The Great and Forever Disabled Expansions

[mattkunz]

So if I understand this post right, PDS shouldn't add a feature to an expansion, that makes it more difficult to get certain achievements? Boy it's hard to get this right... If expansions make achievements easier it's pay to win, if they make them harder this?
Anyway turning expansions off for an achievement run is not min/maxing it's lowering (or raising) the difficulty level.

 

[RobRoy3]

We're going to fix it so you can't toggle expansion on and off repeatedly in a single save game though.

Was it broken?

So what if someone wants to play that way? Your "fix" denies them that opportunity. Why? What problem has, thus, been "fixed"? Something that .00001% of achievement hunters MIGHT do if they perceive some advantage?

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Was it broken?

So what if someone wants to play that way? Your "fix" denies them that opportunity. Why? What problem has, thus, been "fixed"? Something that .00001% of achievement hunters MIGHT do if they perceive some advantage?

No kidding. With the kind of logic I'm seeing here I'd almost expect to see heavy changes to start dates after 1444, if one were to apply the logic consistently. If future start dates aren't given the time of day because almost nobody plays them, how does that logic suddenly lend credence to "fixing" an optional niche move of moderate utility?

Does this also mean that if someone joins a game with or without DLC in MP, they won't be able to continue that game in SP? Isn't that breaking more than it's "fixing"?

 

[Wizzington]

Was it broken?

So what if someone wants to play that way? Your "fix" denies them that opportunity. Why? What problem has, thus, been "fixed"? Something that .00001% of achievement hunters MIGHT do if they perceive some advantage?

It causes lots of weird bugs depending on which expansions are flipped on and off, and it's not worth having those bugs there for the sake of that tiny percent of achievement hunters

 

[Suzaku]

I personally wish that some mechanics could be disabled from DLC. For example the Religious League when Reformed faith dominates the HRE. Buddhist religion changes in Common Sense.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I personally wish that some mechanics could be disabled from DLC. For example the Religious League when Reformed faith dominates the HRE. Buddhist religion changes in Common Sense.

I sort of agree, but this is a better sign these mechanics aren't working too well. If we're seeing reformed painting 2/3 of the HRE and 5 protestant minors, the current league war setup is nonsense. Under such a scenario we have no historical precedent but would anticipate the "reformed" religions carrying weight and posturing in the HRE more effectively. Creating nonsense outcomes like "Catholic league wins" but having 3 eligible Catholic nations left suggests that the mechanic needs work.

It's the same deal with Buddhism. The over-arching mechanics and incentives in the game make the karma slider as-implemented an active detriment to the faith. If something is going to see development time and marketing as a fun-to-use feature, strong disincentive to using it at all because it gets in the way of basic gameplay is questionable. Then again, pdox seems pretty hard-set in making the Abrahamic faiths far and away the best, so I doubt we'll see it turn good, maybe viable if we're lucky (Hindu is viable at least).

It causes lots of weird bugs depending on which expansions are flipped on and off, and it's not worth having those bugs there for the sake of that tiny percent of achievement hunters

This still doesn't make sense. Aside from achievement hunters, who would encounter said bugs, and who among this also-rare subgroup would be advantaged by being unable to continue the save whatsoever without identical DLC they may or may not possess? It sounds more like an "incompatible versions" thing to me.

And I'm saying this as someone who has never tried it personally. It just seems odd.

 

[RobRoy3]

It causes lots of weird bugs depending on which expansions are flipped on and off, and it's not worth having those bugs there for the sake of that tiny percent of achievement hunters

Fair enough. Thanks for the clarification.

Pity, though. There are (non-achievement) scenarios where I like to turn off El Dorado, in order to take advantage of manual exploration. After that initial exploration phase, though, I prefer to have it enabled. I suspect there are other game styles that might prefer disabling achievements for a period of time.

 

[SolSys]

Never played ironman. Don't care about achievements. Last I heard, game only plays properly if connected through steam while playing. Spending all my time playing Victoria anyways.

You can play offline just fine without any issues.
The only reason you get an error at the beginning is because it tries to connect to Steamworks.

 

[RELee]

You can play offline just fine without any issues.
The only reason you get an error at the beginning is because it tries to connect to Steamworks.

Who are you and why are you talking to me. Back to Missouri U. with you, laddie!

 

[MCMartel]

That's a sad statistic, it basically implies that only 16.8% of people who bought EUIV actually bothered to play it.

Wow, thanks for, in a single post, representing everything wrong with this community.

 

[SolSys]

This still doesn't make sense. Aside from achievement hunters, who would encounter said bugs, and who among this also-rare subgroup would be advantaged by being unable to continue the save whatsoever without identical DLC they may or may not possess? It sounds more like an "incompatible versions" thing to me.

And I'm saying this as someone who has never tried it personally. It just seems odd.

Most likely because they keep getting bug reports and I doubt most of them don't bother to mention enabling/disabling expansions in the middle.
I got CS in the middle of my HRE game and decided to enable/disable it to see how it plays. Results were "wonky" [in the end enabled it only in the next game].

Besides, it's not like they said you won't be able to enable/disable expansions at all. You're just limited from doing so in the middle of a game.

 

[SolSys]

Who are you and why are you talking to me. Back to Missouri U. with you, laddie!

I'm sorry, I didn't get the reference

 

[Krajzen]

Can't mod just automatically remove such threads? Every week some digital warrior points at pdox and declares war against it, while simultaneously spending billions of dollars on some cut-out dlc-map-packs released by EA

 

[elpibeuruguayo]

Can't mod just automatically remove such threads? Every week some digital warrior points at pdox and declares war against it, while simultaneously spending billions of dollars on some cut-out dlc-map-packs released by EA

Turn down for what

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Can't mod just automatically remove such threads? Every week some digital warrior points at pdox and declares war against it, while simultaneously spending billions of dollars on some cut-out dlc-map-packs released by EA

Maybe automatically remove posts that are 1) unrelated to the topic 2) categorize and 3) attack the credibility of people rather than addressing the points they made, right or wrong, too?

Even if you don't agree with OP, he made an assertion that DLCs are adding things that arguably make the game flow worse or (in the case of Buddhism) some starting nations less fun to play. He might be right, mistaken, or wrong, but that doesn't matter. It's still a valid topic that can be discussed, making a push to delete such topics ironic.

 

[jdrou]

It messes with Johan's statistics gathering.

Not unless "offline" means literally no internet connection. Even without Steam running the game sends stats to Paradox.

 

[Chief of Staff]

Fair enough. Thanks for the clarification.

Pity, though. There are (non-achievement) scenarios where I like to turn off El Dorado, in order to take advantage of manual exploration. After that initial exploration phase, though, I prefer to have it enabled. I suspect there are other game styles that might prefer disabling achievements for a period of time.

I'm pretty sure you can still do manual exploration with El Dorado enabled. You just leave the auto-explore off and click a destination within unexplored regions you want it to go to.

 

[FrigidSoul]

Can't mod just automatically remove such threads? Every week some digital warrior points at pdox and declares war against it, while simultaneously spending billions of dollars on some cut-out dlc-map-packs released by EA

More censorship is one thing this forum doesn't need.

 

[gdj]

As it stands, especially with common sense, no-one (serious gamer and/or minmaxer, not roleplayer) ever has them enabled so you can't really get an idea for how to play with them from other good players. This is largely because development is an absolute non-starter for a good player, they will never have any points to waste on it.

Wow. So everyone who does not play like you is not a good player. Amazing.

But on a more serious note, Common Sense is far from useless from a minmax approach. Buffing a province with development of 9 to 10 can be strategically important if you need an additional building slot. El Dorado is not useless in terms of minmaxing too, attacking the Actecs/Incas/Mayas while they lose their vassals/have uprisings/lose territory might save you time and money. So why disable these fine DLCs?

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Wow. So everyone who does not play like you is not a good player. Amazing.

But on a more serious note, Common Sense is far from useless from a minmax approach. Buffing a province with development of 9 to 10 can be strategically important if you need an additional building slot. El Dorado is not useless in terms of minmaxing too, attacking the Actecs/Incas/Mayas while they lose their vassals/have uprisings/lose territory might save you time and money. So why disable these fine DLCs?

Seriously? You're going to talk about laughingstock walkover wars where your biggest threat is overextension, and not treasure fleets or actually playing as the natives, or custom nations ?