

 

[NCreepy]

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.

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%.

 

[Andy_Dandy]

another PERFECTLY logical argument here.
because of making the game more accessible, the fanbase grows.
those new players then come to the forum to "whine" about how the franchise used to be better. as in, BEFORE they were even playing the game.

do you even understand how illogical what you just said?
but nooooooo, it's always us, it's always "the whiners", we are the unreasonable ones, not those who are blindly defending their point without making any sense...

With whiners I mean forumers that can't make a good argument for their opinions, and that seems unable to forsee consequences for other mechanisms when they throw out a statement of what should change, and claim the game is so broken because a mechanism isn't to their liking with no reflections about the big picture. I must admit I seldom see old time lurkers behave in a manner I'd describe as a whiner. Having different opinions of game design/mechanisms is not always the same as whining.

 

[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.