Indeed, the can only develop if you have the DLC. I haven't had the chance to play as a CN, but it is one of my ideas for up coming campaigns. Is there an event to increase development because of events in Europe. Like a "England is in cival war", or Your country passed an anti catholic law, causing people to migrate to the new world. giving +1 tax? having events based off what is happening Europe would be pretty interesting imo. From wars, to war exhaustion, to some events based on history, or even based on tolerance or % of the population that is not your religion(in the old world). I feel like events like these would be pretty interesting.(even some that had consequences) It would imo make the new and old world more connected in some ways. It would be nice as well if colonies developed over time by themselves, with or without the dlc. However a population mechanic would probably fit better here.
Where do you want to go, Paradox?
- Thread starter WeissRaben
- 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.
- 1
Last time i asked for an answer they simply said you are not entitled to an answer.
- 1
Any chance of a link to where they said that?
I'd also be careful with that signature of yours, since I have severe doubts that any treatment you've had on here from Paradox is associated with you being Turkish. It's a bit of a wild accusation to accuse them of treating you as sub-human at all, much less based on your nationality.
- 4
If he ever was treated "differently" it was either because of what he was saying or the way he was saying it.
- 1
I didn't blame you for it. I just stated that it is a bad policy.
Why is that a bad policy? If you balance each patch around the vanilla game, anyone with DLCs will be buying an ever increasingly unbalanced game. Who would buy a DLC that actively makes the game worse?
The only alternative would be that the DLCs don't include anything that would affect balance and thus would only be flavor/cosmetic in nature....which would make them generally pointless.
- 3
If you had a computer company, would you put an unbalanced product in the market that can only be fixed with 5 other products you sell? At best, you're selling a faulty product.
- 3
So you're saying that 95% of computers on the market don't have processors that are unnecessarily fast (unbalanced configuration) because they get bottle-necked by poor graphics cards, too little memory, or slow spinning drives?
Poor consumer understanding of tech aside, your comparison is entirely inapplicable. This is far better:
You buy a computer that is, for the most part, well balanced in it's components. The manufacturer then says they're out of the basic graphics card, so they'll ship your rig with an upgraded one. Once you get your rig, you find out that you can't get the most out of the upgraded graphics card, because you're bottle-necked by other components.
Obviously, the logical conclusion is to bring out the pitchforks and torches to expose their dastardly behavior.
No, but seriously, can you affirm that you're stating they should balance patches around vanilla and leave DLC owners with a messed up game (vanilla only can revert patches, DLC owners can only turn it off)?
- 2
I don't see how it is mutually exclusive one way or another. I believe it is possible to add content to the game, that enhances it without making the game worse off for vanilla or the DLC owner. There have been a lot of stuff added to Eu4 that fits the above. There have been a few things that have been added over time that some believe should of been in the vanilla, because of the impact it has or what it replaced.(maybe even it should of been there at release. development is the most recent change people are upset with) Things like the customized nation, to the TYW add to the game, but do not take a way from vanilla. and while it needs to be balanced for those who have the DLC, those without it can still play without any issues.
If you are for the game should only be made to be balanced around the current dlc, then you should tell Paradox to go to the old expansion model. where you need the most recent expansion to play on the current game. to say that because someone buys a $40 game; that they shouldn't receive a balanced version of the game without having to pay another 20, 40, 60 dollars is just seems dumb to me. if they are going to go down that path, then they better make it known.
- 2
You can't really add anything other than minor flavor or cosmetics without affecting game balance. Whether or not certain updates drastically alter fundamental mechanics and if so, whether they should be vanilla or DLC is irrelevant. That's a determination of which features fall into the free/expansion bucket, not where the primary balancing point is.
This has been argued ad naueseum by people with fundamentally irreconcilable viewpoints on what the owner of vanilla "should" be entitled to. One side says, you got a game balanced around the vanilla game a year ago, and everything else has been freebies nobody is entitled to. A small portion of the other side (the remainder spouts a hundred iterations of utter nonsense) make the good point that the initial purchase decision is in part predicated by PDX's continued post-release development of games.
Personally I wish they ditched the current expansion model and went back to the old one. I'm happy to either pay for the DLC or stay with an older patch, and then these issues wouldn't crowd out useful threads every time a new patch is released.
- 1
Custom nations is not a minor feature. Wiz said so himself. Custom nations are the most popular nation(s) in the game.(granted custom nations for me would fall into a higher category. comparing it to all or part of europe would make more sense to me. as custom nations can be any where in the world, over multiple areas. unlike playing static austria) i would not consider this minor. same goes for siege transfers.
and yes, where certain features fall does in fact matter. depending on the feature in question, it can be a major balancing point. you can read plenty of the balancing problems in regards to buildings/development on this forum for those with and without the dlc.
As long as they decide to update vanilla, they should balance it. It is as simple as that.(and as you point out, some people bought the game for that reason) You can debate if x or y feature should be in the patch or dlc, but I can not see anyone arguing for an intentionally unbalanced vanilla. "Well it has been 2 years, we will keep updating the game as we had before, but we no longer care how balanced/good it plays." That doesn't sound like something Paradox would want to do, and I doubt a lot of people would agree with that as well. Just as I doubt anyone who buys a dlc would like having it be unbalanced.(some people are pointing out issues with CoP with regards to natives)
As for the last part, i dont blame you. this thread was created over the confusion of what dlc policy paradox was following. i dont enjoy these debates like the development. as it leads to a lot of frustration for everyone and ill will for paradox. if the patch required the dlc, then i would guess less people would be as unhappy. but seeing as they keep updating vanilla with evolving mechanics(buildings, forts, rebels, etc,.), they should balance it.
i should point out that bug fixes should be separate from mechanic overhauls. those should be fixed no matter what the dlc model is imo.
- 1
Indeed, it is quite an interesting statement from Johan, and I am glad to hear it, at least I now know where the company stands.
Thank you for buying the game, it may or may not be unbalanced to shit and we have vowed to provide free bugfixes and free content (which are appreciated, wont lie), but your belief that DLC will be just extra bells and whistles to support us is incorrect, if you want balance (from our obviously earlier imbalanced game) cough up.
Good to know.
Aye.
- 1
Tactfully ignoring the loaded paraphrasing, I DO think it was a useful clarification.
They have been migrating in that direction, for some time. I think it was inevitable, to some extent. And it's already been evident that there is an increasing disconnect between some people's expectations and Paradox's intentions.
All in all. It's not necessarily a bad thing. More expensive, perhaps, but that's still good to know.
Oh it is good to know, I agree, and yes I did have a loaded middle section, which I admit was unfair; Mainly due to the fact there was two possible scenarios and I only mentioned one, which was uncouth of me.
The second scenario was of course that the game wasn't imbalanced when it was released. Mea Culpa. Just that it it is imbalanced after the release of the DLC's (and intendent patches) and you have to buy the DLC's to get a balanced game (which I believe is more accurate than my initial statement, I confess)
Either way it is one of the two. I no longer care which. I love CK2, actually think Pdox have really done well with their DLC model there (which may be ironic, I don't know, but they may consider their models in CK2 and EU4 the same, and likely are, but I view them at opposite extremes of the spectrum) and am happy to continue to buy CK2 DLC and expansions, but for eu4, nah, I think I am just going to call it a night and give up; I really like Paradox, but (and this is just my opinion) they really are frustrating me with eu4 and its content and patches to a degree I never have been before (and having been reading the forums since eu1 and registered when eu2 came out in the uk, that's saying something).
Aye.
I speak about computer software, you speak abour hardware. I think you're a bit confused.
Also, it looks that you have a really closed mentality when you state that Pdx has to opt between balancing vanilla or vanilla+dlc. You know it's possible to balance both of them, right? Or do you think Pdx is so incompetent that they can't do it?
If it was "vanilla" vs. "vanilla+dlc", it would be... manageable.
But it's not. It's sixty-four possible combinations, ranging from "no DLC enabled" to "all DLC enabled" (and that's just counting the major and semi-major gameplay DLC; if you take the reasonable position that Horse+Crescent has a significant balance impact, it's 128). Admittedly, some DLCs have less balance impact than others.
- 1
While I would agree there is a lot of stuff that needs to be balanced, I will say that each patch/DLC builds on its predecessor. Meaning that they may be only adding/modifying a few key things at a time. they would know what they are adding/changing(patch or dlc), and the impact it will have(hopefully anyways) and make any necessary changes.(including previous dlc) and that is a lot easier to manage than say starting from scratch, and trying to balance 64 dlc combinations at the same time. and as you said, a lot of the stuff has less than an impact compared to others, so they may be negligible.
Last edited:
Fun thing is that still none of the people that are crying 'Common Sense is necessary to play 1.12 patch' has given a single valid argument to why this is so... While everyone that has the DLC has already argumented, with actual real arguments, that it is totaly NOT the case. That the adicion of for example developing provinces is close to irrelevant for the development of the game (certainly A LOT less relevant then for example national focus). And still, people cry and cry and state no arguments at all... I think right now you guys are already crying just for the sake of crying and because you are all too stuborn to admit that Common Sense is not at all that important and that you guys where making a big thing out of nothing...
So just once more for all you guys who I guess have skipped all the good answers from players with the DLC from the last 15 pages:
- Development is totaly inneficient and adds little to nothing to the development of the game. Development is extreemly expensive and the points you use for it you can just use to conquer 1 or 2 more provinces, which will give you more advantages then actualy developing that one province 1-2 times.
- The rest of the features of the expansion are purely based on some regions/religions and are not changing anything from what already existed, just adding some extra flavour.
- Yes, you can't really play tall without Common Sense, but before Common Sense it was also NOT possible. And still, playing tall with Common Sense is still extreemly inefficient, any nation going large over tall is still A LOT stronger. So you could say that going tall is pure for fun or a flavour choice that was added for people who have Common Sense, but didn't exist before, so it's kind of irrelevant to use in arguments as it is not something that EU4 was ever about anyway. (lets be honest, it's a game about conquering/painting the map)
- Buildings got reworked because they needed to be reworked... adding it in the same patch as the development was just a nice moment to do it, but the rework was going to happen anyway because the last system was ridiculous and made 0 sense (any provinces having all the same buildings.. not mattering if it was Paris/Constantinople/London or a siberian province were no one lives... So independent of CS this would have happened... And honestly, common sense gives very little bonus in that, rich provinces already can build all the buildings you normaly really want in them, maybe you develop them a little to get 1 more building, but again, just conquering more land would give you more, and poor provinces you will never develop because it's just too expensive, so they stay the same for people with or without CS. So again, irrelevant of a diference... MAYBE, you can POSSIBLE get like a 5% edge in the end game by having CS, by having an extra monarch point sink for western nations... for sure close to infinite times less usefull then national focus for example...
So just once more for all you guys who I guess have skipped all the good answers from players with the DLC from the last 15 pages:
- Development is totaly inneficient and adds little to nothing to the development of the game. Development is extreemly expensive and the points you use for it you can just use to conquer 1 or 2 more provinces, which will give you more advantages then actualy developing that one province 1-2 times.
- The rest of the features of the expansion are purely based on some regions/religions and are not changing anything from what already existed, just adding some extra flavour.
- Yes, you can't really play tall without Common Sense, but before Common Sense it was also NOT possible. And still, playing tall with Common Sense is still extreemly inefficient, any nation going large over tall is still A LOT stronger. So you could say that going tall is pure for fun or a flavour choice that was added for people who have Common Sense, but didn't exist before, so it's kind of irrelevant to use in arguments as it is not something that EU4 was ever about anyway. (lets be honest, it's a game about conquering/painting the map)
- Buildings got reworked because they needed to be reworked... adding it in the same patch as the development was just a nice moment to do it, but the rework was going to happen anyway because the last system was ridiculous and made 0 sense (any provinces having all the same buildings.. not mattering if it was Paris/Constantinople/London or a siberian province were no one lives... So independent of CS this would have happened... And honestly, common sense gives very little bonus in that, rich provinces already can build all the buildings you normaly really want in them, maybe you develop them a little to get 1 more building, but again, just conquering more land would give you more, and poor provinces you will never develop because it's just too expensive, so they stay the same for people with or without CS. So again, irrelevant of a diference... MAYBE, you can POSSIBLE get like a 5% edge in the end game by having CS, by having an extra monarch point sink for western nations... for sure close to infinite times less usefull then national focus for example...
- 5
- 1