Keep in mind that the person who initially extrapolated that this means the patch is unliked was responding to someone who was trying to extrapolate that people liked the patch because of high sales figures (from before the patch came out, no less). Regardless of the relevance of the data as far as patch enthusiasm goes, it definitively destroys the notion that the enthusiasm of past sales numbers can be stretched out to include enthusiasm for the 1.5.
I was trying to extrapolate no such thing. These were raw numbers, for sure. Being aware of how statistics can and should be applied I also wasn't even considering to make arguments the data isn't there to support or refute. What I
was trying to say was that there is a very large section of people who have played the game for many many hours. That the fraction of the playerbase posting complaints on the forums is quite small, and that those who were trying to posit that the numerous complaint threads here meant a vast majority of players are displeased with the patches does not have evidentiary support behind it.
I also acknowledge that a wise company should listen to their fans. That those fans posting on forums are some of the most engaged is no doubt. They can act as a bellweather in many cases for the group as a whole, but caution must be applied in assuming they are a representative sample of all players.
Listen there are several groups players fall into, and one of those groups is most likely to post on forums. Players who play the game for a few hours and leave likely never arrive here. Moderately engaged players either liking or disliking various aspects of the game also likely don't post frequently. Heavily engaged players who like the game are more likely still to post. The group that is most likely to post, though, are those heavily engaged players who are unhappy. After all, look at some of the loudest complainers here, most of them, yourself included, obviously have something in Paradox games that draws you since you've bought so many in the past. Obviously you care about the game, but that doesn't mean that your opinions are the most widely held even though they are often the most widely posted. That's all I was trying to say, but brevity misconstrued that point on my end.
Honestly I think EU IV
in it's current state is a better game than EU3. The trade mechanic is far better than the wait for another dice roll version in EU3. Papal minigame still sucks, but it sucked in a different way in 3 too. The removal of the universal infamy stat in favor of contextualized AE makes diplomacy more interesting IMO, since it makes alliances and rival status more important to expansion. The coalition mechanic improves on the infamy one since disparate nations can band together against an agressor, rather than the one by one suicide wars they'd declare against a player in EU3. Honestly I've very little reason or interest in ever going back to EU3 due to being superseded by 4 in my view.
That said there is always room to improve. There have been many people decrying AE and coalitions as of late. There are certainly things that could improve. If you wanted to argue that the AE gain from using the Imperial Ban CB was complete bunk, I'd be right by your side. If you wanted to argue that the warscore rewards from a coalition war are inordinantly low, well I can't argue since I've not had much practical experience actually fighting coalitions (I've had a few against me, but have managed to avoid wars through careful diplomacy). Where I get off the train is for that vocal group who argue against coalitions being a sensible mechanic, that it feels too arbitrary. I also disagree with those who feel AE is too punishing as is, I rather like the current balance for the most part.
.
