Tours already confirmed to be meaningless.

[klopkr]

Yeah events are meaningless if you have to encounter the same set over and over for a certain type of activity and they don't meaningfully do anything with its buffs.

If these events really don't have a reason to take them, this DLC will be more bust than Royal Court.

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

That just sounds like a good mechanic with tedious endless events though.

 

[Niall9]

This sounds like you're agreeing with OP:

Not really, it isn't farming for buffs.

Farming for buffs are bloodlines and societies from CK2 and artifacts from CK3. Just used to build up power, boost stats etc.

Tours are something done in response. My control is low: it is a new tool to raise it, my vassals are about to rebel, I can placate them.

Yeah some players will be able to farm it for buffs but that is pretty much every DLC from both games.

 

[Tiax]

Not really, it isn't farming for buffs.

Farming for buffs are bloodlines and societies from CK2 and artifacts from CK3. Just used to build up power, boost stats etc.

Tours are something done in response. My control is low: it is a new tool to raise it, my vassals are about to rebel, I can placate them.

Yeah some players will be able to farm it for buffs but that is pretty much every DLC from both games.

Hrm, I guess I don't really understand the distinction.

 

[FishieFan]

Not really, it isn't farming for buffs.

Farming for buffs are bloodlines and societies from CK2 and artifacts from CK3. Just used to build up power, boost stats etc.

Tours are something done in response. My control is low: it is a new tool to raise it, my vassals are about to rebel, I can placate them.

Yeah some players will be able to farm it for buffs but that is pretty much every DLC from both games.

Requiring an initial investment is farming, that tours arent essential to large kingdoms means its farming

 

[johnty5]

Hrm, I guess I don't really understand the distinction.

Requiring an initial investment is farming, that tours arent essential to large kingdoms means its farming

I’m curious about how you define “farming for buffs” - as this seems to be a super wide definition.

Are there any actions in CK3 that provide gold, stress reduction or vassal opinion improvements that you don’t consider “farming for buffs”?

 

[Tiax]

I’m curious about how you define “farming for buffs” - as this seems to be a super wide definition.

Are there any actions in CK3 that provide gold, stress reduction or vassal opinion improvements that you don’t consider “farming for buffs”?

I would say that "farming for buffs" are mechanics that allow you to reliably stack up powerful modifiers in a way that negatively impacts game balance. I think stress reduction is definitely not a "buff". I'd say that asking the pope for gold is bordering on "farming", but that building farms (ironically) is not. I'd say that vassal opinion is harder to nail down, because it's often a product of many small modifiers from disparate sources.

For tours, what we know is that they are a repeatable source of dread, vassal opinion, and gold. Those seem like dangerous buffs, as all three are already often bordering on being too easily available. The ability to reliably get them on demand strikes me as the sort of dynamic that people mean when they talk about farming for buffs, similar to the issues with Societies in CK2.

 

[wickermoon]

I’m curious about how you define “farming for buffs” - as this seems to be a super wide definition.

Are there any actions in CK3 that provide gold, stress reduction or vassal opinion improvements that you don’t consider “farming for buffs”?

I think the fact that tours aren't necessary, adds to that definition.

From what I've gathered, you can completely ignore tours and not have a disadvantage because of it. Nothing in the whole CK3 eco system is tuned/changed which would make tours semi-mandatory for bigger realms, from what I've heard. That means, it's a purely optional feature and optional features which have (severe) negative effects are features which won't be used. Therefore, optional features always heavily outweigh any negatives they might have with their positives and are, by their nature, inherently helpful; which is to say, they always provide you with more power, at the end of the day. And that makes them a mechanic to "farm for buffs".

Now. if tours were mandatory to keep your vassals in check, that would change a lot. Now you're soft-forced to engage with the mechanic. And now the mechanic might also throw a curve-ball at you, because you have to engage with it. Nothing to punish you too severely, but something that'll put a challenge before you. Optional mechanics can't do that, as people will simply not use them.

 

[Ian001022]

Anyone suggesting paradox to make the game harder in order to force players to use features locked behind DLC-paywall is suggesting predatory practice. Forcing players to buy DLC is what you guys are suggesting? Ironic that a $5 event pack is bad while blatantly asking devs to make a paywalled feature mandatory in every playthrough is not met with similar or more serious criticism.

 

[wickermoon]

Anyone suggesting paradox to make the game harder in order to force players to use features locked behind DLC-paywall is suggesting predatory practice. Forcing players to buy DLC is what you guys are suggesting? Ironic that a $5 event pack is bad while blatantly asking devs to make a paywalled feature mandatory in every playthrough is not met with similar or more serious criticism.

Nobody said that.
Either: If you don't own the DLC, nothing changes. If you do own the DLC, then mechanics change to accomodate for the DLC features.
Or: The mechanics are completely free, which makes the base-game harder in general, and the DLC is basically just the sugar on top.

Option 2 doesn't work, as this community has shown again and again, whenever they ranted about the lack of content of a DLC while blatantly ignoring what the free patch added to the game.

 

[Andrzej2]

After announcement I read somewhere on this forum a speculation that we will have reworked taxes and control system which would require to sometimes do a tour to provinces to keep taxes coming. I like this idea, it would nerf big blob and result that in times of crisis king's power over distant provinces would diminish. Just like Italy slipped away from HRE and then Hohenstaufs needed to fight to restore their control etc.

 

[Cyhort]

God forbid anything be for the sake of fun or storytelling instead of moving numbers up or down on a tooltip. And so what if people "farm for buffs" in their game? What other people do in their own single player game shouldn't mean anything to you. If you personally don't like these features, then don't buy the DLC and don't interact with the ones included in the free patch. The rest of us will have fun playing our video game.

 

[FishieFan]

Anyone suggesting paradox to make the game harder in order to force players to use features locked behind DLC-paywall is suggesting predatory practice. Forcing players to buy DLC is what you guys are suggesting? Ironic that a $5 event pack is bad while blatantly asking devs to make a paywalled feature mandatory in every playthrough is not met with similar or more serious criticism.

For people with the dlc theyd need to use it, for people without dlc they wouldn't have to do it. Just like most lack dlc mechanics

 

[Flockingbird]

For people with the dlc theyd need to use it, for people without dlc they wouldn't have to do it. Just like most lack dlc mechanics

One problem is that DLC-locked mechanics runs counter to the devs’ philosophy of having new mechanics in the free patch so they can build on them later.

How can the mechanics y’all are proposing work in the base game without disadvantaging players who don’t buy T&T?

I rather think the devs are between a rock and a hard place.

 

[MathyM]

How can the mechanics y’all are proposing work in the base game without disadvantaging players who don’t buy T&T?

I rather think the devs are between a rock and a hard place.

My guess is that they want some negative modifier to grow over time, forcing you to tour every once in a while just to keep it down.

Which means that the DLC’s feature will turn into a nuisance, and that if you choose not to engage with it, you better remember to disable it in the launcher before you start your new save.

 

[Tiax]

My guess is that they want some negative modifier to grow over time, forcing you to tour every once in a while just to keep it down.

Which means that the DLC’s feature will turn into a nuisance, and that if you choose not to engage with it, you better remember to disable it in the launcher before you start your new save.

If tours are not compelling enough to want to undertake them on their own merits, the DLC is doomed either way.

 

[Vityviktor]

They could add checks and balances to these new seemingly meaningless DLC systems and mechanics (courts and tours), like some DLC-specific malus punishing you if you don't meet from time to time with your vassals, during tours or in your court. Somebody in the Dev Diary thread called it "Neglect".

In my opinion, it would greatly improve the actual aspect of the Feudal simulation (you know, the game is based on History, Middle Ages, Feudalism, etc) adding these new systems and making the game deeper in this aspect. You SHOULD hold courts and travel through the realm to interact with your vassals, because it happened, it was necessary and makes sense. Teasing these changes while simply leaving them as optional "roleplay event generators" with insta buffs is disappointing.

That way, if you don't have the DLCs you could always have the classic relationship bonuses from hunting/feasting/holding tournament decisions, instant travels, etc.

 

[MathyM]

They could add checks and balances to these new seemingly meaningless DLC systems and mechanics (courts and tours), like some DLC-specific malus punishing you if you don't meet from time to time with your vassals, during tours or in your court. Somebody in the Dev Diary thread called it "Neglect".

This is exactly the sort of thing that will get the DLC criticized, boycotted, or disabled. At least this should be made as an optional game rule, so you can opt into these onuses, if you’re worried about the game growing too easy with each DLC.

By the way, Prestige and Renown gain with Royal Court is massive compared to those lacking the DLC, almost solely due to the artifacts you get from Inspirations being so much better than the ones from Commissions, plus the Court slots themselves. I don’t think this will ever be addressed, sadly.

 

[Creamu]

Disappointing, but modders will make good use of it, for sure.

 

[Bisonmask]

God forbid anything be for the sake of fun or storytelling instead of moving numbers up or down on a tooltip. And so what if people "farm for buffs" in their game? What other people do in their own single player game shouldn't mean anything to you. If you personally don't like these features, then don't buy the DLC and don't interact with the ones included in the free patch. The rest of us will have fun playing our video game.

Storytelling content that only rewards you for interacting with it leads to stories without conflict. If I wanted to win all the time there's already an easy mode, mods, and cheating. And if dev time gets spent giving you a shiny new pavlov button it stops me from getting a shiny new pavlov box I'm not sure what you don't understand

 

[Breebelbox]

One problem is that DLC-locked mechanics runs counter to the devs’ philosophy of having new mechanics in the free patch so they can build on them later.

How can the mechanics y’all are proposing work in the base game without disadvantaging players who don’t buy T&T?

I rather think the devs are between a rock and a hard place.

To be honest, maybe that wasn't the greatest decision to make the more relevant content for free and give the paying customers mostly just some fluff on top. I know that might sound harsh and I don't have a perfect solution for this conundrum. But if the reasoning is that the Devs need to sell dlc to be able to provide further development, maybe the biggest chunk of content should be in those dlc which pay for the the further development of the game.

This is at least how it's handled in most other games I know.

Otherwise your paying customers might be constantly disappointed by the dlc since they are mostly inconsequential.