Yes the tecnology but if a feature run perfectly not change it!
- 1
- 1
Why is paradox ignoring years of calls for changes to peace conferences? (list of threads)
- Thread starter Delpheus
- 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.
Ah yes, Star Citizen, the allegedly biggest cloud sourcing scam ever pulled. I say allegedly, as they seem to have spend some of that money on lawyers defending themselves from not delivering a finished product after 8 years. Comparing any other company to that bunch is a very low blow. I wouldn't even do that to the company that delivered MOO3. And PDS is far better than that.
- 2
- 1
Be careful with this statement.
Ford Pinto - Wikipedia
especially the section "Cost–benefit analysis, the Pinto Memo"
- 1
- 1
- 1
Be careful with this statement.
Ford Pinto - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
especially the section "Cost–benefit analysis, the Pinto Memo"
Not sure what you mean but maybe the example is extreme, just trying to make a point that i still stand by. It's better to fix something, the morally right thing to do, than continue to let people get hurt by your critically flawed product, because doing so has no directly perceivable return in cash.
- 2
Aren't you taking this a bit too far? You asked a question "Why is paradox ignoring years of calls for changes to peace conferences?". Paradox answered your question. You may not like the answer, but why do you continue arguing. Not only this is not going to change Paradox's position and you know it, but your using more and more extreme arguments with strawmen and overgeneralizations, is getting ridiculous.
I'm not a Paradox apologist. If something "hurts", as you put it, I just stop doing it. Accept that this issue won't be fixed anytime soon, if ever, and move on.
- 7
- 6
Because i disagree with paradox's statement and i think most players would too.
Why not give us just a patch to fix the smaller issues? They do that for everything else, why not this?
I can accept it won't be fixed anytime soon, but I can still speak my mind about how bad this is and how frustrating this makes the game. How are they going to fix things if we don't talk about them? Shouldn't they know what needs to be fixed? We the players should not just sit down and shut up...we need to tell them what needs fixing or what we want to see added.
- 8
- 4
- 1
You don't know that they would. I don't know any better than you do, but what if most players actually give up and quit the game before any peace conference happens, or quit the game at or right after the peace conference? That would be a non-issue for them.
I see that I didn't get my message across. You've made your point. Your initial observations and criticism were valid and justified, and Paradox responded to them. By continuing to complain and disagree, you've made this discussion devolve into a rant which diminishes its value while not making any progress towards a resolution.
I understand it's frustrating, it's probably frustrating for the developers as well. But you can stop arguing now.
- 7
- 3
Based on the sheer quantity of threads, posts, and positive feedback, and actual evidence, I think I can safely say there is a huge number of people that agree with me. My first post in this thread helps demonstrate that.
And I think keeping this discussion going is a good thing. More people can see it and participate in the discussion and share their experiences, thoughts, and ideas for positive change.
An answer isn't the same thing as "shut up" (it could mean that, but I want to give paradox more credit than that...)
I think showing more support from the community and having more information to work with is a good idea. So I encourage people to keep talking about peace conference experiences and how they could be improved.
I'm saying all this and spending so much time because I care, I have a passion for this game, despite it's flaws, and I paid for it and all dlc. I think it's reasonable that a paying customer wants to see more value from their investment. I don't want to just watch it gather dust and think about "what could have been" or "what a damn shame" and just move on ... I'd rather talk about it.
- 6
- 1
- 1
The worst part is that is a really simple fix that should be implemented years ago, is already in other paradox games, and if it ever gets added it will probably be blocked behind another 20$ DLC. Simply making the "offer peace" option always possible and making AI actually accept and offer it would help a lot, also making certain states obligatory for a country to exist to avoid 1-state puppets
- 4
- 2
- 2
So much this. It always frustrated me that white peace or anything less than total capitulation is impossible. I should be able to offer a deal, like "I just want this land that I took, not all of Russia" so you don't need to spend the rest of the game stuck in Russian wasteland
- 5
- 1
I am almost 100% certain it has nothing to do with "ignoring". It is always very apparent when people have little experience working in the software industry. But they still like to make claims like they have.
Even worse when people say it is a "simple fix". If I had a dollar for every time a clueless customer told me that. People are so focused on changing superficial functionality that they completely ignore the reality that there is likely a ton of underlying independencies and limitations that would need to be address. There might even be aspects of the system that cannot EVER be changed without a massive rewrite of other parts of the game. Or maybe no good feasible long-term solutions have been found that aren't just hack-y Band-Aids.
Fun fact, if it was an easy fix, it would be fixed. Developers don't ignore issues out of malice, especially extremely in-demand changes. If they could knock this change out in a sprint they absolutely would. They get tired of hearing about it as much as you are tired of having to complain about it.
And yes, there likely is the reality of release schedules. They likely have time restrictions on what they can and can't due because management at the top tells them they need to release new content. Call it greedy or whatever else but that is the nature of business. Management cares about making money and numbers on spreadsheets. They don't see the code. They probably don't play the game. They see the figures and make decisions which funnels down multiple people to the developers. I don't know how PDX is organized, but this is just par for the course for pretty much every industry. Software is no different.
----
That said, the current peace conferences system is horrendous and definitely needs to be changed and should be high priority ASAP. I agree. I just find that many of the people commenting here are incredibly ignorant about how much work it will be, limitations, and how long it will take.
Even worse when people say it is a "simple fix". If I had a dollar for every time a clueless customer told me that. People are so focused on changing superficial functionality that they completely ignore the reality that there is likely a ton of underlying independencies and limitations that would need to be address. There might even be aspects of the system that cannot EVER be changed without a massive rewrite of other parts of the game. Or maybe no good feasible long-term solutions have been found that aren't just hack-y Band-Aids.
Fun fact, if it was an easy fix, it would be fixed. Developers don't ignore issues out of malice, especially extremely in-demand changes. If they could knock this change out in a sprint they absolutely would. They get tired of hearing about it as much as you are tired of having to complain about it.
And yes, there likely is the reality of release schedules. They likely have time restrictions on what they can and can't due because management at the top tells them they need to release new content. Call it greedy or whatever else but that is the nature of business. Management cares about making money and numbers on spreadsheets. They don't see the code. They probably don't play the game. They see the figures and make decisions which funnels down multiple people to the developers. I don't know how PDX is organized, but this is just par for the course for pretty much every industry. Software is no different.
----
That said, the current peace conferences system is horrendous and definitely needs to be changed and should be high priority ASAP. I agree. I just find that many of the people commenting here are incredibly ignorant about how much work it will be, limitations, and how long it will take.
Last edited:
- 8
- 3
I am not a developer, but I have programmed games with RPG maker, I am modder and I know some programmers (in addition to having studied the basics of programming) So I understand something. That said, what I don't understand is (and why they answer me with simplified answers "eh technology evolves" and other similar obviousness) why risk using a new peace system, when in your old games the others have worked very well. But most of all, if the players have been complaining, and a lot, since day 1 of the peace conferences ... why don't you "take weight" of the system from your other games? The HOI2 system (and not only that) was not good, moreover, it was GREAT! You could do 4 types of peaces:
Separate peace for you and the target
separate peace and for vs the whole enemy faction.
separate peace your faction vs enemy state.
separate peace your faction vs enemy faction! And all about a 2005 game! Hoi4 came out in 2016 and has taken a lot of steps backwards (counting the other great features of the old missing hoi too)! That is, it is "factual", "paper sings" as they say in my country! I mean I'm not saying random things, any HOI2 player can confirm these things to you.
Separate peace for you and the target
separate peace and for vs the whole enemy faction.
separate peace your faction vs enemy state.
separate peace your faction vs enemy faction! And all about a 2005 game! Hoi4 came out in 2016 and has taken a lot of steps backwards (counting the other great features of the old missing hoi too)! That is, it is "factual", "paper sings" as they say in my country! I mean I'm not saying random things, any HOI2 player can confirm these things to you.
- 3
- 2
That's one of the stranger things about this. I've said it before, but why is HOI4 the only peace system this bad? Every other game they make has something significantly better, including the HOI4 predecessors.
- 4
Because programmers are creative types. And generally believe they can make a better wheel.
Unless upper management forces you to use an "old" system, if you are on a new engine you have to recreate it anyway. New tools, new thoughts, new ideas.
And yes, I speak from many years of software development. Peon to Senior Management.
- 4
Look too I'm a creative, and very pure (according to others), but I myself often throw a lot of ideas if they are not good. When I write stories often, I don't put fantastic scenes because with "the evolution of the story" they would no longer be good. A company, any video game company, if it sees that feature X doesn't like it or does feature X 2.0 (hoping to fix the problems) or reverts to feature Y (previous and beloved). It doesn't seem difficult to me. The hoi4 peace system is even better rendered in Age of Civilization II, a MOBILE game that has been ported to PC! If Paradox the hoi4 peace system gets its feet in the head of a MOBILE game, there is EVIDENTLY something wrong!
- 1
- 1
Because you keep missing the point that you just can't copy the code and bring it across onto a new engine. It has to be recreated, usually line by line. All you see is the end result, not the effort it takes to make said result.
You say you are a writer. So when you write a story, do you take a chapter from an older story, word for word and put it into the new story?
- 1
- 1
Ninth! Obviously not ... maybe I explained myself badly ... By "gaining weight" I mean copying that peace system which is conceptually simple ... that is, as now, the ask for peace button is activated, ONLY if you are at war since 6 months and if you are LOSING! Personally asking for peace if I'm winning would be an addition. : D
- 2
- 1
I remember the first time I found out that I could only ask for peace if I was losing. I lost my mind. I was so shocked because of how absurd that concept is, there is absolutely no logic behind that.
Powers ask for peace during stalemates and of course if they're winning and the peace proposed could be bitterly accepted.
The losing side also need to be able to drop out, like in 1917 when russia gave up tons of territory to deal with their civil war instead, backing out of the "no separate peace" agreement because words are just words, promises can be broken.
Makes me think of how beautiful the EU4 system is, so much freedom. I can even break a truce if I want to! They game doesn't stop me, it just punishes me! I want to see more of that...
- 6
Famous last words of users "simple fix".
I am a retired developer, over 30 years at a publicly traded, fortune 500, international company (which I cannot name but everybody would recognize) and every time I hear "simple fix" or "it doesn't seem that difficult" from a person that has never even seen the code I just want to laugh in their face.
The only people that know how "simple" a fix or upgrade is are the devs, it's that simple. And most of the time, they need to look at the code again to be sure.
If you think "the devs" are deciding what they work on, you know nothing about larger, software companies with stockholders to answer to.
If you think it's all that "simple", mod it up, PDX would probably hire you.
Don't like their choices about what they spend the dev's time on? Don't play.
I am a retired developer, over 30 years at a publicly traded, fortune 500, international company (which I cannot name but everybody would recognize) and every time I hear "simple fix" or "it doesn't seem that difficult" from a person that has never even seen the code I just want to laugh in their face.
The only people that know how "simple" a fix or upgrade is are the devs, it's that simple. And most of the time, they need to look at the code again to be sure.
If you think "the devs" are deciding what they work on, you know nothing about larger, software companies with stockholders to answer to.
If you think it's all that "simple", mod it up, PDX would probably hire you.
Don't like their choices about what they spend the dev's time on? Don't play.
- 8
- 3
- 1
Perhaps the underlying problem is this: Joint stock company! in 2005, if I'm not mistaken, PDX was not a company on the stock exchange ... and if it was the listing on the stock exchange that changed paradox?
- 2
- 2