Why Change Can Be Bad-Common Sense

[Agoria]

Oh the new buildings system is in the patch ?
Glad to read that because I just don't like the development system.
What about the vassal new features ?
If you tell me it is in too, I start playing without CS as soon as tomorrow.
I really like the base tax system. The fact that some provinces are better than others and you can't do anything about that. The idea of building slots unlocking with development is very good but spending points upgrading provinces seems to be worth nothing (except if you are about to unlock the next slot). To me the best would be to keep the base tax system, and introducing the development features that would affect all except base tax. To me provinces must have something more than in CS, that makes it worth or not, important or not, at least to emulate population, as population was really important historically and was one of the major criteria that made a province worth or not. In EU IV population is not even mentionned... Base tax was definetly a good way to emulate it. Now that you can virtually make a province in Tibet the richest, and most developped one on the wolrd map seems ridiculous to me.

 

[chrnno]

The full potential of building is paywalled. While the system has been reworked and is still there, it has been made quite weaker if you don't buy the DLC. I don't think there's actual malice in this, but it will give them a headache.

Actually I feel even with the DLC on the proper climate and terrain the development and building system that replaced the building system is weaker. What you used to obtain from getting all the non-exclusive buildings in a province requires significantly more money and monarch points with the development system. The only advantage is that you have only so many buildings while development is limitless but the increasing dual costs don't make that much of one even assuming you abuse subjects to do it.

So basically there are two different- though related- major changes, each alone I think people would get over quickly but both together...

 

[Emiliana]

So you mean the evil wizard lords Wiz and Johan would like monetary compensation for them and their dev team for 4 months of work on a game they don't have to support or update at all? The shame! the Terror! the Horrrrorrr!

This is not a MMO. You do not pay a subscription. The new dlc pricing is what funds the development of the entire game. If you think "it costs to much to be worth it" then you can't complain when you don't pay your share. If you are truly so poor as to not be able to pay, then I sympathize, but not enough to allow you to pretend it's a monstrous event for them to ask people to pay for their wages.

 

[WeissRaben]

So you mean the evil wizard lords Wiz and Johan would like monetary compensation for them and their dev team for 4 months of work on a game they don't have to support or update at all? The shame! the Terror! the Horrrrorrr!

This is not a MMO. You do not pay a subscription. The new dlc pricing is what funds the development of the entire game. If you think "it costs to much to be worth it" then you can't complain when you don't pay your share. If you are truly so poor as to not be able to pay, then I sympathize, but not enough to allow you to pretend it's a monstrous event for them to ask people to pay for their wages.

No, no, do not misunderstand me. I'm not against paying. I'm against having cut development in half, and even that mostly because it will probably go the way of retinues ("How do we balance tribal invasions/adventurers/decadence/factions, do we count retinues and make life hell for those who do not have LoR or do we make them beatable without retinues but trivial with them?").

 

[RobRoy3]

You generally need to add so much development to a province to get a new building slot (each slot unlocks at 10 development levels after the first. Each point of development costs somewhere in the range of 50-100mp initially, and it only gets higher.) that it's not even remotely worth it to do that. The cases where you do want to add development for the sake of buildings are in provinces like Firenze which are 1-2 development away from having a new slot. I can understand why this might be irritating if you don't have the dlc, but understand that is is a minority of circumstances, and 1 building is not likely to be game-changing.

People are vastly overstating the difference that increasing development makes.

People are vastly overstating the link with Building Slots. And not considering that "Development", itself, is part of the system that replaces the old building system.

Developing a province solely for building slots isn't going to be cost-effective. Any type of development is looking questionable, tbh, but it's the individual development boosts to base_tax, manpower, etc. that is most comparable to the small boosts you got from Temple, Armory, etc. in the old system. These just aren't available to people without the DLC. All they get is an extremely limited building system that looks like a pale shadow of the province development you could do in ALL provinces under the old system.

 

[Styliaan]

The option to build muliple buildings for many different types of bonus without DLC on any terrain with no real limits. Bad areas could still be a big help.
Somewhere to spend extra MP on when the non DLC player was in surplus, which i guess now they can just spend them on massive increases on coring and diplovassal.

To say that the non DLC player isnt disadvantaged from their previous position on buildings and how much they could help is a joke.

Hey, we cut 3 of your fingers off, but you can still pick stuff up with 1 finger and a thumb.

 

[TheChronoMaster]

This is different from EU2 and EU3's expansions how, again?

 

[WeissRaben]

This is different from EU2 and EU3's expansions how, again?

Having reassured the main game would have always been complete, supported, and perfectly playable without any DLC, with the latter being there to provide a bit more salt to the game.

They are free to go back to the old model; they just have to drop the previous statement and announce the old model worked better, so they are going back there again.

 

[TheChronoMaster]

Having reassured the main game would have always been complete, supported, and perfectly playable without any DLC, with the latter being there to provide a bit more salt to the game.

They are free to go back to the old model; they just have to drop the previous statement and announce the old model worked better, so they are going back there again.

The frig are you on about?

The entire point of the EU3 dlcs was that ALL SUPPORT for the pre-DLC versions was dropped, with each DLC's release -- to even get a new patch, you needed to buy the new DLC.

Here, you can have the exact same experience! Just roll back to the previous patch. It's like EU2 and EU3 never left! You get to play a patch with known bugs and exploits with full knowledge it will never be supported, changed, or improved upon, because the devs have moved on to the next step!

 

[WeissRaben]

The frig are you on about?

The entire point of the EU3 dlcs was that ALL SUPPORT for the pre-DLC versions was dropped, with each DLC's release -- to even get a new patch, you needed to buy the new DLC.

Here, you can have the exact same experience! Just roll back to the previous patch. It's like EU2 and EU3 never left! You get to play a patch with known bugs and exploits with full knowledge it will never be supported, changed, or improved upon, because the devs have moved on to the next step!

And with EU3 (EU2 never got expansions, if you exclude Asian Chapters which might have been standalone) you could not buy the expansion and remain there. I was not sarcastic: if they found out that "giving stuff for free AND maintaining the game constantly" puts them in the red, they just have to announce it; at the same time, they should decide on exactly which one is the version they are going to support.

 

[TheChronoMaster]

I...huh?

You can still not buy the expansion and remain there! There's patch rollback instructions on the front frigging page of the forum! You can go all the way back to 1.4 if you want! I am having real trouble parsing what's so hard to understand about the fact you can still use the old patch without buying the expansion, exactly the same as EU3 and 2.

 

[Baxil]

Personally i like the fact that you can no more build every building in every province. This means that now you have to think and to make decisions even when you improve your provinces, it is another factor to consider when you plan to conquest new land and when you have to manage your resources in general.
I don't even mind the ability to improve tax, production and manpower (onestly making cities instantly grow with the pression of a button looks a bit weird to me and i fear the abuse from the AI), infact i'll play a bit without CS.
In the end i think i will buy it for all the other features that are far more relevant, at least for me, like theocracies, parliament, subject interactions etc.

 

[WeissRaben]

I...huh?

You can still not buy the expansion and remain there! There's patch rollback instructions on the front frigging page of the forum! You can go all the way back to 1.4 if you want! I am having real trouble parsing what's so hard to understand about the fact you can still use the old patch without buying the expansion, exactly the same as EU3 and 2.

That there is a great announcement from Johan, from the beginning of the DLC era, that states that every single patch would be perfectly supported and playable, whether you buy the related DLC or not, and that DLC would add some more flavor but leaving the main experience in the patch's hands. Now, they can revert and put the biggest changes - or all of them, even - in the DLC, and I wouldn't have a problem with it; as long as they come out and state "from now on, only last patch with last DLC will be supported, bugfixed and cared for, like it was for EU3".

 

[TheChronoMaster]

That there is a great announcement from Johan, from the beginning of the DLC era, that states that every single patch would be perfectly supported and playable, whether you buy the related DLC or not, and that DLC would add some more flavor but leaving the main experience in the patch's hands. Now, they can revert and put the biggest changes - or all of them, even - in the DLC, and I wouldn't have a problem with it; as long as they come out and state "from now on, only last patch with last DLC will be supported, bugfixed and cared for, like it was for EU3".

Source, please? I seem to recall him saying that now the game would be patched and supported if you didn't buy the DLC (which it is), and what you're proposing is utter insanity -- a small country's worth of programmers wouldn't be able to support multiple different versions of the same software at once. In fact, the rollback system was specifically implemented to allow people to play any patch they wanted, BECAUSE big gameplay alterations would be done in each patch.

 

[WeissRaben]

Source, please? I seem to recall him saying that now the game would be patched and supported if you didn't buy the DLC (which it is), and what you're proposing is utter insanity -- a small country's worth of programmers wouldn't be able to support multiple different versions of the same software at once.

...sorry, it's almost 4 AM here and maybe I am not being clear enough. The point that, without buying any DLC, and just riding on the last patch, you would get support and the main features; DLC would finance every patch from the sidelines. Now, though, it HAS been said that small DLC (like LoR or Res Publica) were extremely disadvantageous for them, and in the last couple of DLC there has been a LOT of content needed to have a full experience. The pendulum is swinging back to DLC being needed to play the real game, but as of now we are in a limbo where non-buyers and buyers will have quite different games - while being on the same patch and, as such, theoretically both being cared for equally.