This is going too far now. Paradox fix the god-damn game already!!

[CyaN]

This type of hyperbole is so ridiculous it undermines any valid point you may have.

Yep, we're square on that. And pretty much the rest of the post; I could change the subject of the sentences and repeat 90% of it word for word back to you, but... you know, too much trouble, don't really care about you or your opinion or this thread, etc.

 

[Neoptolemos]

The game is immensely fun for most people. It was on release. And it's gotten better. It will never be perfect, though I hope it comes close. It will never suit every gamer out there, though it'd be nice if the difficulty settings could accommodate people who like an easier game.

But, while you wait for an patch that may never come (i.e., a patch that will ideally suit your playstyle), why not try modding the game and tailoring it to your desired level of difficulty? If this represents your entire gaming budget for the rest of the year, you might as well make the best of it. I don't see how refusing to play it punishes anyone but yourself. Nor does popping into every thread to trash the latest release, ad nauseum, seem like a productive nor entertaining use of time. It's still one of the best strategy game out there, it's just gotten harder. Harping on some minor (if legitimate) bugs that may've crept into the latest patch isn't going to change the fact that Paradox is clearly trying to make the default game fairly challenging. When/if they come out with some easier/WC modes and/or allow ironman with mods, that'd be great. But I find it hard to believe you can't find a way to have fun playing this game in 1.2.

And meanwhile you're missing the entire point of his post. No one is (or very few people are) complaining about difficulty in 1.2. I understand why you'd want to engage a strawman like that, because modding and difficulty are easy solutions for it. We're complaining about poor design decisions that make gameplay not fun. I would be willing to bet that "opaque and erratic diplomacy" is not the idea of fun for most Paradox gamers, even ones like me who've been playing since early EU2. There are good reasons to like it opaque and erratic, just like there are good reasons to like just about anything short of pedophiliac torture porn, but the existence of those reasons does not negate all complaints. I personally think that Paradox would be keenly interested, even desperate, to have smart and experienced gamers explain why certain parts of their game aren't fun for them, rather than just demand that they deal with it. It's called "constructive criticism" and it's something that this forum seems to have a complicated relationship with.

 

[CyaN]

I personally think that Paradox would be keenly interested, even desperate, to have smart and experienced gamers explain why certain parts of their game aren't fun for them, rather than just demand that they deal with it. It's called "constructive criticism" and it's something that this forum seems to have a complicated relationship with.

http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?724244-1.3-Wishlist

14 pages of constructive criticism (and it's not the only recent thread composed almost entirely of it). Eventually you stop giving a long explanation about what do you dislike and what do you suggest because, well, you have done so twenty times already in twenty threads and 80% of the people who will answer you has read it before and, for the most part, totally disregarded everything (and, maybe, answered with "just play on Easy").

 

[fanoI]

There's a fine line between "respecting someone's work" and "being robbed in the street and saying Good job! to the robber", which is what you're suggesting. I don't know about you, but I spent pretty much my whole game budget until 2014 in EUIV. If a patch makes it unplayable for me (I haven't played a single minute in 3-4 weeks, after not enjoying at all several different short games since 1.2), then I'm not happy. If a programmer gets offended by my remark that the game is unplayable, well, no offence meant, but the thing is I'm not in the business of giving charity to game developers. If EUIV was a charity effort by Paradox, then I would have given some money without expecting anything in return, but that's not the case. I buy games with money and I want to have fun in return. A lot of fun. If I don't, I'm not happy.

And any Paradox developers would be happy to be called "robber" or a charity organization, right ?

If you think being "sold" access to a beta version is a totally legitimate strategy and the customer should never ever complain about anything, well, I hope I'll never have to buy any of your products, because that's an awful work ethic.

The concept is that you have to complain as it as a part of the "process" (and it is your right as client) as by the definition a modern software it is not perfect... on purpose*

But the criticism shall have always to be constructive, I have not the game and I have played only the demo, I prefer EU3 for now, but I'd say never it is unplayable, when my clients says it doesn't work! The screen is black! I politely respond "do you put the 'puter on?"

In the end what happened in this case? You have taken land that was your right and Bohemia is slightly upset and it wanted the land, too? What would have happened if Bohemia would have taken the land instead of you? You would be upset, right? Indeed :huh:

By the way make a copy of the game and not use Stream anymore if not to update / patch so you could continue to play avoiding eventual bugs

*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agile_software_development

 

[ahuitzotl]

The smart AI goes both ways. If Bohemian policymakers rightly decided you are a threat, there's a simple solution.. you rival them, you look at who else Bohemia doesn't like (and vice versa), and more often than not you will find a big unexpected potential ally to help stomp your new enemy, or at least discourage them for attacking you! For example if you're little Serbia or Byz and afraid of Ottos, try to ally Hungary. If you're Kongo and threatened by Portugal, write to the Dutch.

I really hope that Paradox does not "nerf" the AI at all in response to these complaints. Just give the complainers a new lower difficulty setting with carebear non-aggressive AI. I would like to see even tougher AI available, maybe not the international badboy wars of olde, but something to discourage formation of giant player empires in MP and make it more balanced. Actually the AI right now is pretty awesome, the main problem is that it still fails at amphibious warfare, often it will try to land its army in little 4-stacks to be gobbled up by a defender, and it still does suicide attacks when it could wait for backup to arrive.

 

[Riidi]

But I find it hard to believe you can't find a way to have fun playing this game in 1.2.

I'm sure I could try to find a way to have fun. But ... why would that be a good use of my time? I'd much rather continue to have fun in the same way I was when it was released, only I'm not allowed to. And there are dozens of people here who would say, "Good! You shouldn't be allowed to keep having fun with EU4 that way!"

 

[hauptman]

I'm sure I could try to find a way to have fun. But ... why would that be a good use of my time? I'd much rather continue to have fun in the same way I was when it was released, only I'm not allowed to. And there are dozens of people here who would say, "Good! You shouldn't be allowed to keep having fun with EU4 that way!"

What is stopping you from having fun????

I've played 4 total games now in 1.2, all differently. Conquest, diplomacy, small state, big state. EVERYTHING STILL WORKS.

The only REAL difference from 1.1 is combat. I cant figure out no easy way to rofl stomp the ai like i could do in 1.1. So it is giving me a much better chalange now. I have to rely on allies for wars, and allies dont like to be permanant. So you have to move with the ebb and flow of alliances, be afraid of bigger neighbors or bigger alliances, and pick your fights with caution.

It's all good. This is a grand strategy game. Not a coloring book.


Edit to add. I would often enough forget to move my maintanace slider up in 1.1 and still win battles/wars with france. It was beyond broken. And you prefer that?

 

[Riidi]

What is stopping you from having fun????

The enormous slog and little reward of fighting against a coalition.

 

[StatikShocker]

I just read the first page, but I think the AI should be MUCH more inclined to dogpile on someone who is fighting a war already. So if you are Ottomans and want to attack Hungary, and Poland wants to attack Hungary as well, you don't need to try and make some sort of alliance that will fail in a week to get them involved, they will just declare their own war once you do. Alliances should be saved for nations you intend to befriend and protect for the whole game.

 

[hauptman]

The enormous slog and little reward of fighting against a coalition.

That has gotten easier to manage in 1.2, Now you can demand territory from EVERY member of that coalition if you so choose. So in that regard, it has gotten Easier/better.

 

[Valynor]

Papal state should be an important player not just one of the many. Rome cannot be raided for free, raiding it should make you get huge diplo penality and AI should now that. In this way when papal state becomes involved in a conflict between spain and france, if his side loose, for example spain would never go to rome sieging it, it is not plausible.

Funny, isn't exactly what happened?

 

[ck2plusdlacc]

The enormous slog and little reward of fighting against a coalition.

In all honesty if the player wasn't so able to easily out manoeuvre the scripting on the AI, which is admittedly pretty good, in almost every scenario (trade/diplomacy/war/building/movement) then I'd agree with you.

As it is the only thing that presents any challenge past a certain threshold is a coalition, and then eventually a coalition consisting entirely of large lucky nations is just so much sitzkrieg. And I'm saying this from a perspective of someone who usually only plays OPM's (except that one time as GB so I could see how overpowered the trade system was) and as such is often facing small coalitions from the get go and really can't afford to sit around waiting for AE to expire.

Admittedly, I exploit whatever avenues of AI manipulation I can (Vassals are still OP) so maybe I'm just a dirty player.

 

[hauptman]

The trick now is to not rely on only one tool in your tool box. In 1.1 the hammer could do anything. Bring the hammer down and beat the snot out of anyone standing in your way. Now that the hammer isnt all powerful, sometimes you have to use your tape measure. Measure the strengths of any alliance before you make a desicion to start a war. Often enough (since every nation takes the diplo line it seems) the web of alliances can be rather daunting. So instead of a hammer to get those provinces, use some tape. Diplo vassalizing has had a complete makeover and is so powerful it's darn close to being broken. Instead of focusing on military, try using diplomacy. Stick the nation that owns the provinces you want to you.

You get more by using more, put the hammer down and think.

 

[Riidi]

The trick now is to not rely on only one tool in your tool box. In 1.1 the hammer could do anything. Bring the hammer down and beat the snot out of anyone standing in your way. Now that the hammer isnt all powerful, sometimes you have to use your tape measure. Measure the strengths of any alliance before you make a desicion to start a war. Often enough (since every nation takes the diplo line it seems) the web of alliances can be rather daunting. So instead of a hammer to get those provinces, use some tape. Diplo vassalizing has had a complete makeover and is so powerful it's darn close to being broken. Instead of focusing on military, try using diplomacy. Stick the nation that owns the provinces you want to you.

You get more by using more, put the hammer down and think.

This is needlessly patronizing and isn't relevant in the slightest to someone who's been expanding till 1700. And for all that you recommend I "put the hammer down," let's face it - there's not a ton else to do as an empire in this game.

As it is the only thing that presents any challenge past a certain threshold is a coalition, and then eventually a coalition consisting entirely of large lucky nations is just so much sitzkrieg.

My beef with coalitions is not the challenge they pose, but the boredom and the lack of reward for overcoming them. If these global coalitions were actually a threat to like, defeat or dismantle me, and if defeating them gave me rewards proportionate to their threat, that would definitely be a challenge to overcome. But they aren't. They're a joke. All they do is make me play on 2-3 speed constantly so I can carpet-siege them, get some incredibly meager gains, and then re-declare on the exact same coalition a little latter. Yawn.

 

[ck2plusdlacc]

then re-declare on the exact same coalition a little latter.

You wait until the truce is over to redeclare?

 

[hauptman]

Tape can be every bit as useful as a hammer.



Uploaded with ImageShack.us


2 more points!

Ivory, I NEED IVORY!


But you are right, there is nothing else you can do but fight that same coalition for the next 100 years.

 

[ck2plusdlacc]

Ivory, I NEED IVORY!

I managed to vassalise Portugal as Munster thanks to Ivory, and time. Mostly the latter.

 

[Riidi]

Tape can be every bit as useful as a hammer.



Uploaded with ImageShack.us


2 more points!

Ivory, I NEED IVORY!

That's 1600. Come back to me in a hundred years.

You wait until the truce is over to redeclare?

Not as a general rule, but it takes some months to sell off provinces, re-consolidate carpeted armies, and maybe start those annexation timers before I can feel comfortable going back into the grind.

 

[ck2plusdlacc]

Not as a general rule, but it takes some months to sell off provinces, re-consolidate carpeted armies, and maybe start those annexation timers before I can feel comfortable going back into the grind.

Fair enough, I tend to put myself in a monetary (money is still too easy to generate) position to do it and then just literally spend my way past rebels and whatever else low Stab and high OE gets me. Then eat entire blobs in a few years. I'll admit the game encourages far too much micromanaging for most peoples liking.

 

[RobRoy3]

And meanwhile you're missing the entire point of his post. No one is (or very few people are) complaining about difficulty in 1.2.

Unfortunately, when you boil it all down, that is precisely what most of the complaints are about. Yes, people couch it in terms of "poor design decisions", "less fun", "limiting styles of play", etc. But then they turn right around and express a desire for game where they can conquer the world as an OPM.

Hey, I'm all in favor of letting them and think an occasional WC can be fun. But let's not kid ourselves, it's about difficulty levels. And if Paradox were to implement more difficulty options, including ones that allowed for easy conquests, most of these repetitive posts would stop. Reintroducing cheesy mechanics would work, too. Of course Paradox should never call it easy mode, since that might offend some people who really just want an alternative style, not an easier game. Maybe "sandbox" mode would suit?

I understand why you'd want to engage a strawman like that, because modding and difficulty are easy solutions for it.

Would that it were a strawman. And yes, modding and difficulty settings are easy solutions.