will Victoria be too easy at start

[IEX Totalview]

A recent poster in the HOI forum said he had just updated from 1.00 to 1.04 and found the game much harder. That got me thinking about how both EU II and HOI both became much more difficult as they were patched. (For the sake of argument I am ignoring the Korean-level difficulty EU II patches Johan issued after 1.05).

My question is whether Victoria will be insanely easy (like HOI) when it comes out and just somewhat easy once you learn the rules (like EU II). I would actually prefer the game be hard straight out of the box, but that probably won't happen. Still, I hope it is closer to EU II initial difficulty than HOI initial difficulty.

BTW - random CTD's, while annoying, do not count as making the game more difficult.

 

[unmerged(5367)]

Probarbly, Yes

But now you got me intrigued, what korean patches?!? Something much easier?

Besides if everyone looses immediately theres no learning

 

[unmerged(12746)]

Originally posted by IEX Totalview
A recent poster in the HOI forum said he had just updated from 1.00 to 1.04 and found the game much harder. That got me thinking about how both EU II and HOI both became much more difficult as they were patched. (For the sake of argument I am ignoring the Korean-level difficulty EU II patches Johan issued after 1.05).

My question is whether Victoria will be insanely easy (like HOI) when it comes out and just somewhat easy once you learn the rules (like EU II). I would actually prefer the game be hard straight out of the box, but that probably won't happen. Still, I hope it is closer to EU II initial difficulty than HOI initial difficulty.

BTW - random CTD's, while annoying, do not count as making the game more difficult.

I think you may have answered your own question. Out of the box Paradox games need patching. No not a slam or a dig just the reality that we all are aware of. So I wouldnt expect the release of Victoria to be anything that bucks the trend.

I think Paradox will release a good title after the HOI expirence but I think they put a lot of weight into the feed back from the boards as evidenced by HOI alot of the patches were a result of posts there. So I dont think you can expect a "1.04" strength version out of the box, we all have to get a hold of it and pick it apart so they can make thier adjustments, just like thier other releases.

Odin

 

[IEX Totalview]

Originally posted by The camel
Probarbly, Yes

But now you got me intrigued, what korean patches?!? Something much easier?

Besides if everyone looses immediately theres no learning

It was an asinine way of saying the patches were insanely difficult.

 

[Mr.Bigglesworth]

I see no reason why it wouldn't be the same as the other recent Paradox games. Maybe they gave themselves more time to work on the AI for this one though.

There will probably be a number of loopholes and exploits the player can use to gain advantage in the game, so that will probably contribute to the difficulty level as well.

 

[King of Men]

Well, Paradox strikes me as being made up of pretty bright people. It could well be that they've learned something since making HoI. That said, feedback is always valuable; no doubt the patches will improve the game considerably.

 

[Tim O]

yes, probably.

 

[unmerged(14393)]

"It could well be that they've learned something since making HoI" Yes...in fact I think they have learned a lot from the HOI experience. I have no doubt in my mind that Victoria will need less patches, and be more difficult, with less loop holes and exploits for the player.

 

[Tel]

Well, I too am sure Paradox has learned from HOI, but I am not sure that this necessarily will make the game harder right out of the box. There will be a whole new learning curve for the AI, new strategies, new units, new everything.

I don't think that the AI being better able to maintain a defensive line in HOI will mean anything when it comes to having the AI stake claims and defend colonies in Victoria. Not to mention the fact that the advances in warfare during this time will mean the AI needs to be able to change its strategy for war when different military advances are made. If they have programmed an AI that can deal with completely different features and strategies in a totally different era without needing major reprogramming, they have really come up with something.

It will need a whole new learning curve to make the AI stronger, and there will be a whole new set of exploits for the player.

I hope that that Paradox decided to give Victoria some extra development time because of HOI. But I do not know how much the actual AI will benefit from experience with HOI. After all, HOI was built on the EUII engine, and the AI was not exactly Napoleon right out of the box.

 

[Morpheus506]

If it is, then it will provide a learning experience, that we will get better at, and then the gameplay will expand to a higher level with each consecutive patch.

 

[Alyosha]

Well, in all honesty, I think it will probably more difficult than HoI out of the box, but not what EU2 is now, and that's ok. This community is so different from other gaming communites, it relies on what I see as an extended group of testers, to come to perfect the game. I'm not saying I like bugs, on the contrary, bugs aren't fun, but I can live with them much more readily knowing the guys at Paradox are on the case, as they are always willing to hear a new opinion or voice. They definitely deserve accolades for their work in the past; on the original products and the patches they have supplied.

 

[unmerged(5588)]

Except a good A.I. i something of a Holy Grail in game development. Especially in a game of this complexity. It struck me though, if the A.I. is as good as a human, will it be any fun to play? I know I get some satisfaction from actually being able to play better than the A.I. in a lot of different computer games...

 

[Morpheus506]

You've got a point. Playing vs. a human is fun for a lively challenge, but doing that all the time? I'm not sure if I could do that...

 

[unmerged(12746)]

Originally posted by Ighelkott
Except a good A.I. i something of a Holy Grail in game development. Especially in a game of this complexity. It struck me though, if the A.I. is as good as a human, will it be any fun to play? I know I get some satisfaction from actually being able to play better than the A.I. in a lot of different computer games...

I agree here I get the same satisfaction. I am kind of looking for something a little better then HOi though, as it stands with that game its really not hard to beat the AI with a major nation, its a little more challenging with EUII to do so, the BB can really be a factor if your not careful.

My hope is that the AI will capitalize on my mistakes and make me pay for them. Thats my biggest gripe with AI in games, from time to time it will take advantage of a mistake but overall it just chugs along with a predetermined code and methidology. Thankfully PAradox games are MP friendly and thats really where you get some good competion, but even then there is the AI factor you can count on, like in EUII you know Austria is going to attack Genoa and Helevita and in HOI you know an AI Germany will always attack Poland first. If your in an MP game and you have identified tendencies in AI behavior you can always take advantage of it, very rarely does the AI deviate from a predetermined path, how you change that is beyond me.

Odin

Odin

 

[unmerged(2695)]

HoI 1.00 had design flaws that the beta-testers did not find. Cf. Peter's Chopsticks in the Mist.

I think Victoria for that reason will get a more thourough beta-testing.

But just what is too easy?

People playing minors and historical also-rans always complain about the games being biased.

The history buffs among us will complain violently if the game always takles off in unrealistically ahistorical directions.

A cheating AI is just frustrating.

So is too much hardcoding of events or structures.

And then there is the playability vs historicity dilemma.

I don't think most players will be as excited as me about the possibility of micromanaging nation-building in a huge DP-screen - even if that is where the real excitement of the period lies.

 

[cthulhu]

As long as Victoria 1.00 isn't CTD frequently as EU/EU2 and to some extent HOI did I will be OK with gameplay bugs.

 

[unmerged(2567)]

I mean...looking at how much they already have done, and how long they have to go, it seems that the Paradox People have given themselves a lot more time than they had with HOI, or EU2 - I've heard that they were under pressure from the publishers and generally gave a....sub-beta game out with promise of patches.

Ideally (of course) the game will be unbeatable at its hardest difficulty, and impossible to lose at its lowest, and the only changing variable is either the AI itself or a handicap for the AI because it's so damn good. That's my belief of an ideal variable difficulty.

The Victoria engine won't be _drastically_ different from the HOI engine, it seems - at least...well, I don't think it will be as different from HOI as HOI was from EU. Regardless, it looks like a sizeable proportion of the engine is done, and the AI will really be what makes or breaks the game.

Truly, for every bit of complexity added to the engine, the AI has to be three times as good - and ten times as well programmed - for it to actually work. God knows that loans didn't work in EU2 like they ought've.

The point is that they can still make a good game, and that the game (even if it takes a few patches) will be incredible. Paradox has proven itself to be true to its word when it puts its mark on a product. An honourable brand to be sure, something that can't be said of far too many other companies.

If not, I have Imperialism.

 

[Killerjes]

Originally posted by christianx
"It could well be that they've learned something since making HoI" Yes...in fact I think they have learned a lot from the HOI experience. I have no doubt in my mind that Victoria will need less patches, and be more difficult, with less loop holes and exploits for the player.

I think you are right.
But there will be many new things that can "go wrong" / introduce new loop holes. Just look at new patches, solves 10 issues and introduces 3 new ones - but that's programming for you

 

[unmerged(10894)]

If you ask me if the difference of difficulty should be like Sim City 3 to Sim City 4 then no. If you ask me that you should have great AI and just penalize them as you go to easier levels, I would say yes. As Napoleon_IV said, there should be a difficulty rating starting at can't_screw_up_at_this_level to can't_win_if_you_tried

 

[unmerged(1002)]

Napoleon_VI said that. I think his grandfather was more of a platform game player.