I have only a vague idea what 4chan and reddit are. My question is, why should we or Paradox care a damn what some people think in some obscure third party forums?
1. Obscure? Reddit is one of the biggest communities I'm aware of, ignoring giants like Facebook; 4chan is eacily the most (in)famous of them.
2. They're not just people on some third-party website; they're fans of the game with the gall to discuss this game somewhere they like, and who bring up arguments that you're ignoring via judicious application of
ad hominem.
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
True in general, but I feel that EUIV was quite a complete game when it was released. Yes, the DLCs add more features, but compare EU 4.0 not to 4.7 but to Civilization 4.0--or even patched Civ IV with all its DLCs/expansions--and tell me that it's not a deeper, complete game.
I'm surprised at the amount of people who don't think Paradox is selling out to casual gamers, I mean in the long run this will end up ruining franchises like EU,CK and HOI because of Paradox's focus on large profits by broadening (dumb down) the games. EU4 and HOI4 are perfect example were these franchises are clearly head, down the milked unoriginal game path.
This is either slippery-slope or pure insanity. Again, while you might find it more dumbed-down than previous iterations of EU, comparing it to just about any other comparable strategy game (let's use the Civilization series as a baseline), it's an absolute horror to "casual gamers". I'm a Dwarf Fortress veteran, and I find EUIV to be difficult at times. Certainly, it's a lot murkier and more complex than Civilization. If Paradox was trying to pander to the casual audience, they're doing an incredibly fractionally-assed job at it; given the way Paradox is known for overdoing things, this seems unlikely.
One thing that some of you seem to be missing is that easier to understand/play =/= more for casual players. It might simply mean that the game is better-designed. Take DF, for instance. I'm perfectly willing to admit that the UI is horrible and the very definition of unpolished. If it was cleaned up for DF 2015 (unlikely for a few reasons I could explain if asked), would that mean Toady was trying to appeal more to casual gamers? Of course not!
I think the problem is more that there are some neophytes here and in other places that didn`t see all the moaning and bitching of the old EU2 fanbase when EU3 came out.
And the same for HOI2 fanbase and HOI3.
I think only CK2 was a game that avoided the "schism" of oldfags and newfargs.
I'm shocked. That CKII didn't have such an outburst.
There's an almost universal law of gaming which extends even to tabletop games: Whenever a new version comes out, fans will complain. It's different, now it sucks.
however if paradox keeps going down this path they'll end up like RISK and be a incredibly simplistic and dumbed down game solely for a profit at the expense of the original fan base.
Better get a bulk discount on wedding cake.
It would be entirely illogical for them to do that. In order to be dumbed down to Risk levels, they'd need to transition through a state where it was unpalatable to both old fans and Civilization fans. Plus, they'd be competing with Risk and dozens of free/cheap mobile games (among others), while if they remain more or less where they are now, they basically have a monopoly on their market segment.
I think, the most problematic aspect of EU IV is the focus on expansion, which means, that you've got barely anyhing to do regarding realm management. Of course, you can build stuff, convert provinces etc., but the building system is really pale in comparison to the other aspects of the game. This game needs something like a cultural victory as it is possible in the Civ series.
The concept of a "cultural victory" is and will always be foreign to a game without a win condition. I do agree that being able to focus more on non-conquest aspects of the game would be absolutely excellent; it might even get me to purchase one of the expansion packs/DLCs/whatevers.
(In my opinion, they're more like downloadable expansion packs, but Paradox calls them DLC, so...)
Using expressions like "spectacular person" in an obviously sarcastic way or calling people a child? Is this not harassment? Well it is in my book, anyway I have more productive things to do right now
Such as reply to the post immediately following one where you said:
Or maybe misinterpret "child" as being condescending? It struck me more as...like when an elderly priest refers to an impolite stranger as "my child".
This only Works if People actually buys these DLCs that most likely would've been free back in the good ole' days.
Just to point out, the EUIV DLC is more like expansion packs in their scope and scale. I highly doubt they'd be free in the "good ol' days," if they were even available. Certainly, the tweaks to the game offered free when they release each pack wouldn't be.
To be honest I always thought a better MP experience makes for a better SP game.
In an ideal game, it would. In most games, the AI is stone dumb compared to a decent player, and while EU has above-average AI, it also happens to be the kind of complex game it's hard to code good AI for and a playerbase that tends to exploit small flaws to the maximum. So, the theory may or may not work in practice. Of course, if it worked in practice, you wouldn't need to be designing/balancing any given thing "for multiplayer," now would you?
Seriously? Are you new here? ROFL Anyway thanks for your input but like I said I have more productive things to do right now.
The more you insult people, the more I hope you'll carry through on your threats of doing other things.
Putting aside any and all arguments about how the numbers Johan posted are to be interpreted, that does not in any way invalidate what I said.
You claimed that a large portion of the playerbase plays multiplayer. If we assume that the average player of multiplayer plays four times as much single-player as multiplayer, then yes, most people do play multiplayer, but most don't play much of it. On the other hand, if we assume the average player of multiplayer plays four times as much multiplayer as singleplayer, then while people who play multiplayer tend to play it almost exclusively, not very many play any.
No matter how you suggest the numbers add up, MP is either played by a small fraction of players, played a small fraction of the time by those players, or both. A focus on multiplayer in a game where 85% of the playtime is singleplayer is...questionable.
There was a post by Captain Gars earlier in development, where he said that the rest of the team would have to walk over his corpse before he allowed EU4 to become an MP-only game. But I don't know if that still holds (or, to be honest, if the current Captain Gars is actually a zombie and said march did happen).
"Multiplayer-Only" =/= "Focused on Multiplayer"
Surely it's a design flaw if the content is so lacking that the players resort to 'messing about'?
Not at all! An entire genre of games (sandbox) is devoted to just messing around (plus a little maintenance and whatnot). Heck, there's an entire genre of games that are literally just messing around--including some of the old classics!
If it's still fun, it's still good.
1: -snip-
And seriously? I think in 2014 a strategy title can do better than that.
It can, but that doesn't mean it should. Your system sounds absolutely fascinating on paper, but take a step back. Is EUIV ultimately about battles? Even if you think it's a game of conquest above all else, it's clearly about wars rather than battles. Focusing too much on individual battles (especially given the tendency of the AI to retreat--understandably--leading to a massive number of battles), that just sounds like unnecessary levels of micromanagement. Besides, you're supposed to be the monarch of the nation, not the general of an army.
Sounds pretty good.
I'd remove the deterministic direction of flow entirely. If Venice screws up its trade and Byzantium rises, Constantinople should be an end-node instead of Venice. If the Aztecs pull off a sunset invasion and subjugate the Europeans, trade should flow west across the Atlantic, while it currently flows east. Stuff like that.
But yeah, trade needs to be reworked.
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.
This is largely because there's not much to say about things you like. "I'm glad EUIV lets you play as any nation in the world! That's...great. Um, don't remove it?"
'Well balanced MP game' does not mean 'every nation is equal'.
Wasn't that at least part of his point?
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.
I'm remembering the rest of the thread, filled with veterans from early EU games who said that EUIV was definitely the best, contrasted to people who may or may not have been and complained that EUIII was better for X, Y, and Z reason...
It's easy for people to hate a given aspect of the game enough that they assume anything else must have been better. Imagine that current aggressive expansion/coalition mechanics get replaced with a "Defensive Confederation" mechanic which makes them less annoying and gives more control over getting rid of them/having them not bug you (aside from not conquering), and overall is a major boon to the game. Not imagine some players of EUV, who end up being the target of these DC's a lot, so they pine for Aggressive Expansion. After all, it's gotta be better than these federations!
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.
My problem with monarch points has less to do with the general idea, the randomness, or any of that, and more to do with the categories themselves. Why does building docks draw from the same stockpile of points as new ship designs, which is a different pool from harsh treatment and inventing cannons?
Far, far worse is the reverse situation: you can afford +1s, but there are only +3s available.
Which has been complained about repeatedly and at length, and at this point I have given up doing so and decided to declare it a deliberate misdesign.
Two posts above yours, Wiz (who works at Paradox) noted that the non-random components of adviser distribution were giving a wide array of levels and "not giving +3's to OPMs," which is presumably a simplified version of some mechanic which reduces the chance of high-skill advisers in poor nations. I don't think you can rightfully make that claim.
A Paradox style grand strategy Fantasy/Space game would also be truly interesting and most likely turn out awesome!
I'd prefer a space game, because it means there's a theoretical possibility of getting save conversion chains from the 800's to the distant future. Fantasizing the intermediate games is left as an exercise for the reader to do in another thread.
Also, some people need to remember that each of PI's strategy games has a specialty. Vicky is about economics, HoI has combat mechanics, EU has conquest, and CK does individual people. They've done a lot to expand each of these so their weaknesses arn't as obvious. But ultimately, each game is about that specialty and complaining that EU doesn't have Vicky's economic strengths, or that Vicky doesn't have HoI's combat mechanics, or that EU doesn't flesh out dynasties like CK does is a bit silly. Sure, we can want improvements. But don't expect EU to ever be as good at economies as Vicky is.
The image I had of EUIV before playing, and my image of what I
want EU to be, is not just a conquest game. It's a full national simulator set in the late Middle Ages/Renaissance/early Industrial era. There's no reason it has to be focused only on conquest just because that's its "focus"; I'd like to see mechanics that work migrate from one game to another (in modified form to fit the time and the rest of the game). Just because EU isn't an economic game doesn't mean that it can't incorporate some of the mechanics from Vicky, and just because it's focused on nations rather than people doesn't mean that more clear and manipulable dynastic mechanics wouldn't be a great boon to people wanting to expand more peacefully.
yeah wow I can go on a pilgrimage, which the 3rd time I do it is entirely predictable in all outcomes. there needs to be hundreds if not thousands of more events in ck2 relating to characters and what can happen to them with REAL consequences.
holding a feast for the 25th time to boost relations temporarily is not exciting when you're doing it again and again and again........
"There's no DLC's that add events and flavor!"
"What about this and this?"
"Those don't count because I don't like them."
Doesn't that usually come with a chance for your monarch/leader to get assassinated? Losing Wiz would be kinda bad.
Wiz isn't the leader of Paradox.
Mind, losing Johan (?) wouldn't be much better.
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.
What bugs me the most is that, from my figurative armchair, changing the categories to things like technological (for improving technology) and traditional (for things like coring and spreading culture) would make more sense and provide more logical choices, like "Do I want to focus on naval technology or land warfare?" and "I could spread my culture, but then I wouldn't be able to core anything," rather than "I can't spread culture, I want to improve my naval technology".
But your soldiers won't be worse. MIL ideas give MILtech discount and if you only spend MILpoints on tech you will be wasting a lot of points on ahead of time penalty and MP cap.
Since when have all military ideas given a discount on military technology?
And focusing on technology doesn't mean wasting hundreds of points buying technology decades ahead of time. It means that you'll be miles ahead of the curve, military-wise, because you didn't focus on...making your nation more militarized?
Hello guys. I don't know if anyone will notice this, but I think have a solution (or a reference) how to balance the game between single and multiplayer.
I will give an example with the MOBA League of Legends. It's DOTA-like-game which is only multiplayer focused. There are many different game modes. In some modes one of the champions may be balanced, but it's really overpowered in another game mode. So the developers (RIOT Games) decided to implement a system, which gives random buffs/debuffs to a champion depending on which game mode you play. You may say now "WTF is this s*** and how can you compare LoL with EU4?!?!"
The truth is that Paradox can simply make different "rules" for single and multiplayer games. For example:
Truces:
- 15 years in MP,
- 10 years in SP
Coalitions:
-Coalition casus belli if 3 or more countries form a coalition against another nation in SP,
-Coalition casus belli if 3 or more countries form a coalition against another nation which has at least 15 AE in MP
etc.
Sorry if my English is bad or this has been already proposed.
Best regards, Kris.
Your English is fine. Better than some native speakers bother with, for sure.
As for the idea...it would work, but it leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Ultimately, the goal of EUIV is to have the AI be nothing but another player. Sure, a somewhat dull player who doesn't communicate well with the humans, but a player nonetheless. Making such a sharp distinction between games where there is one human and many makes the AI less like players and more like props.
I don't see why trying to appeal to the old fanbase to the detriment of everyone else is such a good thing; it's a lose-lose proposition. If they change things, they get complaints about that. If they don't, they get complaints about re-releasing the same game.
As for monarch points, I like the idea but dislike the implementation. Administrative has so many wide-ranging applications; Diplomatic includes navy and peace deals; spending Military to improve your nation's militarism/war-readiness means you'll have a more backwards army;
buildings; etc. The choices just feel so artificial. Changing the distribution and categories is a task for EUV rather than EUIV, but I hope it happens.
