Where do you want to go, Paradox?

[Imgran]

What makes me cautious and skeptical about buying EU4 DLC's is that i don't want to give them the signals that i'm actually OK with them making subtle and meaningful changes such as the manpower-related that i've rambled about earlier.

Yeah I'm kinda here too. I was all set to buy the DLC as soon as I got my next check, but this is making me sit down and have a think about this. Paraox has seriously mishandled this issue, and I'm usually inclined to defend a gaming company for making design choies.

 

[Imgran]

I was always planning to buy the DLC (and I did), but I've been a big supporter of moving the development to the free patch. I think it's too entwined with the balance of the game, much more than any other DLC feature in the past.

But what's done is done, and now they can't really change their mind on it because customers who bought the DLC will whine if they now make the feature free.

Right so what needs to happen is another feature, less powerful than the development system but able to replace the flat bonuses you're missing out on at least to an extent. Someone suggested gradual natural development, I think it's a good suggestion.

 

[ero_sk]

Judging by the patch notes, they seem to imply that buying Common Sense -also- unlocks National Focus. So you should still have it if you bought Res Publica, but not Common Sense. If I'm wrong, that's a pretty messed up change-- and would actually be worthy of an outcry, as you lost something you paid for.

Of course you can still have it without buying Common Sense, I didn't mean you can't

 

[migalhone]

I was always planning to buy the DLC (and I did), but I've been a big supporter of moving the development to the free patch. I think it's too entwined with the balance of the game, much more than any other DLC feature in the past.

But what's done is done, and now they can't really change their mind on it because customers who bought the DLC will whine if they now make the feature free.

Yes they can change their mind and the folks that bought the DLC may or may not "whine". Is that a valid argument? C'mon the DLC has more than the development system.

-> Parliaments;
-> Protestant religion is tailorable to your wants/needs;
-> Theocracies have a unique mechanic;
-> Extended subject interactions, giving the player much more options;

 

[Beagá]

Yes, a pity the huge changes aren´t praised. It´s not only about development, people.

 

[Alerias]

People forget costs widely differ from region to region.

For me, Common Sense is the price of a just-okay lunchtime noon I'll gulp down in 45 minutes at my local Thailand-theme lunch place.

Elsewhere in the world, the same amount of money will feed a small family for a month.

There'll never be a price point that's perfect for all.

I think the only fair ask for customers is "Don't pirate it if you can reasonably afford it and you love it". Cause at that point, it's only fair to remember that Paradox employees gotta eat too.

Of course the beauty of the DLC model lies in the notion patches keep coming in regardless of whether you buy the DLC, so it's only fair to ask the developer "Don't make it DLC-only unless it's not critical to gameplay". Cause at that point, you might as well go back to the old mandatory-expansion model.

 

[NightKev]

Of course the beauty of the DLC model lies in the notion patches keep coming in regardless of whether you buy the DLC, so it's only fair to ask the developer "Don't make it DLC-only unless it's not critical to gameplay". Cause at that point, you might as well go back to the old mandatory-expansion model.

But it's not critical to gameplay at all. It's a nice feature to have sometimes, but it's hardly necessary.

The current problems with EU4 are balance issues, not free/DLC split issues.

 

[migalhone]

People forget costs widely differ from region to region.

For me, Common Sense is the price of a just-okay lunchtime noon I'll gulp down in 45 minutes at my local Thailand-theme lunch place.

Elsewhere in the world, the same amount of money will feed a small family for a month.

There'll never be a price point that's perfect for all.

I think the only fair ask for customers is "Don't pirate it if you can reasonably afford it and you love it". Cause at that point, it's only fair to remember that Paradox employees gotta eat too.

Of course the beauty of the DLC model lies in the notion patches keep coming in regardless of whether you buy the DLC, so it's only fair to ask the developer "Don't make it DLC-only unless it's not critical to gameplay". Cause at that point, you might as well go back to the old mandatory-expansion model.

Fair points, even though i doubt that the price tag is the motive of discontent. I feel people are way more upset because of specific changes.

 

[toroltao]

What changes are people upset about exactly?

I also don't get the complaint about DLC content block. Imo pretty much all the DLCs are necessary or else the game is essentially unplayable due to locked features. I always understood each DLC as basically a paid upgrade so to speak, maybe that's why I'm not really mad about it.

 

[Magean]

The DLC in the end is just wasted potential. Paradox could have remodeled the game to make Europe's development start lower than Asia, but outpace the ROTW in development increase enough to surpass the ROTW. Instead development increase is a paid feature and they balanced its costs so that the feature wouldn't be too critical or impactful since its apparent that Paradox thinks Europe still needs its overpowered start.

Europa Universalis' timeline should be about the rise of Europe because I don't think that happened during the middle ages.

So true.

 

[rdmoulton]

I think colonies and colonisation are a separate issue, they were simply nerfed hard, whether you have the DLC or not.

I don't care whether development is part of the DLC or the patch, it simply isn't worth the points unless you are far ahead on tech and ideas, conquest remains far better.

Exactly, and there is no substitute for burning excess monarch points in the base game currently. Buildings used to occupy this function.

 

[RobRoy3]

...Imo pretty much all the DLCs are necessary or else the game is essentially unplayable due to locked features. I always understood each DLC as basically a paid upgrade so to speak, maybe that's why I'm not really mad about it.

Oh, I agree. I've felt they've been close on the "core"/"optional" line in many cases and they've been moving in this direction for a long time ("Retinues", anybody?). At a minimum, it bears some resemblance to a "pay-to-win" model. But, previously, many people have felt they could enjoy the patches without NEEDING to buy the DLCs, and I could see how that could be the case for many play styles, even if I really needed the DLCs to enjoy the patches. So Paradox has been able to maintain the illusion that the content behind the paywall is truly "optional" or "cosmetic". As time progresses, this illusion is going to be more and more difficult to maintain, if it isn't already.

I think they would do themselves and everyone a service by simply acknowledging that the DLCs are frequently going to have functionality that is "core" or awfully close to it. And that users really should be thinking of them more as expansion packs.

Then we would be able to focus energy on the myriad of balance issues that need to be addressed in 1.12/CS, rather than getting wrapped up in endless, no-win arguements that essentially amount to "it's not fair"/"yes it is".

 

[_judge_]

IF you really want to go back to the expansion based gaming instead of the patching that we have now. Just roll back to a previous version using the 'beta' function on steam. This will disable all the new features and you will play it like you never got the 'expansion' CS is perfectly playable without the paid features, and the paid features give extra content, and that is the entire idea behind this kind of patching. There may be some balancing issues but those will be worked out.

 

[atomicsoda]

The main issue is Paradox has lied about their DLC policy in EU4. In CK2 it has worked well for the most part as you can play Catholic characters from the original start date as you could at release with Reutines being the only exception. To play Muslims, in India, Pagans and extended timeline you needed to pay and that is fair. In EU4 they keep changing the core game and if you don't pay more and more $ your base game is getting ruined. This is NOT how PDX describes their DLC policy. They need to state honestly that their policy has changed. To pretend otherwise that DLC are optional enhancements to the game is fraud and dishonest.

If I know that I will need to pay more and more than that will effect my decision to buy the game in the first place as the advertised price is 2X or 3X what they state on release. PDX has stated the opposite in their policy statement on DLC and this is the issue and why people feel mislead and used as cashcows by PDX.

 

[Imgran]

The main issue is Paradox has lied about their DLC policy in EU4. In CK2 it has worked well for the most part as you can play Catholic characters from the original start date as you could at release with Reutines being the only exception. To play Muslims, in India, Pagans and extended timeline you needed to pay and that is fair. In EU4 they keep changing the core game and if you don't pay more and more $ your base game is getting ruined. This is NOT how PDX describes their DLC policy. They need to state honestly that their policy has changed. To pretend otherwise that DLC are optional enhancements to the game is fraud and dishonest.

If I know that I will need to pay more and more than that will effect my decision to buy the game in the first place as the advertised price is 2X or 3X what they state on release. PDX has stated the opposite in their policy statement on DLC and this is the issue and why people feel mislead and used as cashcows by PDX.

If I may issue a clarification, at least part of the problem is that people gladly invested in DLC and paid Paradox money on the hope that they NEVER WOULD BE used as cash cows, that they always had an option to enjoy the base game and not feel like things that should be core features held for ransom unless you paid $15.

And they're starting to wonder if all the money they already invested was based on a false pretense.

This is the first time that a truly core mechanic has been behind the DLC paywall. What I mean by this is that development is something ou are supposed to do, regardless of what nation you play. The map is now balanced in part around the development mechanic, especially for colonizers. There's no workaround, and thanks to decisions already made, they've painted themselves into a corner about giving core players the development mechanic or anything like it

This is very different from the way, say, Colonial Nations were handled, or new religious mechanics, or anything else there has been DLC's. There was a way to avoid these features while still feeling like you were playing the game more or less as intended, and a basic functionality that imitated the DLC content was put into the base game for core users. Not so with development. Those buttons are on anyone's screen, right on the heels of an update that removed the core building system we paid for in the base game, that did a lot of the same things now handled by the DLC-lockd Development button. That's what's different.

With the development mechanic combined with the map rebalance that really isn't true anymore and there isn't even the feature-depleted analogue that made waiting to buy CoP palatable..

 

[ThatGuyYouKnow1]

Yes, a pity the huge changes aren´t praised. It´s not only about development, people.

We are just complaining about development because without DLC, the game isn't balanced at all like Paradox said it would be a long time ago. It was expected that development would be a paid feature, but without the DLC Colonize-able land is all 1/1/1 with only 1 building available and the rest is all locked at their starting numbers, meaning that the game is locked with just war after about 1550, since most of your building slots will be filled already, giving you nothing to do at peace but wait for your truces to end. The reason we don't want to rollback to 1.11 is because we like the other features (or at least I do) but it is currently un-playable after early game ends. Rolling Back also won't solve the problem.

 

[BFTeixeira]

You can't develop provinces without the expansion but I think Paradox will change this due to the incessant whining on the forums. I'd like to make two points though.

1. You buy these Paradox games knowing that there will be a lot of DLC's. Buy the DLC. It's like the price of 3 or 4 cups of coffee and will last you a literal life time.

2. Expanding in to America, or anywhere for that matter, if you don't have the expansion will still make you more powerful. You'll still get more manpower, you'll still get more tax, you'll still get a higher force limit due to increase in land mass, just like you would before. I really don't see the problem here. So you're limited to one building in some provinces - so what? Just build strategically. Good trade resource? Build a production building. Good manpower? Build a barracks. Good tax? Build a temple. And so on.

Here what you pay for a DLC will give you coffee for a month. Stop speaking like your world it's everybody's world.

 

[superrayman]

If I may issue a clarification, at least part of the problem is that people gladly invested in DLC and paid Paradox money on the hope that they NEVER WOULD BE used as cash cows, that they always had an option to enjoy the base game and not feel like things that should be core features held for ransom unless you paid $15.

And they're starting to wonder if all the money they already invested was based on a false pretense.

This is the first time that a truly core mechanic has been behind the DLC paywall. What I mean by this is that development is something ou are supposed to do, regardless of what nation you play. The map is now balanced in part around the development mechanic, especially for colonizers. There's no workaround, and thanks to decisions already made, they've painted themselves into a corner about giving core players the development mechanic or anything like it

This is very different from the way, say, Colonial Nations were handled, or new religious mechanics, or anything else there has been DLC's. There was a way to avoid these features while still feeling like you were playing the game more or less as intended, and a basic functionality that imitated the DLC content was put into the base game for core users. Not so with development. Those buttons are on anyone's screen, right on the heels of an update that removed the core building system we paid for in the base game, that did a lot of the same things now handled by the DLC-lockd Development button. That's what's different.

With the development mechanic combined with the map rebalance that really isn't true anymore and there isn't even the feature-depleted analogue that made waiting to buy CoP palatable..

How is the development system a core-mechanic? Yes, an American country will be harder to play, but they always were, so no real difference there. In the rest of the world you can build less than before, but on the other hand, the buildings are more significant. And atop all of that, the AI can't use development either, so it's not like you have a disadvantage.

Then there are the options to set the base tax on random or flat value.

I could be wrong, but I don't see much difference between the old static base-tax system and the new -without CS- static development system.

 

[Imgran]

How is the development system a core-mechanic? Yes, an American country will be harder to play, but they always were, so no real difference there. In the rest of the world you can build less than before, but on the other hand, the buildings are more significant. And atop all of that, the AI can't use development either, so it's not like you have a disadvantage.

It's a core mechanic because it directly replaced a core mechanic.

Then there are the options to set the base tax on random or flat value.

you mean the feature of the El Dorado DLC?

I could be wrong, but I don't see much difference between the old static base-tax system and the new -without CS- static development system.

That's because it's been tied in with part of the old building system that wasn't originally static and without the DLC it's still static.

 

[superrayman]

That's because it's been tied in with part of the old building system that wasn't originally static and without the DLC it's still static.

But aside from that, like I said, the bonuses buildings give are way more significant. Then there is the fact you can upgrade them later on. Also people with CS can, most likely, build a maximum of 2-4 buildings on a province, since development becomes exponentially expensive.

IF you were at a disadvantage I would understand the amount fuss, but you are not, at least not any different to how it was before CS.