Where do you want to go, Paradox?

[WeissRaben]

The main point of this thread is pretty simple. Back when CK2 came out, and the DLC system was concocted, Paradox announced that each DLC would have been accompanied by a free patch, and the vanilla game would have been as supported and as fun as the DLC itself. And, with CK2, it held: while Vanilla contains obviously less stuff than with all the downloadable content, it's still quite enjoyable. Retinues are a problem, but the team already told the mea culpa, and admitted it shouldn't have been DLC material.

So far, so good.

EU4 went well for a fair while, as well - with the occasional problem, of course, but mostly balanced. The problem came with Common Sense, which looks more needed, by the day, to play the game as it's intended. Want to integrate Sweden (or a Historical Enemy, modifier over which you have no control whatsoever)? You can't - without the DLC. Want to colonize in North America, either as a Colonial Nation or as a native? Everything is 1/1/1 or thereabouts - meant to be developed later, of course, but without DLC - you can't. Want to improve your nation? Enjoy being limited to a couple of buildings - unless you buy the DLC, in which case (as costly as it can get) you can expand your building slots.

Now, I had nothing against the old policy of patches being mere bugfixes, with content coming in expansions. It wasn't exceptional, but one could of course accept that one's work had to be paid. And I would have nothing against its comeback; provided, of course, that Paradox just points out that's exactly the direction they're going, instead of pretending the Vanilla game is as fun and playable as with the DLC.

And, to conclude, a plea to the devs. Reply. The question is being exacerbated by the complete absence of a single comment on the matter. As someone put it, it's giving a feeling of "let's not touch this and it will go away". It is worsening the situation. Reply, please.

 

[ponasozis]

also worth to mention that there is still no reply from anybody in paradox team on any all ready numerous threads about the development issue

 

[AluminumSoldier]

Vacation, I would think. Making a major DLC and then getting whined at incessantly has to be exhausting.

 

[MasterC00L10]

I don't know why so many people have a problem with DLC. Common Sense isn't exactly expensive. Just buy it, job done. What's the problem?

 

[BFTeixeira]

At least don't make those who won't/can't buy DLC's being walled to get bug and balance fixes.

 

[BFTeixeira]

I don't know why so many people have a problem with DLC. Common Sense isn't exactly expensive. Just buy it, job done. What's the problem?

It's a problem of principle. It's a problem that what's inexpensive to you might be expensive to others.

 

[DreadLindwyrm]

also worth to mention that there is still no reply from anybody in paradox team on any all ready numerous threads about the development issue

It is currently the weekend. They might be a bit thin on the ground in the office right now...

 

[WeissRaben]

I don't know why so many people have a problem with DLC. Common Sense isn't exactly expensive. Just buy it, job done. What's the problem?

No problem at all. I don't have it yet simply because I have PC problems, so it would be useless as I can't currently play EU4. What I'm saying is that, as CS comprises of an ENORMOUS part of the DLC+patch combo, and one of the things in the free patch misses a piece (which is in the DLC), Paradox should notice that they are giving contrasting signals on what they want the DLC system to be. Does it want to be like they announced in the beginning - the game is fun and playable even without any DLC? Or do they want to make a step back and go back to full patch/expansion integration, like it was back before CK2? Both options are fine - what's missing is clarity.

 

[BFTeixeira]

It is currently the weekend. They might be a bit thin on the ground in the office right now...

Yes, because all threads discussing this subject haven't been in the forum since before CS release...

 

[DreadLindwyrm]

Yes, because all threads discussing this subject haven't been in the forum since before CS release...

However, how valid are discussions of how development works or doesn't before people have actually seen it in the final implementation?
I certainly wouldn't consider them to have much foundation until people had handled it and played for a few days to see how it works. Once that's been done, then it can be sensibly discussed between users and staff.

Then there are the rants that people post up that basically come down to "you've ruined the game and made it so that the AI can use the features I can't!" (which isn't true...), and demands for refunds due to fraud... How do you sensibly deal with that?

 

[Beagá]

The main point of this thread is pretty simple. Back when CK2 came out, and the DLC system was concocted, Paradox announced that each DLC would have been accompanied by a free patch, and the vanilla game would have been as supported and as fun as the DLC itself. And, with CK2, it held: while Vanilla contains obviously less stuff than with all the downloadable content, it's still quite enjoyable. Retinues are a problem, but the team already told the mea culpa, and admitted it shouldn't have been DLC material.

So far, so good.

EU4 went well for a fair while, as well - with the occasional problem, of course, but mostly balanced. The problem came with Common Sense, which looks more needed, by the day, to play the game as it's intended. Want to integrate Sweden (or a Historical Enemy, modifier over which you have no control whatsoever)? You can't - without the DLC. Want to colonize in North America, either as a Colonial Nation or as a native? Everything is 1/1/1 or thereabouts - meant to be developed later, of course, but without DLC - you can't. Want to improve your nation? Enjoy being limited to a couple of buildings - unless you buy the DLC, in which case (as costly as it can get) you can expand your building slots.

Now, I had nothing against the old policy of patches being mere bugfixes, with content coming in expansions. It wasn't exceptional, but one could of course accept that one's work had to be paid. And I would have nothing against its comeback; provided, of course, that Paradox just points out that's exactly the direction they're going, instead of pretending the Vanilla game is as fun and playable as with the DLC.

And, to conclude, a plea to the devs. Reply. The question is being exacerbated by the complete absence of a single comment on the matter. As someone put it, it's giving a feeling of "let's not touch this and it will go away". It is worsening the situation. Reply, please.

Aren´t they being nice already?

Crisis system was a major change in Victoria 2, do you think it should have come for free, in a patch?

Not asking you to reply yes or no, but if your answer is no, it does make the thread kinda pointless, however. Making expansion is intelectual property. They are charging for their work. Eventually the game reaches a stage where it can no longer give you more free stuff.

 

[myrsl0ken]

I agree. The development feature really feels like core mechanics to me and apparently many others. I'm also fine with whatever direction they take, they just have to communicate it.

 

[Imgran]

I don't know why so many people have a problem with DLC. Common Sense isn't exactly expensive. Just buy it, job done. What's the problem?

I paid good money for the EUIV base game. I would like to be confident that not only is the game not going to be broken in this patch by features required for proper gameplay that only the DLC can provide, but that that particular shady trick will not be perpetrated on us againand again and again.

$15 isn't that much no, but when you' already paid a large bounty for the base game, if they hold you ransom for additional 3 or 4 or 5 absolutely essential DLC's, one at a time, that **** starts to add up fast.

This is an important issue that WILL impact my willingness to buy future Paradox strategy titles. One of the redeeming features of the DLC model was that the DLC didn't impact the game fundamentally. Common Sense fundamentally impacts the game if you have it or don't howeveri and that breaks the deal, at least for me.

The perfect example here is Conquest of Paradise. In CoP, everyone got colonial nations in the patch, and the DLC was about being able to play as them, or as native, and the Randomize New World feature. Now compare that with Common Sense. I can see what they're thinking, kind of, but the development feature is too fundamental not to be part of the base patch, the same wat CN's were. It has to be there. DLC owners should get shiny new options on how to use it, but development in some form or another should have always been in the base patch, it's too critical to the new building schema for me to accept anything else.

And that makes me concerned that in the next patch there will be some other major change just as fundamental that will also require DLC. Because if it can happen once it can definitely happen again and as I said, this will hugely impact my ability to feel comfortable risking my money on another Paradox title when my ability to enjoy the game could be whisked away at any time by a bad patch or worse, a shady DLC hook.

 

[WeissRaben]

Aren´t they being nice already?

Crisis system was a major change in Victoria 2, do you think it should have come for free, in a patch?

Not asking you to reply yes or no, but if your answer is no, it does make the thread kinda pointless, however. Making expansion is intelectual property. They are charging for their work. Eventually the game reaches a stage where it can no longer give you more free stuff.

You are reading the exact opposite of what I'm saying. I'm saying they should go back to expansions altogether, if they want to do game-changing DLC.

 

[Oyubi]

The mechanics were largely explained in advance. Many of the concerns raised then were shown to have validity post patch. In any case that argument makes no sense in relation to Dev responces since they do have access to the game at the time they right the dev diaries. Any issue raised to them can be assessed by them even before the patch comes out.

In relation to the DLC/cool mechanic + Patch/core mechanics model I think we have seen a slow change since AOW. The changes this time are noticeably bigger and if we weren't so used to saying DLC I think we would view them as on par with the old style Expansions. I actually like the overall changes even if there are a lot of kinks to work out this time around. That being said I think they do need to really look at this and consider whether they have in effect moved back to an expansion system, whether they want to continue in that way and what this means for the free patches. I would stick by the company with DLC+Patch or with Expansions but I think if they don't figure out the answer it will affect the quality of what they can offer which is bad for all of us.

The final issue that I think deserves quite immediate attention is breaking previous DLCs. Its actually quite serious when you convince people to pay the £10 for COP then makes north american natives mechanics pointless without buying an additional DLC. If they said they were fixing it then I think people would largely be placated even if it is very annoying but we don't even know what will happen there.

 

[Imgran]

Alright, my mother raised me to never complain about stuff if I wasn't prepared to propose a solution so here you go Paradox devs, about to try to do your job for you.

The disconnect right now is centered mostly, I think, around the fact that not only is development not in the core game, but there isn't even an ersatz version in the core game. Using the example above with colonial nations, core game CN's were just kind of things that existed, essentially free vassals. You could interact with them mostly by giving hem land and that's more or less it. And that was an excellent way to handle the divide between needing to take the core game forward in the same direction the DLC was going without completely shilling the DLC.

So what we need is something less feature packed that IMITATES development, by consuming monarch points and improving provinces, while missing some things that the full featured DLC provides..

Therefore what I propose is this: At the cost of:

15 ADM
15 DIP
15 MIL

There be a button you can press on the province window to RANDOMLY develop a province. This cost will be modified by normal development cost modifiers, such as how developed a province is and any bonues and maluses to development cost.

This will be the core game feature, and will either develop a province for 1 manpower, 1 prouction or 1 base tax, randomly. It will average out the same over several uses of the button, but you never know quite exactly what you're going to get, you could wind up with exactly what you need or exactly what you don't need. In this way, if all you care about is development level and building slots, the button will do that, but DLC owners have a great deal more control exactly HOW their province is developed as well as being much more able to use development as a sink for surplus points.

This feature should exist in the DLC too, as a 4th development button. but for directed points dumping as well as precise development, DLC owners will still frequently prefer the existing button. So there ya go, shiny feature for the DLC, quick and dirty ersatz version for the rest of us.

What do you think devs, is that a plan that would work?

 

[Beagá]

You are reading the exact opposite of what I'm saying. I'm saying they should go back to expansions altogether, if they want to do game-changing DLC.

For the price of CS... I already DO think it is an expansion.

 

[WeissRaben]

For the price of CS... I already DO think it is an expansion.

It's not! Because you can download one 1.12 patch, which is made (apparently) under the assumption that you are going to have CS to go with it, but isn't advertised as such nor needs it. Many are being said "roll back to 1.11", which is not a legitimate suggestion, under the current position on DLC; because shouldn't the patch be as fun and playable as the DLC? But it isn't.

So, I say that they should either go back to the older model of "shiny things in DLC, core stuff in patch" (which might have been a failure for them, though), or stop the patches if you don't buy the DLC, effectively going back to the old expansion model without having people (rightfully) complaining that their complete game has been changed into a maimed game. Which is what happens already if you roll back to an older patch.

 

[Dnote]

Development is over rated.

 

[Imgran]

Development is over rated.

Beside the point really, the game's already been partially rebalanced on the assumption that you'd have the development feature (for example base tax in the New World) and if you only shelled out the $60 for the base game and not the additional $15 for the DLC, you don't have that feature.

Either don't completely rebalance the game everyne's already paid for and owns based on having a feature, or give it to everyone. Or piss off your customers, that's an option too. Becase $60 is pretty steep for a rental, Paradox.