barely anyone has mentioned casuals or whatever, most of the discussion has been about actual game mechanics, but maybe it's easier to complain than participate in the discussion you apparently want to see.
- 12
- 9
- 2
- 2
We don't have to focus on memes anymore thanks
- Thread starter TheSeraphim
- Start date
-
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.
People have latched on to the fervor system as being bad solely because it's a change from CK2. It's new and different therefore it's automatically the worst thing ever and must be removed. The only tweaks fervor really needs is more events to change it and more modifiers for the monthly change (especially some negative modifiers so fervor can actually decrease monthly sometimes).
- 20
- 6
- 3
How about you read the discussion about it? Every thread on this subject you post the same dismissive nonsense without addressing any problems anyone has with it.
- 9
- 5
- 4
You mean apart from the original premise of this thread being that unbalanced game mechanics is some how the fault of paradox devs catering to 'memers'?
It couldn't possibly simply be that paradox games in general are unbalanced at launch.
- 14
- 6
- 5
- 3
Not sure what original post you were reading. Half of my post was about half the working features being memes while the "Normal" side of the features being half baked, nothing to do with balance.
Somehow matrimonial marriages for Female-dominant religions not working correctly gets past testing despite being an advertised feature and claimed to be working before launch doesn't work at launch, but half of Europe becomes fully working nudists.
Or how you still get pop ups about scandals even if you make normally shunned/illegal activities allowed.
EDIT: I'm not sure I'm even arguing with the correct person or following the topic correctly anymore, after writing this post and reading over the thread.
Last edited:
- 10
- 5
- 2
Maybe try doing that yourself. If you actually read any of my posts about fervor instead of immediately jumping to snidely disagree and dismiss my posts, you would see that I have consistently addressed the current issues with the mechanic and proposed improvements of the fervor system, including in the very post you quoted. Not sure why you feel the compulsive need to instantly disagree and bash any time I post about fervor no matter what, but you've made it perfectly clear that you don't want to engage in a constructive discussion of the fervor mechanic.
- 7
- 4
there's a faction on these forums which chooses to have laser beam focus on anything they can dismiss your posts for and then they ignore actual substance to call you a troll or something. increasingly obnoxious
- 4
- 3
- 1
It's entirely possible that I've misinterpreted what you were trying to get across, in which case I apologise.
Your original post is just a bit odd though, it seems to suggest that the devs chose to focus on 'memey' features in order to appeal to a wider audience, and that by doing this they neglected other game mechanics. I'm not sure if you were joking, but the idea that the devs sat down and thought 'lets add nudity and incest instead of detailed mechanics for Orthodox Christianity, so the casuals will buy our game', is just a bit silly. And there certainly seems to be a subsection of the community that likes to attribute any issues with the game to 'dumbing down' and 'casuals', hence my original reaction.
- 12
- 5
- 4
Well, I definitely agree that the game is somewhat lacking depth and variety in a lot of aspects. Former things that CK2 had and that a new game should bring the possibility to improve have been completely scrapped only to be sold post launch.
College of cardinals (sure, CK2's implementation wasn't the best, but it was one of the first DLCs launched, 2013!) is totally missing, and we don't even have a mechanic to allow for faiths sharing a same Head, which is disappointing.
Byzantium lacking any form of special treatment aside of Primo unlocked, which is ridiculous. In CK2 devs always said that code was too feudal-ey to do the byzs proper justice and that that was why they would always be lacking and difficult to manage. Yet a new game comes, the perfect opportunity to get things right, and they're an outright feudal government with early primo. And code still seems extremely feudal-ey seeing clan government is essentially feudal but relying on opinion instead of contract.
The hundreds of events related to cultures, religions and governments that are missing. I've had a full Zoroastrian run from 867 to 1453 and there wasn't a single event related to Zoroastrism, aside of the generic ones related to lifestyles that just change God by Allah or Ahura Mazda or whatever. That for me is just extremely disappointing, because the differences between playthroughs get so narrow that it becomes repetitive really fast.
So yeah, religion system and visual aspect of the game has been remarkably improved, can't deny that, but in a lot of other things the game just feels the same or even a downgrade from what we had in CK2.
College of cardinals (sure, CK2's implementation wasn't the best, but it was one of the first DLCs launched, 2013!) is totally missing, and we don't even have a mechanic to allow for faiths sharing a same Head, which is disappointing.
Byzantium lacking any form of special treatment aside of Primo unlocked, which is ridiculous. In CK2 devs always said that code was too feudal-ey to do the byzs proper justice and that that was why they would always be lacking and difficult to manage. Yet a new game comes, the perfect opportunity to get things right, and they're an outright feudal government with early primo. And code still seems extremely feudal-ey seeing clan government is essentially feudal but relying on opinion instead of contract.
The hundreds of events related to cultures, religions and governments that are missing. I've had a full Zoroastrian run from 867 to 1453 and there wasn't a single event related to Zoroastrism, aside of the generic ones related to lifestyles that just change God by Allah or Ahura Mazda or whatever. That for me is just extremely disappointing, because the differences between playthroughs get so narrow that it becomes repetitive really fast.
So yeah, religion system and visual aspect of the game has been remarkably improved, can't deny that, but in a lot of other things the game just feels the same or even a downgrade from what we had in CK2.
- 18
- 7
- 1
This is one of the most frustrating things - this is now the third iteration of the game, and the Byzantine Empire still plays as it did in CK1. And yet, playing as the Byzantine empire is maybe the oldest 'meme' of paradox games going all the way back to EU1.
Not to mention how important they were during this period (they are the reason there were crusades in the first place...)
- 11
- 1
it also completely screws with game balance. I initially thought waiting to add byz content was ok but then in 1066 at least they just blob everywhere even if they lose armenia, pretty much no matter where you play in europe they ruin everything
- 5
Memers aren't necessarily casuals. Many of them have a lot of experience with CK2. They are frequently Redditers. They just aren't interested in an actual historical strategy game.
You are the only one here talking about casuals
- 13
- 6
Regarding Byzantium, the thing is that the devs somehow managed to make a downgrade on what was already available in CK2. There's no need to change the code etc.
The Byzantines didn't have the written hereditary system, so it's quite hard to implement. But, there is already an option to pick a heir, but it's locked since "the technology wasn't researched yet" and only if you have the highest crown authority. Seriously, the ability to pick a heir isn't known yet?
- 7
More often than not they're grouped together on these forums. That's sort of besides the point though, the point is to not act snooty to people who play the game differently...
Like this. This is sort of a pointless argument though since everyone has a different definition of what is 'historical'.
I do agree that Byzantium in CK2, whilst perhaps leaving a lot to be desired, did at least seem to be kept in check expansion wise compared to now. I'm not familiar with coding and I'm not sure if it's so easy to port code from CK2 to CK3. Would very much like to see them overhauled though, or at least see them made a little less stable.
- 8
- 4
I get not wanting what happened to Stellaris to happen to CK3, but why not what happened to Imperator? Imperator launched as a half-baked train wreck and has been dramatically improved by its patches. If anything, it's one of the greatest success stories of post-release improvement from a recent Paradox game, with many serious issues being resolved (eg. removing mana, improving opinion mechanics, major families no longer drop like flies, upcoming tech overhaul, and so on) with comparatively little of the kind of regression that has plagued Stellaris and EU4.
- 11
- 4
- 1
If that's the greatest success story, I have bad news for you: It has less than half of the players of Victoria II now.
Comparison - Steam Charts
An ongoing analysis of Steam's player numbers, seeing what's been played the most.
- 6
- 3
- 1
- 1
Calling something "memey" rather than addressing specific issues comes across as complaining just to complain. All Paradox games have issues at launch, or even after major updates. (remember EUIV patch 1.30.0, aka the "revoke the privilega by 1480" patch.) I think everyone agrees that the fervor system is out of balance, but it is not nearly as bad as the CKII system, which tended to make the Sunni and Catholicism snowball over the world, while the minor religions were overran with ahistorical (and at times, half-nonsensical) heresies. (Also, you could a sister-banging gnostic in CKII, and only be the equivalent of astray with 99% of Christendom.)
The current religious system, although not perfect, is much better than CKII. Therefore, I can't justify ranting against it. This isn't a case of the dev team breaking a working feature for little apparent reason late in a game's development (i.e. the EUIV missionary changes in 1.26 or the merc changes in 1.30). Rather, the fervor system is doing what it is intended to do, but due to quirks of the system, it does have a some mild-moderate silly results.
I don't think anyone supports Insularism spawning in Italy, or 9th century Lollards, for instance. But, calling the whole thing a "meme" turns it into an argument over the entire system. Personally, I like that MA doesn't tend to destroy small faiths and snowball large ones, that Catholic bishops now pay their feudal dues more often than not, that heretics are generally hostile to all Christians, not just their specific parent faith, and so on. And that is why people will disagree you, despite agreeing that the religious system could still use some work.
The current religious system, although not perfect, is much better than CKII. Therefore, I can't justify ranting against it. This isn't a case of the dev team breaking a working feature for little apparent reason late in a game's development (i.e. the EUIV missionary changes in 1.26 or the merc changes in 1.30). Rather, the fervor system is doing what it is intended to do, but due to quirks of the system, it does have a some mild-moderate silly results.
I don't think anyone supports Insularism spawning in Italy, or 9th century Lollards, for instance. But, calling the whole thing a "meme" turns it into an argument over the entire system. Personally, I like that MA doesn't tend to destroy small faiths and snowball large ones, that Catholic bishops now pay their feudal dues more often than not, that heretics are generally hostile to all Christians, not just their specific parent faith, and so on. And that is why people will disagree you, despite agreeing that the religious system could still use some work.
- 12
- 4
- 1
Well isn't that what happened historically? Aside from Ummayads almost never collapsing.
- 6
- 1
I'd argue that's largely because first impressions matter and the release version was, as I mentioned, an unfinished train wreck. With a bad release and no major events that generate a large influx of players, the player base is unlikely to recover from said release.If that's the greatest success story, I have bad news for you: It has less than half of the players of Victoria II now.
Comparison - Steam Charts
An ongoing analysis of Steam's player numbers, seeing what's been played the most.steamcharts.com
Also, a quick look at EU4 and Stellaris should tell you that there is little correlation between the current quality of the game and playerbase size. Both games have completely broken AI due to bad patches and still post high average player counts. But having played Imperator recently, I can confidently say I'd much rather play the current version of Imperator than any version of Stellaris since 2.2 or EU4 since 1.30 (or any of the versions where they used the corruption from territories system), even if I'd rather play either of those than Imperator 1.0.
- 10
- 2
- 1
Don't kid yourself. Zoom out, It had many chances: November last year, this February-March, and August. None of the major influx events had lasting impact.
To the downvoters:
Last edited:
- 4
- 1
- 1