Tours already confirmed to be meaningless.

  • 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.
To be honest, maybe that wasn't the greatest decision to make the more relevant content for free
The most important feature of this update, for me, is the Travel and Regency mechanics.

Those pretty much have to go in the free patch, because their functional implications are so far-reaching; if they aren't in the free patch, then none of the other DLCs can rely on them being present (and, importantly, neither can modders).
 
  • 10
  • 6Like
  • 1
Reactions:
The most important feature of this update, for me, is the Travel and Regency mechanics.

Those pretty much have to go in the free patch, because their functional implications are so far-reaching; if they aren't in the free patch, then none of the other DLCs can rely on them being present (and, importantly, neither can modders).
I agree with you, on a general level. As I said, putting the mechanics in the free patch, change the rest of the game to accomodate for these mechanics, so you're semi-forced to use them, and add anything else to the DLC would be a good option, but do I have to link to the various steam store pages of paradox DLCs where people literally write "this dlc sucks. It's 15 dollars for nothing. Everything is already in the free patch", to make my point clear?
I also think it's absolutely valid to put new content (semi-separate content) behind a DLC paywall. What they should add to the free patch is stuff that enhances mechanics already in the game. Tours seems like a perfectly fine feature which can be put behind a DLC paywall. Whoever wants that feature can buy the DLC and activate it. If you don't like what it does, deactivate the DLC.
But improving the crusade mechanic, or the plot system (as I've mentioned in my other thread) should be part of the free patch. Also, after a certain amount of DLCs - say 3 or 5 - paradox can still decide to add previous DLC content to a free patch, if they are inclined to base future work on an earlier DLC. I'm totally fine with that and so should everybody else, to be honest.
But this whole discussion shows that releasing a bare-bones game with the excuse of "DLC will add to it/fix it" is such a BAD practice. Because we don't have a Tours system already, because we don't have fleshed out mechanics, because of all of this, people complain about the quality of new DLC content. And because of that, other people complain about new mechanics being put behind paywalls. If paradox would've released an engaging base game with fewer, but more fleshed-out mechanics, I don't think much of this discussion would be an issue. And I hate we're in this situation.
Victoria 3 only partially has these problems, because its base-game is really, really solid, in my opinion. But it also shows signs of this, with every country feeling almost like any other country.

I've been ranting, sorry, but it's not as easy as "put stuff in free patch and everything's fine".
 
  • 3
  • 2Like
  • 1
Reactions:
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.
Because we're both paying for this dlc and want something more than a few events which give minor buffs, if I wanted the dlc to be minor buffs and no maluses I'd just download an expanded events mod
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.
Did you play ck2 with conclave and reapers due disabled? You can do that and just deal with the more basic council and death system, or work with the more fleshed out one. If people that dont want a difficulty spike in an easy game thats okay, but I wouldn't boycott it for that, I'd buy it
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.
Dread from court events being out of wack is bad but prestige and renown gain is the whole point of royal court, that the crown of navaree and castile should give different levels of prestige rather than just the same base amount from being kings, that the running of the kingdoms should cost differently due to their difference in size
 
  • 8
  • 2Like
  • 1
Reactions:
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.
Well the devs have a terrible philosophy then and should be willing to change it. We're into the third year of development and need substantial changes to the gameplay to stop it being stale.
Eu4 has had several mechanics in ome dlc then unlock in another or made in vanilla later
How can the mechanics y’all are proposing work in the base game without disadvantaging players who don’t buy T&T?
If its not a pay to win dlc theyre not being disadvantaged
I rather think the devs are between a rock and a hard place.
Its more that theyve made their own bed
 
  • 8
  • 2Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Well the devs have a terrible philosophy then and should be willing to change it. We're into the third year of development and need substantial changes to the gameplay to stop it being stale.
Whatever Paradox do, people will complain.

New game every year? People will complain about "milking" and "lack of support".

Systems in base game, content in DLCs? Players who aren't Stellaris players will complain about the low impact/price ratio of the DLC.

Systems in DLCs? People will complain about content islands.

DLC features folded into the base game later? People will complain about others getting for free what they had to pay for.

Result: Paradox do as they please, because the customers are unsatisfiable.
 
  • 25
  • 12
  • 2Like
  • 2Love
  • 1Haha
Reactions:
Whatever Paradox do, people will complain.

New game every year? People will complain about "milking" and "lack of support".

Systems in base game, content in DLCs? Players who aren't Stellaris players will complain about the low impact/price ratio of the DLC.

Systems in DLCs? People will complain about content islands.

DLC features folded into the base game later? People will complain about others getting for free what they had to pay for.

Result: Paradox do as they please, because the customers are unsatisfiable.
Just gonna casually glance over the fact that Stellaris demonstrates that pleasing your audience is possible, huh?
 
  • 14
  • 7Haha
  • 1Like
  • 1Love
Reactions:
Whatever Paradox do, people will complain.

New game every year? People will complain about "milking" and "lack of support".

Systems in base game, content in DLCs? Players who aren't Stellaris players will complain about the low impact/price ratio of the DLC.

Systems in DLCs? People will complain about content islands.

DLC features folded into the base game later? People will complain about others getting for free what they had to pay for.

Result: Paradox do as they please, because the customers are unsatisfiable.
I like their approach that the core game mechanics are in the free patch and the extra bonus is in the paid DLC. But that extra bonus should also have a deeper purpose and not lack complexity. Not everything is black and white. The choices are not just between whether to add meaningful mechanics in free patches and unnecessary stuff as paid DLC, or to paywall all mechanics as paid DLC. Both options are pretty crappy. But if they added basic mechanics needed to further development of the game in free patches and the DLC contained an extra but complex bonus affecting gameplay, I don't see any negatives in that. In that case, buying the DLC would still be optional but at least I'd have a reason to buy it.
If the tours had more meaning to realm management and it was balanced within the DLC, what would change? The regencies and travel system would be in the free patch exactly as it is now, the tours would still be in paid content as they are now, but they would actually make sense and anyone who would want to manage their realm in a more interesting way would buy the DLC. But if those paid mechanics are actually unnecessary and add nothing to gameplay even if I buy the DLC, then what motivates me to buy the DLC? Instead of paid DLC being for those who want something extra, it's for those who want something that doesn't really matter if it's in the game or if the player uses it at all.
 
  • 6
  • 4
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Just gonna casually glance over the fact that Stellaris demonstrates that pleasing your audience is possible, huh?

While I 100% agree - it's taken themselves six years to get there via some absolute explosions on fan anger. Certainly all of the accusations that @grommile lists have been levelled at Stellaris and its DLC at one time or another.

The game also have the advantage of not being a sequal - and so doesn't sufffer from the whole "feature from prequal when?" thing.
 
  • 7
  • 3
  • 1Like
  • 1Haha
  • 1
Reactions:
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.

There's a lot I agre with in here - and some stuff I disagree with and some stuff I'm still not clear about.

What do you consider to be a "buff"? I broadly agree with your "powerful modifier" point (to me, a buff is some kind of ongoing modifer rather than a lump sum of something) but, for me, would mean that a lump sum of stress reduction wouldn't be a buff (which you agree with) but also that a lump sum of gold wouldn't be a buff (which you seem to disagree with).

I'm still a little shaky about how you're definiting "farming". I'd agree that the "Oi, Pope. Gimme cash" mechanic is farming (though I'm not sure whether I'd consider it "farming for buffs" as I don't think I'd consider the lump sum of gold to be "a buff)". I'd definitely consider societies to be farming for buffs (and I'd throw artifacts in there too).
 
Last edited:
  • 3
  • 2
Reactions:
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.
This discussion has been going since CK2. I buy pretty much all the dlc and I'd be fine with them rolling in key systems after a year or two to fix this problem
 
  • 3
Reactions:
"I hate that I'll be able to use the new mechanic to my advantage, thus making the game easier to play once I learn how to make the most out of the new feature by stacking buffs and avoiding as many penalties as I can."

Something about a playerbase always optimizing the fun out of their games.
 
  • 16
  • 2
  • 1Love
Reactions:
"I hate that I'll be able to use the new mechanic to my advantage, thus making the game easier to play once I learn how to make the most out of the new feature by stacking buffs and avoiding as many penalties as I can."

Something about a playerbase always optimizing the fun out of their games.
Right?

I always have to remind myself that if I’m not having fun I should check for what weird optimization gamey junk I’m doing and stop.

I can use the systems as story telling props and have fun, or I can treat the game like a 4X, which isn’t where CK3 shines for me.
 
  • 6
  • 4
  • 1
Reactions:
I agree
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?
Its dangerous territory. If we dont interact with the feature we lose nothing (no maluses to vassals etc)? so its meaningless besides "fun/roleplay" And if we interact with it, we already weaken our realm by giving the regent time most likely to try a coup or steal money from us etc, and dangers on the road so the rewards got to be tempting,but do we really want to give even crazier rewards to snowball this already easy game?
 
  • 2
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Having participated in this discussion across a couple of threads, I think the concern with tours is as below.

This is a genuine, good-faith attempt to understand the argument - so, if it's not correct, I'm happy to fix.


1. A new optional feature will either be net advantageous to use or net disadvantageous to use - either generally or in specific situations.​
2. If the optional feature is advantageous, it will be farmed by players to increase their power.​
3. All things being equal, a new, advantageous optional mechanic will therefore result in players acquiring more power, making the game easier.​
4. This reduction in game difficulty can be countered either by (a) making the game more difficult in other areas (resulting in no net decrease in game difficulty) or (b) a specific counter mechanic that causes the player problems unless they use the optional advantageous feature to offset it (i.e it "soaks up" the additional power gained from the new mechanic).​
5. If the optional feature is disadvantageous, it will either (a) not be used by the player or (b) requires the game to incentivise or force it's use.​
So, applying the above to tours specifically, I think the concern is that:


1. Tours are set up to exchange upfront gold for a higher amount of gold, stress reduction or vassal opinion buffs and so will either be net advantageous to use (if they provide a better return on gold investment in gold/stress reduction/vassal opinion than using existing mechanics) or net disadvantageous to use (if they provide a worse return on gold investment in gold/stress reduction/vassal opinion than using existing mechanics) - either generally or in specific situations.​
2. If they provide a better return on gold investment in gold/stress reduction/vassal opinion than using existing mechanics they'll be used/farmed.​
3. All things being equal, this will mean player characters acquiring more gold, having less stress and having happier vassals than prior to tours being added to the game - making the game easier.​
4. This reduction of game difficulty seems unlikely to be countered by (a) making the game more difficult in other areas (as that would either make the game harder for non-DLC owners or would require Paradox to maintain two different underlying balances (one for those who own the DLC and one for those who don't) and they won't be countered by (b) a specific counter mechanic as devs have stated that the use of tours in optional, implying that no such counter mechanic exists.​
5. If the tours are disadvantageous, they will either (a) not be used by players unless (b) incentivised or forced to - and, since devs have stated that tours are optional, we can assume there's no incentive or "forcing" mechanic.​
Hopefully the above is a decent, honest approximation of the concerns. Certainly none of it is a ridiculous argument. However, I think there are few underconsidered things that could paint a rosier picture:

  • Non-quantifiable aspect of tours compared to other mechanics could interfere with (1): Since tours appear to come with risks (of kidnapping, of death on the road, of leaving a regent in charge etc.), it may not be so straightforward to quantify whether tours are a more advantageous or less advantageous way of aquiring gold/stress reduction/vassal opinion boosts than other mechanics. i.e. while it's easy to compare a mechanic that costs x gold for y stress reduction vs one that costs x gold for 10y stress reduction - it's less straightforward to compare a mechanic that costs x gold and a 5% chance of death for y stress reduction vs one that costs 10x gold and a 0% chance of death for y stress reduction. The risk introduces player choice without necessarily making the game easier. Of course, whether it does make the game easier or not would be down to balancing those values - but, in principle, it's certainly possible and wouldn't require two different balances for DLC owners vs non-DLC owners.

  • Paradox's willingness to balance across DLC owners vs non-DLC owners and the ease of doing so (4a) may be higher than assumed: There may be relatively straightforward DLC-owner-specific balance adjustments that are relatively self-contained and offset the extra gold/stress relief/vassal happiness gained from the use of tours. Some examples could be adjustments to hunt and feast cooldowns, flat vassal opinion modifiers, changes to the piety cost of getting money from the pope etc. This could allow tours to not result in the game becoming easier while also not making the game harder for non-DLC owners.

  • There may be new mechanics contained in the DLC that incentivise the use of tours (4b): We know that players won't be forced to use tours, but there may be mechanics in the DLC that incentivise their use, even when it's not to the advantage of the player in other areas.

  • There may be new mechanics contained in the DLC that offset the net benefits of tours (5): The DLC could contain mechanics that act as gold-sinks or cause additional stress or vassal unhappiness, offsetting the additional gold, stress reduction or vassal happiness delivered by tours.

  • The patch could contain long-asked-for additonal difficulty settings and game rules: CK3's difficulty settings - and the ease of the game itself - have always been a bit weird and it's a regular ask on the forums for that to be addressed. Devs have mentioned in the past that it's something they've considered. Perhaps they'll be contained in the free patch, allowing players to offset any tour-driven changes to default game difficulty to match their own preferences.

I'm certainly not saying the above will happen. It's absolutely possible that tours make the game easier - and that'd be really disappointing, as I'd like to see the opposite happen.

This is just my view on why, given how much we know about the DLC and patch right now, I certainly don't believe that "Tours [are] already confirmed to be meaningless" or a nailed-on disasterfor game balance.

(crossposted to the main DD thread)
 
Last edited:
  • 13Like
  • 4
Reactions:
I agree

Its dangerous territory. If we dont interact with the feature we lose nothing (no maluses to vassals etc)? so its meaningless besides "fun/roleplay" And if we interact with it, we already weaken our realm by giving the regent time most likely to try a coup or steal money from us etc, and dangers on the road so the rewards got to be tempting,but do we really want to give even crazier rewards to snowball this already easy game?
You can just make the base state of the game less stable to force players into risking being coup'd or having money stolen from them. That's literally what people are asking for. Holding court, meeting your vassals, etc. should be things you *have* to do because it makes sense and would make the game better. It's the same as how you have to worry about/go to war, you're a military vassal/liege why would you not be responsible for defending the realm?

And it would help to justify all of the effort going into 3D models and event spaces if we have more reason to care about the characters involved
 
  • 6Like
  • 6
  • 1
Reactions:
You can just make the base state of the game less stable to force players into risking being coup'd or having money stolen from them. That's literally what people are asking for. Holding court, meeting your vassals, etc. should be things you *have* to do because it makes sense and would make the game better. It's the same as how you have to worry about/go to war, you're a military vassal/liege why would you not be responsible for defending the realm?

And it would help to justify all of the effort going into 3D models and event spaces if we have more reason to care about the characters involved
im for this just so you know, ive been asking for a "neglect" malus which was suggested in the dev diary for large realms so that not touring will destabilize your realm.
 
  • 2Like
  • 2
Reactions:
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.

It used to be the case (before CK 2) that PDX would release a game and then release 1-2 Expansion packs before moving to another project. It also used to be the case that you needed the previous Expac if you wanted to install the newest Expac and get the newest patches and hotfixes.

The more I play the newest PDX releases, the more I miss this old style.
 
  • 7
  • 4
  • 1Like
Reactions:
It used to be the case (before CK 2) that PDX would release a game and then release 1-2 Expansion packs before moving to another project. It also used to be the case that you needed the previous Expac if you wanted to install the newest Expac and get the newest patches and hotfixes.

The more I play the newest PDX releases, the more I miss this old style.
Interesting—I much prefer their current style, and ‘mechanics in the free patches.’ I’m hoping to play CK3 for many years before they stop producing content for it.
 
  • 7
  • 2Like
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
Interesting—I much prefer their current style, and ‘mechanics in the free patches.’ I’m hoping to play CK3 for many years before they stop producing content for it.
The current model is a lot more commercially viable, I believe, especially from the perspective of someone who might be interested in buying the game 3 years after the original release. The policy of avoiding content that depends on more than one DLC simultaneously is what introduces some of the annoying limitations, I believe.

For instance, we will probably never see a DLC that expands Royal Courts, which is a shame.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
The more I play the newest PDX releases, the more I miss this old style.
Put it this way: in the old scheme of things, I would have walked away from EU4 as soon as Mare Nostrum landed.