Tours already confirmed to be meaningless.

[MathyM]

Maybe it's not for you. If the content is optional, and you dislike it, then you can save a few bucks and not buy that DLC.

Out of all the options, the intimidation tour (which convinces vassals to leave factions) is what I'm most interested in. I always have problems during the first years of a character's reign, where there is not enough time to raise to unlock the Befriend scheme, Sway everyone who's disgruntled, Send Gifts, or collect enough landed prisoners to Torture for Dread. I'll probably use that the most. Maybe you're better than I am at that, and won't be needing to tour. Then you can skip this optional content and set your eyes on the next DLC.

 

[Cymsdale]

Maybe it's not for you. If the content is optional, and you dislike it, then you can save a few bucks and not buy that DLC.

Out of all the options, the intimidation tour (which convinces vassals to leave factions) is what I'm most interested in. I always have problems during the first years of a character's reign, where there is not enough time to raise to unlock the Befriend scheme, Sway everyone who's disgruntled, Send Gifts, or collect enough landed prisoners to Torture for Dread. I'll probably use that the most. Maybe you're better than I am at that, and won't be needing to tour. Then you can skip this optional content and set your eyes on the next DLC.

Is this what you think DLC should be? Buying buttons that help make it easier for the player to win?

 

[Delterius]

Is this what you think DLC should be? Buying buttons that help make it easier for the player to win?

The 'Yeah sure you don't need to tour or hold court but you'll lose out on bonuses' line was really weird because consider the state of CK3's balance for a second. What kind of further bonuses or powers do we even need?

 

[Drake_Hound]

Well it is tied to FEAST HUNTING PILGRIMS and other EVENTS , so unless you consider all those events meaningless.
Well yeah they are meaningless , just people like to do them for prestige and piety and other relationship farming.

So the work done for this DLC isn't meaningless.. aside from future potential (but the last part I have my doubt, cause of Royal Court) so lets ignore the future potential.
It is a new mechanic, and it is a mechanic that they have to do a lot of work for it.

It is a mechanic that brings your court back alive other then tons of knights, brings your realm back alive .. instead of a just nice color on the map and click on building more upgrades if you are rich.

So is it meaningless, if you never host a feast or go on a pilgrim , yeah it is meaningless, if you never ever use any of the decision it is meaningless.
if you don't really care about your Court and Vassals, see them as simple stats.. then yeah it is meaningless.
But if people want more LIFE into this game , then this mechanic can make a huge difference .
Lets not say about modding purpose of going on a Adventure , Creating Adventure party in EK Lotr or AGOT. or any other fantasy mods.

 

[MathyM]

Is this what you think DLC should be? Buying buttons that help make it easier for the player to win?

No, it should provide engaging systems that help is immerse thematically in the period and into our characters, with enough gameplay impact to be worth doing.

The update adds travel mechanics, which will affect existing systems, such as attending feasts (which I do very often) and going on pilgrimages (which I don't do very often, but maybe I should?). The DLC adds tours and tournaments. If they are more trouble than they are worth, then people will surely hate the DLC, and avoid buying it. If they have upsides and downsides, which I think is what they do (judging from Royal Court and Friends & Foes), then yes, they might make it easier to play the game (Royal Court allows eunuchs to adopt children!), but mostly, they add depth. They add options, mechanics, role-play possibilities, events.

So no, I don't think a DLC should be P2W. But I don't think buying something should introduce more trouble into my game, or I'll be less inclined to want it, and I suspect the same is true for most of the customer base.

 

[Flockingbird]

Some relevant dev posts FYI (chronologically reversed):

Goodness me, I sign off and leave you lot alone for a bit and you've hyper fixated and made wild assumptions based on one comment.

Of course we will continue to update the balance of the game based on what we add. Tours yield powerful rewards but they are also expensive. If we find that realms are too stable, we'll make some tweaks and changes to accommodate.

Activities have been opt-in content since the game was released, I did not think saying that we won't directly force you to do Tours would be controversial.

The incentive to Tour is that Tours are rewarding and fun, and the rewards can help you out in various circumstances. I don't believe it is good or necessary to arbitrarily punish the player for not participating in Tours, players should participate in an activity because the activity is fun to do.

Much like how Hunts and Feasts and Pilgrimages are all optional, whether or not you need to tour will depend on your circumstances. A Tour will likely be pretty vital if you've just ascended to the throne, getting those unruly vassals in line and out of factions against you.

Edit: still catching up on new posts; here’s more:

Meka66 said:
I have not at any point in this thread claimed that we are not touching game balance surrounding realm stability and vassal opinion. Obviously when there are new mechanics or tools introduced to the game, balance has to be adjusted to accommodate and we have whole internal processes dedicated to exactly this; playing the game, running overnight AI games, etc.

All I have said is that I'm not going to force you to go on Tours. That literally just means I'm not going to make a random event that makes everyone hate you. It doesn't mean there won't be incentive to go on Tours or that we won't touch realm stability balance.

 

[Delterius]

Some relevant dev posts FYI

yeah those pretty much confirm the OP's charges. these DLCs aren't here to deepen the feudal government play, they only add optional resources in a game that is already choked with ways to stabilize your realm. and that's a real problem. i'm sure the philosophy of 'you should hold court not because it's an integral part of being a feudal ruler but because its a fun thing to do' was there too, and look what we got instead. there's a reason these DLCs have been introduced as 'something for the roleplayers': the entire balancing process is soft enough to ensure that everything is optional.

hopefully when they get around to tackling mechanical additions to CK3 they won't hold the same vision for them. for an instance, if they add special mechanics for the byzantine empire or the islamic caliphates, maybe interacting with them will be a matter of playing the game well rather than interacting with 'something optional maybe, which is hopefully fun to do on its own'.

 

[Laurentius Bachari]

Hmm, the problem with the comparison to hunting and feasting is that while those were common activities of nobles in these times (asfaik) but not necessary to rule. On the other hand traveling the realm was the form of government for some not insignificant European cultures. While I do not worry that this can’t be modded in pretty easily (for example a tradition which gives you cumulative opinion penalties for X years not doing a tour which also reduces the cost of said tours), I wonder why such a obvious step to a more historic authentic portrayal wasn’t taken.

Maybe it wasn’t done so a proper government expansion could do it from ground up? I concede that the tour system isn’t the best representation for “Reisekönigtum” in which there for example wasn’t such a thing as a realm capital.

 

[eagletrekkie]

The objection I have to this is that tours should not be the only way to manage the realm the way this thread presents it - hunts and feasts and similar activities should also be ways of handling vassal discontent/independence. Tours should be an option - and a very effective one- but not the only one.

 

[MarkFranz]

Your first mistake already is thinking that making the game accessible for many, including those who aren't inherently good at it, is "degrading in depth mechanics" or sacrificing complexity.

Why do you think it is not? Games, as any activity have some requirement, specifically, accessibility, to be enjoyable. Or do you say, some game for 5 years old would be as deep and complex as strategy game designed for 16+ audience? The more accessible aka easy to undestand game is, the more shallow and less intricate it have to be.

 

[Ixal]

The objection I have to this is that tours should not be the only way to manage the realm the way this thread presents it - hunts and feasts and similar activities should also be ways of handling vassal discontent/independence. Tours should be an option - and a very effective one- but not the only one.

You can already hold realms together with just hunting and feasting and that will not change because not everyone will get the dlc.
If the dlc does not add additional complications and only introduces a "very effective way to handle vassals" on top of that then it will just be a I win easy mode and make hunting&feasting useless.
Or it is not effective and no one will use it as hunting&feasting still works.
Either way, tours will be meaningless. Just a button you always or never press.

New tools also require new problems to solve.

 

[Tiax]

The objection I have to this is that tours should not be the only way to manage the realm the way this thread presents it - hunts and feasts and similar activities should also be ways of handling vassal discontent/independence. Tours should be an option - and a very effective one- but not the only one.

The OP already suggests that tours should be one option among others. I think you're arguing against a proposal no one is actually making.

 

[eagletrekkie]

The OP already suggests that tours should be one option among others. I think you're arguing against a proposal no one is actually making.

You’ll forgive me for seeing otherwise based off some of what op has said in the DD thread as well

 

[Tiax]

You’ll forgive me for seeing otherwise based off some of what op has said in the DD thread as well

I don't think you should ignore the OP's actual words in order to argue against a different point you wish they made, no.

 

[Ixal]

You’ll forgive me for seeing otherwise based off some of what op has said in the DD thread as well

You mean posts like

Dev Diary #119 - Tours and Travel

Dev Diary #119 – Tours and Travel Hello! My name is Chad and this is my premiere here on the forums. We’re really excited to kick off a series of dev diaries showing off all the work we have put into Tours and Tournaments. To briefly reiterate...

forum.paradoxplaza.com

Maybe a little bit less selective reading?

 

[The Shacks]

I dont get how devs think making gameplay loops entirely optional is a logical or reasonable thing to do, its a stupid thing to do if you care about your game being challenging...yknow the whole point of games haha.

 

[grommile]

, its a stupid thing to do if you care about your game being challenging...

Telemetry says more people like to play paradox gsgs at low difficulty than high.

They may want challenge, but not too much.

 

[Tiax]

Telemetry says more people like to play paradox gsgs at low difficulty than high.

They may want challenge, but not too much.

How do we differentiate the conclusion "people don't want to be too challenged" from "people don't like the implementation of higher difficulties"?

 

[Niall9]

I disagree. Holding court wore off because there was never a clear reason to do it. It was just a series of random events so my motivation was same as playing the lottery.

With tours at least, there are situations where they would be useful. I might need to increase my revenue coming in, increase control in multiple counties, or quell a rebellion by improving vassal opinion.

I can see reasons why I would continue to use this mechanic across multiple playthroughs

 

[Tiax]

I disagree. Holding court wore off because there was never a clear reason to do it. It was just a series of random events so my motivation was same as playing the lottery.

With tours at least, there are situations where they would be useful. I might need to increase my revenue coming in, increase control in multiple counties, or quell a rebellion by improving vassal opinion.

I can see reasons why I would continue to use this mechanic across multiple playthroughs

This sounds like you're agreeing with OP:

So either tours will be farmed for buffs,