Show us a screenshot of your steam hour count.
Once again everyone wants to play as a small nation, and turn it into a blob, and gets mad when the ai unites to stop them. Want to play unrealistically, go mod the game yourself. Changing AE is easy.
There are real problems like the AI managing their economy, not building buildings, leaving their capital open to attack, and other problems fighting wars.
Coalitions and AE is not a problem, you want to be a big blob play as Russia, Austria, Ottomans, France.
Hmm...
Standard settings, obviously not ironman due to MP. AI unites to stop what again? Coalitions exist to protect and help blobs, and help me they did...IIRC Vijay had around 500 AE when it finally died. I've said this before, though it seems to fall on deaf ears and accusations that players don't understand the game.
And yes, if you spam alliances and avoid "wants your provinces" for long enough you can do this as most any crap European minor who isn't overtly hated by France or Austria on day 0. DDRJake showed how to do this with the Minghals, though most were focused on the absurd faction bonuses and so probably forgot that the method in principle applies and will always apply if coalitions work as they do now. For much of the run through India, I didn't even have a significant miltech lead yet, nor was one needed.
I know coalitions are a rookie trap, and that players who aren't familiar with the hidden mechanics of the game can lose to coalitions. That isn't the point we made though and it doesn't address the points we made. I was conquering land so quickly that I had trouble making enough ADM for a while, despite spamming ADM-focused rulers and re-elect spamming anybody who started in his 30's...westernizing while surrounded by crap tech groups will do that. Coalitions don't and never did serve their rational intended purpose.
Oh, I understand, I'm supposed to play the way you want, no matter how rediculously easy or boring it might be for someone with more experience.
Wow. I only have 1363 hours as of typing this...though I suppose I shouldn't say how long I've had the game :/. I'm not sure I'll have the staying power to make 2.6k though...we'll see if the game improves
.
Why? Do they code? They should know what the code is designed to do but do they have access to the code? You don't know, do you?
If you want to place blame on coding and the process for tracking and documenting coding changes...well you're probably onto something.
Is this a perfect world, no, but your analogy reminds me of a supervisor that was upset that he had to learn how to read a "shortage report", which he found offensive as there shouldn't be such a thing, everything should already be in place, and no shortages should occur for the dept he was in. Manufacturing should have oracle powers and know exactly what the customers were going to order and always have enough already shipped to distribution so that they could ship every order as soon as it was received.
Something like a code equivalent of "shortage report", for example. Can a comparable report even be generated with accuracy internally at PI? I have my doubts. In business, it's actually not so easy to do such things well.
The original post complained about the design decisions that appear to be random and misguided. Is there any reason the QA process is relevant in replying to a complaint that "[coalitions] did not used to be this hardcore" and "the game mechanics have totally changed in this last version"?
It would go a long way if QA were somehow in sync with said design process/decisions. The QA response to the country-size scaling undocumented change in 1.6 was telling, but that doesn't sound very much like a QA problem to me. Testing new mechanics that nobody even documented would be...difficult. How many other such mechanics are there in each patch?
How do you know they weren't? Because they weren't fixed? Again, fixing bugs is a coding issue. You can expand the QA team all you like but at the end, the bottleneck is the coders' time.
And their efficiency in tracking the changes they implement and handling them consistently, yes. The issues found in open betas that have made it to release, the fact that confirmed bugs go multiple patches without being addressed, both point to a different bottleneck than "QA".
And what if QA pointed these things out and then they got released? Can QA then tell us "well, we told them but they didn't have time to implement it or didn't think it was important" ^_^? They can't tell us that I'd suspect, and I suspect some find that frustrating.
I couldn't help the sarcasm seeing your very offensive post towards those who are either less skilled than you, or have different playstyles from you. No one is asking to turn Frankfurt into a blob
Well...
Kind of shoddy really, I could do better if I'd planned my route more carefully, but I think this constitutes "blob".
