The future of EU4 and Paradox games, a schism?

[CrabHelmet]

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.

That sort of mimics how European states did expand, though. They didn't blob because they had an innate desire to blob; there was a consideration of return on investment. Look at the English-Scottish relationship. England probably could have forcibly subjugated Scotland during this period - as evidence, during the English Civil War Monckton's English army relatively easily did so because they had the political incentive to do so. The reason England didn't was financial. Scotland was mostly very poor in comparison to England, and the cost of continually suppressing resistance would have been high. Certainly, it would have drained resources and efforts from refining other aspects of the English state - it's difficult to reorganize your military when they're involved in an intensive occupation. This was what happened in EU3 - I don't want to conquer poor provinces because, well, they're poor, and the cost/return ratio is too low. Obviously, the arbitrary 100 province cap wasn't useful and needed to be modified, but I think the base mechanic was a positive one.

 

[tapewormlondon]

I have said this before and i will say it again. The problem Paradox faces, is its new found popularity in which it now has a fan base that wants so many different things. Some want "realism", some want to paint the map, some hate the constraints of coalitions, some profess to enjoy it, some think coalitions are broken, others disagree, some like to RP, some want to just smash the hell out of everything, Some hate the idea of Monarch Points, others love it, some like MP, some prefer SP....and it goes on.

Cant change one to please a certain segment without causing but hurt posts a plenty for the other. This isnt unique to EU4 or paradox, its gaming in general. you have a gaming fanbase that range between the ages of 4 yrs old to upwards of 60 years old. Different tastes based on different life experiences. Its cool.....if only we could all agree on one way to play any game in particular. Go to any forum you will see that has never happened. Ever.

The solution is simple and isn't one that paradox or any other games company seem to wish to implement. Options....shit loads and boat loads of personalized options. I mean we are not dealing with people on these forums that hate the game! We are dealing with people playing a game for a year and griping about certain elements. Therefore its not the game they hate, its parts of it.

make AE tinkerable, coalitions tinkerable, dynamic events tinkarable, player bonus tinkarable, AI difficulty tinkerable, Monarch points tinkerable, Lucky Nations (who they are), Tinkerable....In fact any god damn rule you have make it tinkerable. WITHOUT MAKING US MOD IT!! Anyone replying to this post stating "mod it" will have me draw there name in the dust outside and piss on it. I don't buy a game to mod it, I buy it to play it.

ATM most of these options are linked to one another via layer/Ai bonus etc, separate them. Add more options. Shall I let you know my dirty little secret? Sometimes I play the game with player bonuses to reduce AE, because i want to conquer more without the tedium of coalitions. But the combat bonuses and income bonuses make the game too easy - let me do one without the other!

"What about achievements?" I hear you cry. Jesus wept paradox, Its a digital badge on Steam that only the player and a few virtual mates can see, so that they can measure virtual penis sizes. Make several versions of each achievement. Bronze for weaker settings, Silver for medium and Gold for the way you envisage the game to be played. No one can moan! NO ONE!

Then Bob can play his game, and John can play his. For MP you set the house rules before the game starts.

It surely cant be that hard to implement??

 

[Konair0s]

- What exactly happens when you westernize, and how much will it cost prior to starting it?

Heh. In my Ironman Granada game I did quite successful, went to very early westernization, let Noble Rebels enforce demands and Boom! Decade of westernizing and losing points is wasted. I ragequitted then. It gives not a single freaking clue that Westernization will be stopped if non-reactionary (reactionaries have the note that westernizing will be reverted) rebels enforce their demands.

Or when pretender rebels took over the country, my nation collapsed under rebels with most of provinces occupied by pretenders and some provinces occupied by patrios, after collapsing all the cores (except for capital and non-occupied) were given to patriots.

Like, you discover another bs every new game. You can't grant yourself guarantee of knowing after a new patch even if you have read it throughly - patchnotes are incomplete and lying. It is not very great experience I'd say.

 

[Olaus Petrus]

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.

If they have something to say to us they can say it here. What some other communities think or say elsewhere is no concern of us. We can invent our own schisms without meddling outsiders. I'm not attacking against anyone, I'm just saying that this community can form it's own opinions and we aren't thralls of reddit or 4chan communities. Who are they to tell us anything?

Besides if you bothered to read this thread, you would have noticed that I commented when people actually raised some issues in this forum.

 

[Kyoumen]

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.

Thanks for that post, it's really good to hear. Well, hopefully these two new DLCs go well.

 

[grommile]

The solution is simple and isn't one that paradox or any other games company seem to wish to implement. Options....shit loads and boat loads of personalized options.

There's this thing called "combinatorial explosion".

Replacing a fixed parameter with an option supporting a choice of three values doesn't add two new configurations to test; it triples the number of configurations to test, so replacing three fixed parameters with three three-position options multiplies the number of configurations of testing required by twenty-seven. You can choose to skip some of that testing, but the combination you didn't test will be the one that makes the AI enter a bizarre fugue state.

The alternative is to break out a formal proof system, but that costs hundreds of dollars (in labour costs) per line of code proven. (No, this is not an exaggeration.)

 

[Kyoumen]

So players and consumers shouldn't try to drive a game's direction? The company should just have complete and total control over everything, no matter how flawed it might be? I don't think you understand how businesses work; if the consumers are totally compliant, then the quality of the product is almost always marred. Compare a developer like Obsidian with one like Bioware. The former constantly encourages player input and builds its games based on this input; the quality of its products is reflective of this policy and Obsidian has set a high standard for RPGs over the years. The latter, Bioware, refused to accept player input and banned all dissent from its forum. The results of this were only disastrous games - Dragon Age 2, The Old Republic, and Mass Effect 3. Bioware now is nothing but a shell of its former self. Player input is always important, and if you don't think so then you'd fit in well in a totalitarian society.

1) Obsidian games are not more popular than Bioware games, so where exactly is this objective quality that they have over Bioware? It's not reflected in market results.

2) It is simply factually untrue to say Bioware "refused to accept player input and banned all dissent from its forum". It is in fact rather laughably easy to disprove your claim simply by looking at the Bioware forums. For instance, as of this exact moment, a stickied thread in the Mass Effect 3 forum is "Casey Hudson wants to hear fan's ideas on a new mass effect game", and the very first non-stickied thread is "Please make being Renegade FUN again", which sounds like Bioware accepting player input and allowing dissent on their forum to me.

3) Your characterisation of the three games as "disastrous", and that Bioware is "a shell of its former self", are 100% subjective opinions.

 

[PhroX]

That sort of mimics how European states did expand, though. They didn't blob because they had an innate desire to blob; there was a consideration of return on investment. Look at the English-Scottish relationship. England probably could have forcibly subjugated Scotland during this period - as evidence, during the English Civil War Monckton's English army relatively easily did so because they had the political incentive to do so. The reason England didn't was financial. Scotland was mostly very poor in comparison to England, and the cost of continually suppressing resistance would have been high. Certainly, it would have drained resources and efforts from refining other aspects of the English state - it's difficult to reorganize your military when they're involved in an intensive occupation. This was what happened in EU3 - I don't want to conquer poor provinces because, well, they're poor, and the cost/return ratio is too low. Obviously, the arbitrary 100 province cap wasn't useful and needed to be modified, but I think the base mechanic was a positive one.

This actually really highlights something I've come to consider the biggest issue with most the various limitations on expansion PDox have implemented - truce limits, coalitions/AE etc: the expansion is stopped by arbitrary or outside factors, never because it is simply not beneficial to expand.

 

[Kljunas]

There's this thing called "combinatorial explosion".

Replacing a fixed parameter with an option supporting a choice of three values doesn't add two new configurations to test; it triples the number of configurations to test, so replacing three fixed parameters with three three-position options multiplies the number of configurations of testing required by twenty-seven. You can choose to skip some of that testing, but the combination you didn't test will be the one that makes the AI enter a bizarre fugue state.

The alternative is to break out a formal proof system, but that costs hundreds of dollars (in labour costs) per line of code proven. (No, this is not an exaggeration.)

This is why making the game as mod-friendly as possible is a better idea than adding a thousand options, because then making sure the changes work is the modder's responsibility.

And if you know what you're doing, changing values in defines.lua is no different than changing options in an in-game menu.

 

[WeissRaben]

If they have something to say to us they can say it here.

So that it could be said that they are part of a minuscule section of the playerbase? Sorry but no, they are good where they are because they show one thing: dissent is not limited to these forums.

 

[CrabHelmet]

This actually really highlights something I've come to consider the biggest issue with most the various limitations on expansion PDox have implemented - truce limits, coalitions/AE etc: the expansion is stopped by arbitrary or outside factors, never because it is simply not beneficial to expand.

Yeah, this frustrates me a lot too. I actually quite like AE - it sort of makes sense, although it needs some tweaks. Truce limits are just stupid, though. At no point did Napoleon go "huh, well, I totally fucked over Austria in that last war... guess I'm done for the next 15 years!".

 

[LiberiusX]

make ae tinkerable, coalitions tinkerable, dynamic events tinkarable, player bonus tinkarable, ai difficulty tinkerable, monarch points tinkerable, lucky nations (who they are), tinkerable....in fact any god damn rule you have make it tinkerable. Without making us mod it!! Anyone replying to this post stating "mod it" will have me draw there name in the dust outside and piss on it. I don't buy a game to mod it, i buy it to play it.

Atm most of these options are linked to one another via layer/ai bonus etc, separate them. Add more options. Shall i let you know my dirty little secret? Sometimes i play the game with player bonuses to reduce ae, because i want to conquer more without the tedium of coalitions. But the combat bonuses and income bonuses make the game too easy - let me do one without the other!

"what about achievements?" i hear you cry. Jesus wept paradox, its a digital badge on steam that only the player and a few virtual mates can see, so that they can measure virtual penis sizes. Make several versions of each achievement. Bronze for weaker settings, silver for medium and gold for the way you envisage the game to be played. No one can moan! No one!

Then bob can play his game, and john can play his. For mp you set the house rules before the game starts.

It surely cant be that hard to implement??

Most unreasonable post of the day.

Why U Want To Take Away Muh IRNMAN?!?!?!?!

/maximumsarcasm

 

[LiberiusX]

There's this thing called "combinatorial explosion".

Replacing a fixed parameter with an option supporting a choice of three values doesn't add two new configurations to test; it triples the number of configurations to test, so replacing three fixed parameters with three three-position options multiplies the number of configurations of testing required by twenty-seven. You can choose to skip some of that testing, but the combination you didn't test will be the one that makes the AI enter a bizarre fugue state.

The alternative is to break out a formal proof system, but that costs hundreds of dollars (in labour costs) per line of code proven. (No, this is not an exaggeration.)

If this is true, then why do so many grand strategy franchises offer multiple different settings before the game is launched? As I said before, Civ franchise, Sword of the Stars, etc etc.

According to your logic, these games were extremely unprofitable or were among the most successful games in history( in terms of revenue).

They don't railroad you with Ironman, and guess what, you still get e-penor increasing achievements.

Edit: clarification

 

[PhroX]

Yeah, this frustrates me a lot too. I actually quite like AE - it sort of makes sense, although it needs some tweaks. Truce limits are just stupid, though. At no point did Napoleon go "huh, well, I totally fucked over Austria in that last war... guess I'm done for the next 15 years!".

Yeah, I kind of agree with this. I don't think the fundamental idea behind AE is bad, just the implemenation and the rather arbitrary nature of what generates it (e.g. France taking one province off Provence generates more AE than eliminating one of it's major rivals and gaining I forget how many provinces from the Burgundian Inheritance) is a bit off.

Truces though...yeah, awful mechanic. The limitations on starting wars should be that it is not beneficial for you to do so, not something arbitrary and ahistorical forced upon you. Frankly, I think the costs of major and/or sustained wars should be much higher. When you've been in a long war against your main enemies, you shouldn't want to go back to war straight away, not because of a truce, but because your nation is in no state to do so and any benefits gained from the war are outweighed by it's costs. War exhaustion should be a much more significant factor - it should rise quicker, and be much harder to remove. Being able to flat out burn it off with diplo points trivialises the mechanic (I don't mind being able to accelerate the decay by investing, for example, 1 diplo Point/month to increase the natural decay by 0.05/month or similar, but being able to spend as much as you like instaneously is bad).

 

[Merse]

I still think DLCs are only to make you pay twice as much for a game as it reasonably worth. Like American Dream or Conquest of Paradise, they are expensive compared to the price of the game and what they add to it. And all that basically only for making American nations playable which was already there in EU3, consequently it would have been there in EU4 from day 1....
That's the kind of stuff my stomach can't take...

 

[Olaus Petrus]

So that it could be said that they are part of a minuscule section of the playerbase? Sorry but no, they are good where they are because they show one thing: dissent is not limited to these forums.

Like I said earlier, I'm not against those people voicing their concerns (they have every right to do it). But if they have complains and they want that the devs hear them, then the official forum might be the best place to voice out your opinion. I don't anything against the idea of getting new members into this community. Complaining in some random third party forum doesn't have any effect. Naturally they have every right to discuss about EUIV as much as they like in their own forum, but it's gonna make as much difference as discussing about the current crisis in Ukraine.

I'm not saying that posting here will change anything, but at least there's a chance that someone actually reads your complains and might even answer to you.

 

[WeissRaben]

Like I said earlier, I'm not against those people voicing their concerns (they have every right to do it). But if they have complains and they want that the devs hear them, then the official forum might be the best place to voice out your opinion. I don't anything against the idea of getting new members into this community. Complaining in some random third party forum doesn't have any effect. Naturally they have every right to discuss about EUIV as much as they like in their own forum, but it's gonna make as much difference as discussing about the current crisis in Ukraine.

I'm not saying that posting here will change anything, but at least there's a chance that someone actually reads your complains and might even answer to you.

The standard reply to complaints here is "vocal minority". It is true, there is no direct line with the devs, on 4chan or Reddit (somewhat more on Reddit); but they can be pointed at, because if ours is a vocal minority then it's a hell of a spread out vocal minority.

 

[steelers708]

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

If you think that is harassment then you obviously haven't played World of Tanks.

 

[PhroX]

If you think that is harassment then you obviously haven't played World of Tanks.

siema pl?

 

[Olaus Petrus]

The standard reply to complaints here is "vocal minority". It is true, there is no direct line with the devs, on 4chan or Reddit (somewhat more on Reddit); but they can be pointed at, because if ours is a vocal minority then it's a hell of a spread out vocal minority.

There's a "vocal minority" on this forum or in fact many "vocal minorities", because often the "vocal minorities" disagree with each other. I don't remember any single occasion that majority of this community would have actually united and voiced their complains in a manner which could show that majority of the forumites are united under common cause.