Wake Up!

[peterhoi3]

Not quite there yet, so we aim for 1.04, once we have an RC we will probably again throw it out to public beta to see if we are there.

That´s a good approach, but this time be sure to give us enough time to really test the release candidates in depth. For 1.3 version the release candidates were released one every day, like seven versions in ten days. I would suggest at least 10 days for every release candidate. In ten days the game will be tested a lot better than in one, bugs will be found, and we will be able to give many more usable suggestions than in just one day. If you do it this way the game will be totally polished.

Of course some people will be requesting many other features, but that´s another story.

 

[ashandresash]

All the HoI 1 patchs were pretty much done by a single programmer working part time. The HoI3 1.01 patch had the full development team working on it. The 1.04 patch has 3 programmers working full time on it, for a week already. So although the number of patches our games get has dropped, the amount of time we actually devote to patching is up. Also rather than going through a number of small patches we are aiming for the big one, fix everything we can and the aim is you won't need another patch (want one perhaps, but that is a different question). With 1.03 we thought we had it, I think it went thourgh 9 interations as a public Beta to fix the things (see the tech support forum), you as a community wanted. Not quite there yet, so we aim for 1.04, once we have an RC we will probably again throw it out to public beta to see if we are there.

I agree whole heartedly with you expansion comment. An expansion should be an expansion. Look at the game, go back to features that were cut from the original design, look at areas which can be improved, but not fixing bugs. Although I'll be honest if once we are patched and the expansion goes into development if we find a CTD we will fix for the expansion, it is silly to ship a product with a known CTD in the name of ideological purity.

The sad fact is that games will always be pirated and no matter how good the copy protection is, it will always be broken. What good copy protection gives you is a few days (at best) of pirate free sales, and in return you incovinence your paying customers for ever. So we do not go down that route, why punish you for something you haven't done? We prefer to go down the game resgistration route. Tell us you are paying customer so we know. When you post ideas and suggestion we know this is something that the group of people who buy our games want. Get access to the tech support forum without being jammed up by people who haven't paid. Post your bugs in the bug reporting forum, we want to know what annoys those who buy our games, not those who pirate our games.

Thanks for these reponses, and specially for the thing about piracy. I think you in Paradox have taken the right way: assuming some risk, but putting trust in the core of company/customer relationship, rather than alienating people like others have chosen.

Maybe peterhoi suggestion of 10 days doesn't fit in your schedule, but a few days are needed for feedback IMO. However, you've had the 1.3 rc process outcomes. If it worked for you, go ahead.

For last, my main point. I'm of the opinion of some other posters: I'm liking 1.3, it'd be better for sure with 1.4 but there're things about global game design that don't give me the immersion ant the experience I've had with HoI2, EUIII or Vicky. Game is not as smooth as others; it looks like it's not mature yet (the common place of undeveloped potential etc). Having seen what Revolutions meant for Vicky, or IN and HttT for EUIII, I think it'd be only solved with an expansion. Some will criticize PI if you take this way after 1.4 (even if a new 1.5 or 1.6 was released during the expansion development, as you did with 3.2 in EUIII), but I think it's unavoidable (and I think it's fair, and promiseful).

 

[TheLoneGunman]

This has turned into one of the best and most productive threads this forum has seen, despite some attempts at derailment. I'm happy and impressed.

I certainly hope that King has gained as much insight from these discussions as we have managed to gain from his participation.

 

[FmrPFCBob]

This has turned into one of the best and most productive threads this forum has seen, despite some attempts at derailment. I'm happy and impressed.

I certainly hope that King has gained as much insight from these discussions as we have managed to gain from his participation.

I agree, King has spent an incredibly generous amount of time here during his time off and I hope he feels that time has been appreciated.

 

[King]

All in all it has been a worthwhile expierence. It is all very well not being 100% happy with the game, but there have been posts in this trhead where people detail specific issues for us to look at. Always good to know.

 

[delra]

See, this is the problem of this forum. So many people say the game is ****, devs should be fired and Paradox sued that devs stopped even bothering to read it. And now we have Paradox QA person five months after game release in this random thread finding out about surrender event problems, something that's been bothering every single person who ever won a war in HoI3 since the very release of the game. :-|

Hard to find a better example of whining hurting the game instead of helping it.

 

[unmerged(150330)]

This seems like a good opportunity to say, that I feel HOI3's biggest issue is lack of polishing, balancing and testing. A game, no matter how many completely new features it might have, will not be fun unless it is well tested and the new features are matured.

The second important issue I want to mention is to make sure all the new features are really well thought out. The way the reserve divisions were implemented was simply a not good idea. I think this has contributed a lot directly and indirectly to the frustration evident on this forum about the game. For example the total unplayability of some minors before 1.3 was a direct consequence of that. 1.3 didn't really fix the cause, but was more like a "duct tape" type of "fix", which brought new major problems like cheap infantry spam. I think the game would be better with HOI2 style abstraction of reserve armies and all the time spent solving related issues could have been spent elsewhere. I am glad I wasn't the only one in the "name your top five major issues" thread who mentioned this.

 

[Atomcreator]

IM actually astonished that some of you guys were posting about this game on christmas day. Me ? I was on the beach with my family having a Barbie. Come on people there's more to life than games ( sometimes )

 

[peryskop]

HOI3 1.3 Is acceptable (still some things like men power Industry rush and peace events to make it good ).
But at time of release on my point of view it was beta ( with silly things like Stalingrad far away from where it should be. Un finished scenarios where you would run out of resources for existing troops when 100% Ic was spend on resources ).
Even so with me complaining I must say I have spent loads of time playing it .
And know its a game with great potential.
Which I hope will be used by paradox in paches and modes like DiDay's Unique Units (it is making a good++ game out of HOI3).

 

[QuinnDexter]

I preordered and played HOI3 upon release. Yes I had to agree with all the issues 1.3 though fixes a lot though. The main problem I have been having with the game is the theatre wide objectives/commands. I am having trouble figuring out how to get the HQs(?) to run wars for me. Not sure if I am looking in the right place. I am very interested in the auto control for war making. It just seems to be difficult to figure out/use because there seems to be little or no real time info for what is happening under auto war making. I feel a well worded description of capabilities/controls for the auto would make things less frustrating.

 

[unmerged(174520)]

First of all, i could absolutely understand the grim of some members of the community about the game not working as good as they expected. But the statement is in my opinion more insulting than helping. In fact i never expected a ctd since i started playing HoI 3 (lucky me).
But some fixes are totally necessary, that fact is clear. And the arousing about buying dlcs or not, well we could and should do nothing about it, becuase every company has the right to do with their work whatever they like.
My most concerns are on the modibility of games, since the developers say that games are more moddable by using lua codecs, the games seem to be more hardcoded and the Release Versions seem to be thrown on the market really to soon. This disminishes the game to a beta version and so it's also understandble that so many users arouse.
I hope that the game would be better with the next patches and the communication with the community and Paradox will go on and that in a constructive way and not like the furios way like the thread opener has done it

Sorry for my bad english, i am german ;o)

 

[Bullfrog]

This is a response to the AI issue that was discussed a few pages back.

The AI uses units in a certain way that is perhaps under par. But what's more frustrating right now is that each AI country decides what to build with the same basic formula each time...which is almost a basic and completely random function. The decision to start a build is based on available IC, but what the AI builds barely involves even a consideration. That's why no AI country builds a respectable navy, for instance. The real life US ordered 10 BBs in the scope of the game before 1941. Would the HoI3 AI ever ever build a BB? No. Why? Because it's the same AI that governs the production actions of the Soviet Union and China and the rest of the world. Why does every nation build loads of infantry divisions? Because that is the safest bet for defense, even if it makes no sense, historically or otherwise. So the US will build 400 infantry divisions and not a single BB or CA. Having a one shot fire and forget AI is a terrible mistake. Each major nation needs a particular AI, and the generic AI should belong to nations that will not see much action. That design seems to be a huge short-cut, and one that will plague the game until someone writes some serious code.

Petition- Country specific AI FTW. Peace.

 

[menasure]

First of all, i could absolutely understand the grim of some members of the community about the game not working as good as they expected. But the statement is in my opinion more insulting than helping. In fact i never expected a ctd since i started playing HoI 3 (lucky me).
But some fixes are totally necessary, that fact is clear. And the arousing about buying dlcs or not, well we could and should do nothing about it, becuase every company has the right to do with their work whatever they like.
My most concerns are on the modibility of games, since the developers say that games are more moddable by using lua codecs, the games seem to be more hardcoded and the Release Versions seem to be thrown on the market really to soon. This disminishes the game to a beta version and so it's also understandble that so many users arouse.
I hope that the game would be better with the next patches and the communication with the community and Paradox will go on and that in a constructive way and not like the furios way like the thread opener has done it

Sorry for my bad english, i am german ;o)

lua has been disputed as the best solution for this game because of the influence on performance, just mention it because knowledgeable other sources have mentioned it but i'm no pc genious myself... my pc isn't one either because it's in the slow camp for this game

i do know that despite of the improvements in 1.3 this game could have been a lot better if the developers had decided to work together with the modders instead of stubbornly taking their own direction, not because these modders are more qualified per se -or even thinking in the same direction lol- but because they had months more experience than the developers in trying out what makes this game tick: the whole diplomacy, trade, research, build coöperation.
sure the developers designed it but i'm sure their testing was not as extensive as performed by the whole community in coöperation with these modders. sure i played this game ... for maybe a week and afterward i digged up one mod after another to fix things ... the result was incomparable: much better modded.

despite of that i consider the basis of the game as more or less flawed. the AI's are basically constantly fighting against eachother and i do not mean the AI's of different countries, the AI's of countries themselves are barely or not linked or even opposed. under such conditions it's a heck of job to get anything working properly in a strategic game.

 

[John-SJ]

There is perfectly good Eve thread in the OT forum, why not head over there?

Thanks for the tip King, but I searched all 5 pages of the OT forum and couldn't find it.

Happy Holidays!

 

[henryjai]

I don't know, but I see great potential in HOI3 after viewing the AARs, I haven't buy it because it lags like hell for the demo and thought my machine would never run it.

maybe I'll try if P'dox makes it run better, afterall, my EUIII run very fast in terms of seconds per game month. (and various other demanding games on low settings). it's only the interface lagging me.

 

[Veldmaarschalk]

Thanks for the tip King, but I searched all 5 pages of the OT forum and couldn't find it.

Happy Holidays!

Here it is

 

[unmerged(163546)]

I can't say that I'm real impressed either. I purchased the new Mac version of HOI 3 for Christmas and it locks up on a fairly regular basis. I cannot find the electronic manual, I assume it came with one, but I sure can't seem to find it. The Paradox site isn't real helpful, because I need to register the software and off course, I don't know how to register it, as the code provided on the download certainly doesn't match up with the the number of spaces/characters needed to register the game. At this point, I'm trying to send a French transport to pick up some some overseas troops as I have a feeling that they might come in handy when Germany misbehaves. Naturally, I can't get the transport to leave port. Maybe I need to see if all my planes are grounded as well? I probably should start a new thread, but I don't have rights to do that so, this seems like as good a place to complain as any. Maybe HOI2 or football makes sense today.

 

[King]

I can't say that I'm real impressed either. I purchased the new Mac version of HOI 3 for Christmas and it locks up on a fairly regular basis. I cannot find the electronic manual, I assume it came with one, but I sure can't seem to find it. The Paradox site isn't real helpful, because I need to register the software and off course, I don't know how to register it, as the code provided on the download certainly doesn't match up with the the number of spaces/characters needed to register the game. At this point, I'm trying to send a French transport to pick up some some overseas troops as I have a feeling that they might come in handy when Germany misbehaves. Naturally, I can't get the transport to leave port. Maybe I need to see if all my planes are grounded as well? I probably should start a new thread, but I don't have rights to do that so, this seems like as good a place to complain as any. Maybe HOI2 or football makes sense today.

The Mac conversion isn't ours it is a seperate company. Not sure which one it is, but they are probably your first port of call here.

 

[GoliathSK]

Interesting posts, I don't normally post in these forums but doing it in this thread is worth it

 

[Rizzmond]

While I realize that Paradox has to deal with time and resource constraints and a product is never perfect at release I do really think Paradox dropped the ball with the AI on the release of HOI3. Ultimately, HOI3's AI will be compared by its players to paradox's other products, and although those other titles (like HOI2) have gone through numerable iterations and have been improved upon drastically since release, it is not HOI2 at release that will be compared to HOI3 but rather HOI2 as it stands today that will be compared to HOI3.

For many of your customers when they play a game (myself included), while features are important, it is ultimately challenge that defines the enjoyability of a gaming experience. If a game isn't remotely challenging then it isn't fun, and nobody can say with a straight face that HOI3 shipped as a challenging game--the player cuts through the AI like a knife through butter. I really must urge paradox to improve their game AI to at least near the point of the previous iterations of the franchise before release.

For camparison, I'd like to point to EU:Rome. While not one of Paradox's most popular titles, in terms of challenge EU:R lived up to the expectations laid down by EU:3. Generally speaking, the AI provided just as much as a challenge to the player in EU:R at release as EU:3 did at the time of release of EU:R.

I think what i'm ultimately trying to convey here is that AI really took a secondary role to features in HOI3. Either the game shouldn't have been released until the AI was near the level of HOI2 AI or features should have been abandoned in favor of a better AI. If people enjoy the game because of the challenge they will be willing to shell out more money for more features in future expansions. However, people are not willing to shell out more money to fix a shoddy AI. AI needs to be a greater priority for the release version of a product.

I'd like to add that this problem is only compounded by the ridiculous standards by which games are reviewed today. Often reviewers are so completely absorbed by features (since perhaps talking about features makes for better reading than challenge) the AI really takes a backseat in their reviews about games. Since reviews racket up sales, it is unsurprising that developers are more often more concerned with features rather than challenge. I need only to point to empire total war for example... a beautiful game with excellent mechanics only to be saddled with the poorest excuse for an AI at release I have ever seen, yet it has somehow gotten "instant classic" ratings by numerous popular reviewers and has been ridiculously named strategy game of the year by IGN. Sadly, I do not see this cycle of feature dominance over AI in reviews being changed anytime soon.