By all means go ahead but after all this is the internet, considering the Paradox forums are tamed, you shouldn't visit the rest of the web if that's what you consider harassment.
The future of EU4 and Paradox games, a schism?
- Thread starter Riekopo
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
- Status
your really proving yourself the bigger person by complaining and whining this much, oh they insulted you, oh no
If you can't handle a small amount of harassment stay off the internet and don't get into arguments especially when your in the wrong, the current rebel system is stupid and unbalanced in many way but its far from game breaking and its the literal opposite of a problem, thats actually part of the current problem is that most rebels can be stopped with a simple accept button, it makes them too easy to deal with, they are no threat at all
During the presentation at Gamescom, the first thing the Paradox CEO said was that the company had an annual growth of 35% or something. Johan boasted in a ama thread that he knew how to have good metacritic scores and good sales.
They are going full EA at the moment, after the success of CK2 they are milking the cow hard with all those sub-standard DLC's. I hope they will come to their senses before they hit the wall when their fanbase will be tired of this.
They are going full EA at the moment, after the success of CK2 they are milking the cow hard with all those sub-standard DLC's. I hope they will come to their senses before they hit the wall when their fanbase will be tired of this.
Are you serious? Go ahead and quote me wherever I said rebels where a threat. I said this, here I will increase it for you because you seemed to have missed it:
Well I usually don´t hang out on forums where people don´t respect each other; I have over 2000 post in these forums but probably less than 1% were made in the EU IV forum simply because harassment is pretty much guaranteed to happen.
So you're saying that 1% of your "harassment" came from EU4 threads and its guaranteed? Maybe its not the people in EU4 threads since it's so isolated, because you seemed pretty heated in your previous posts.
This only Works if People actually buys these DLCs that most likely would've been free back in the good ole' days.
Yeah, a lot of stuff has always been tweaked. To be honest I always thought a better MP experience makes for a better SP game.
I couldn't say it any better. Moving from "grognard" world into a more mainstream location through things like heavy Steam marketing of CK 2 and, later, EU 4 brought in an influx of different players than the average PI customer from the EU 2/CK days. Different crowds have differing expectations for the game and the reality is you can't please them all. However, it isn't a huge problem, IMO, since the biggest complaint driver is where the balance point is which can easily be modded to suit your personal (or game group for mp) taste. If it wasn't for the stupidity of the e-peen achievement system it would really be a non-issue...
Single Player Players telling MP players that they are the casual ones.
Oh my god, you guys actually realize that most MP players probably know the game better than most of the community?
I never got this attitude, even when it comes to "casual" games like COD the MP players probably spend more time knowing and mastering the mechanics than the majority of thegaming community in other games.
But then again, the general feeling is that :
-Do a 10 hour playthrough on a hardcore game like Dark Souls == You´re hardcore!
-Spend 100 hours knowing the maps and mechanics for a "casual" game like Call of Duty/Halo= flithy casuals
As far as the total war series go, I don´t think people actually remember how Vainilla Rome and Med 2 were at launch(or are right now).. Seriously, even from Med1 to Rome 1 the forums where on fire because , and I am semi quoting "CA sold out and decided to add more graphics and flashy stuff over gameplay"
So yeah nobody cares what gaming hipsters say
Oh my god, you guys actually realize that most MP players probably know the game better than most of the community?
I never got this attitude, even when it comes to "casual" games like COD the MP players probably spend more time knowing and mastering the mechanics than the majority of thegaming community in other games.
But then again, the general feeling is that :
-Do a 10 hour playthrough on a hardcore game like Dark Souls == You´re hardcore!
-Spend 100 hours knowing the maps and mechanics for a "casual" game like Call of Duty/Halo= flithy casuals
As far as the total war series go, I don´t think people actually remember how Vainilla Rome and Med 2 were at launch(or are right now).. Seriously, even from Med1 to Rome 1 the forums where on fire because , and I am semi quoting "CA sold out and decided to add more graphics and flashy stuff over gameplay"
So yeah nobody cares what gaming hipsters say
Seriously? Are you new here? ROFL Anyway thanks for your input but like I said I have more productive things to do right now.
I find it hilarious how many people think game companies are supposed to have a higher purpose than profit. They aren't. They don't. That's what Atari cared about thirty years ago, and it's what Paradox cares about now. If you want games made for the love of the art only, play indie games. There's a lot of them. Some of them, in genres that interest me, are genuinely really cool so that's not entirely sarcastic advice. If you hate that companies make games for the purpose of making money, you would probably be happier looking at games not made by "companies" because those are functionally the only such games that exist.
Paradox is making more money than they used to. A lot more. It is a pretty hard to convincingly argue that this presages their ultimate destruction. That is even more true since you can watch the forums for Johan's once-monthly gleefully posted definitive proof that this forum (and reddit and 4chan, if they are of similar views) is a tiny minority of the fanbase and every conceivable metric indicates that apparently the fanbase at large very much does not find the DLCs substandard, or the game to be ruined, et cetera.
This isn't to say you can't complain (or to say I'm entirely happy with where Paradox is or where they appear to be going; I'm not "defending them", I'm pointing out the facts as they appear to be). But it seems very unlikely you're going to convince anybody that they're "going to hit the wall" when there is no evidence other than forum complaining to indicate any such wall is forthcoming and quite a bit of evidence to suggest there isn't. As a dire warning, it has no teeth.
Also, people on the internet comparing every company that ever does anything they don't like ever to scary bogeyman EA is really grating, but that's my own personal pet peeve so I suppose I can't blame you if you keep doing it even though I have never once seen anybody make such a comparison that stands up to even basic scrutiny I mean really people cripes EA is a fricking company it's not Video Game Hitler.
Gaming hipsters? I think that casual gamers eventually ruin the quality of a good game series/company by the massive broadening of games in question that occur to appeal to more casual players. COD,Total War, Halo, MOH have all lost what made them great, their all now some generic form of the their earlier times. So all this really does is increase profit but not necessarily the quality experience for the actual fan-base.
Oh, ye of little faith...
Since it's clearly a critical matter, worthy of clarification: that event only gave 15% revoltrisk (which could be reduced to 10% if you had enough cash to afford the second option); a related event near the end game gave another 15%; and a half dozen other events, giving 5-10%, could get you well over 40%.
Proof that Paradox has ALWAYS discouraged playing RotW nations.
"The actual fanbase" of games is the people who play those games.
You are not a better person or a better gamer because you played a game earlier in a series than someone else, and it does not make your tastes intrinsically more valuable.
I have nothing against the fact that Paradox makes profits. I wish them the best. But I thought their communication about it was odd, like if as players and customers we are suppose to rejoice because of the profits of Paradox shareholders.
As for the future of Paradox, I think it is great if they attract new players with their new streamlining game design, but, at the end of the day, they will never reach out the candy crush playerbase, no matter how hard they try to casualize their games. People who play strategy games in an historical settings want depth, complexity and attention to detail. If Paradox move away from this they will lose their fanbase, have bad publicity and could see competition rise.
The Dlc's milking is another problem, I have given up EU4 because of them, the free updates coming with them break the game each time and I have higher standard of quality.
Last edited:
I just really disagree with this thread. It's totally unjustified. We must be living on a different planet or something.
"Casualization" =/= good UI design. Good UI design is a completely separate matter. As one of this game's more "hardcore" players (at least by hours spent anyway), even now I'll call them out on woefully terrible UI. For a game that's supposedly catered to casuals, it's odd that it has tons of opaque mechanics that can only be inferred from experience, despite some of them being basic rules of the game. For example:
- What dictates terrain chosen in battle?
- Where do you get a river crossing penalty...or perhaps more relevant, where *don't* you get this?
- What is your combat width? I've seen players with 100's of hours not be able to answer it correctly, because the game won't tell you directly, you have to compute it.
- How do PUs work...this patch?
- When does war leader change?
- If war leader does change, when can you still make separate peace with the original target?
- Which factors in combat have the most and least impact between pips, tactics, combat ability, discipline, morale, etc?
- How do you gain army tradition?
- What bonuses does the horde government give?
- Why doesn't the income screen match your actual income?
- Which of the targets in the AE tooltip in making peace deals actually get the AE, and which don't?
- How do coalitions work?
- What exactly happens when you westernize, and how much will it cost prior to starting it?
- How does unit maintenance work?
- How do you end a peasant's war? Aspirations for liberty?
- How does a peace deal scale with a country's size? A coalition's size?
This is just off the top of my head, there's more, lots more. Some of these are grey areas, like events. There should probably be some indication of how to end a peasant's war for example in the game (I don't see how a casual player will see an end to it), but it's impractical to document every event in a manual. Stuff like "how do you get army tradition and how much does each action give" and "does leader maneuver influence terrain choice" are non-negotiable. We found out the latter is "yes" roughly 1/2 year into the game, and that is pathetic to the point of being shameful. AT is still in theory mode.
When you can remove the AI's behavior from the mechanics and *still* not know the rules in a player vs player only environment, you effectively have a game with hidden rules of gameplay. That isn't "complicated depth", and it sure as heck isn't "catered to casual players". What it IS, however, is shoddy.
Mechanics like coalitions are not casual player bait either. The most common complaints about coalitions come from a mixture of rookie players and some of the game's best, with averagish players who understand how they work but aren't familiar enough with the game to stretch their limits being the most likely to conclude they're fine.
A lot of the "schism" in this game could be mended if the game's rules were ever clearly laid out. So many arguments on this forum are borne of or exacerbated by players arguing from different frames of understanding of the game they're playing, and that's only to be expected when the game hides its rules, and then changes those hidden rules without documenting it on top, or we've given inaccurate patch notes that actively mislead players about how mechanics that are changed function. I'd be very interested to hear which portion of the community (current or future) that this supposedly benefits, but I'd be surprised if anyone could actually manage to come up with something. Memorizing which movements can lead to river crossings is not competent 2014 gameplay and it isn't for casual players.
The design theory of "AIs as competitors" is not necessarily bad. The implementation is bad though, and changes don't do what the devs claim they do.
The only "schism" here is between people who aren't bothered by any of this and will name-call people who are, and players who want a sensible title that fits its billing as a "strategy" game and not a fake difficulty bonanza like "I wanna be the guy".
And make no mistake, getting hosed by the game hiding its rules, and being unable to re-load if it involves achievements is 100% pure fake difficulty. The sheep-like behavior of coming to the defense of that crap and chastising the player for not knowing hidden rules just rubs salt on the wound. It's even better when the player making the comment actually don't know the game that well himself. THAT causes a schism.
- Status