You are playing with fire Paradox
- Thread starter Juboboman
- 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.
- Status
The benefit of the doubt is pretty much going out of the window when the third DLC has been released, and every single one of them has created more problems that it fixed. Not to mention that I honestly can't remember a single patch that didn't require an immediate hotfix.
How many of you haven't been able to finish a single game because of the constant stream of patches and DLC deleting previous game saves or changing the game entirely into a brand new one?
How many of you haven't been able to finish a single game because of the constant stream of patches and DLC deleting previous game saves or changing the game entirely into a brand new one?
Thoroughly agree. I solely purchased WoN and CoP because I wanted to support Paradox and they're continual development to grand-strategy mechanics in Eu4 and other games.However, if they're not listening to their fan-base here and only their own personal 'team', what's the point of supporting them? I guess they haven't heard the mantra "the customer is always right." 
I really think that Paradox needs to start using open betas before they release any patch. They either don't have enough Q&A guys, or don't have good enough Q&A guys to catch all the bugs (just look at the litany of them that've been posted in the Bug Reports forum). Plus, right now it seems like they're doing all their development in what amounts to a windowless box, where all the feedback is internal. (Okay, it's a one-way mirror, where we can see in but they can't see out.)
They could avoid all this if they'd just admit that between the initial patch release (1.5) and the patch after the hotfixes and bug repair patch (1.6.1) is an open beta, and stop pretending it actually is polished enough to be a finished product.
They could avoid all this if they'd just admit that between the initial patch release (1.5) and the patch after the hotfixes and bug repair patch (1.6.1) is an open beta, and stop pretending it actually is polished enough to be a finished product.
Last edited:
Paradox has gone down hill since it stopped making proper xpacks and started to pump out DLC to make money. This has also driven down the quality of the work, normaly full of bugs and issues when they release it.
Theres little future in releaseing half finished half broken games.
Portraits, Music and Units, oh then theres buildings to make the map look nicer!
Theres little future in releaseing half finished half broken games.
Portraits, Music and Units, oh then theres buildings to make the map look nicer!
What's wrong with WoN? I am honestly curious. I've been playing the DLC for the last 5 hours or so and really like it so far.
Edit: Ok after reading some of the replies it seems like a lot of people don't like the new rebel mechanics and while I agree that they are sometimes annoying I don't find them to be game breaking.
Edit: Ok after reading some of the replies it seems like a lot of people don't like the new rebel mechanics and while I agree that they are sometimes annoying I don't find them to be game breaking.
As a player who was a Total War fanboy until they shit the bed a while back and the jumped to paradox games, I can say with certainty that these guys are heading down the road to Rome II.....
Not WoN, with 1.6 patch. Rebels, AE, changed diploannexion, introduced nationalism modifier for 30 years after conquering a province.
Disagree, unlike EU4 CK2 is the opposite of a disaster and even with a bug here and there, each expansion and patch do make it much, much better. The new DLC made it better than it would have been with the old DLC policy.
The problem with the EU4 are it's plain ridiculous design decisions. I mean... they say that this is supposed to be a blobbing game, but you are punished for blobbing aka playing it the way it is supposed to be played? They test the game via Multiplayer and balance it to fit the Multiplayer? Of course it will be bad if you design it for the MP, when you are the only human player the world does NOT work the same way as when there is a dozen of them (Coalitions do not matter much when all nations that matter are player controlled (who don't care about AE), but when the AI sees you accumulating AE... yeah, the AE becomes a problem)!
And the most ridiculous part is something else however: with each patch and expansion, CK2 gets improved by being able to simulate more of historical mechanics and thus uses abstract mechanics less and less. On other hand, EU4 does the opposite: each additions is represented by abstract mechanics that usually make no sense from historical perspective.
It is not the DLC policy nor the QA that is the problem here. It is the fact that their very design decisions for EU4 have become nonsensical and downright bad.
you maybe on to something here. either the QA teams is god dam incompetent, or the devs are not fixing the dam game. there is no way in hell the QA team missed such obvious flaws.
something is really wrong with EUIV team, thomans (EUIV project lead) must crack down on the team to find out what THE FU## is going on.
I honestly think some one needs to send a latter to Frederik Webster (CEO of Paradox), I'm sure he will be interest to know PDS is playing with fire.....
I do think the focus on multiplayer has become terribly detrimental to the singleplayer game. The whole "power projection" mechanism is pure pandering to multiplayer - what the hell is it supposed to represent that isn't already part of prestige? It's there solely to pit player nations against one another and produce conflict. It doesn't help right now that its implementation is garbage, either, with the awful list of "potential rivals" it gives you.
Nope, the Devs and Publishers here are closely related here.
The problem is that they test their games in Multiplayer which is stupid. For example, you don't need to care about AE in multiplayer because the players don't care about AE but how much they gain. As such, the QA would obviously not notice the problems with AE and coalitions. Even the rebel problem: if they become a problem, your human ally will send help.
So yeah, their QA has no idea what they are doing... and the EU4 team seems to not understand that MP and SP do NOT play the same way. CK2 at some point lacked MP (and at another had a very buggy MP) so I take it their QA is SP-oriented.
I will say that I am glad this community is so vocal. I just started playing EU4 about two weeks ago and completely fell in love with it. I've already logged like 50+ hours, so when this new expansion was released I was ready to throw money at Paradox. Luckily, I was reading around on the forums after the patch was released, before the expansion hit the store, and saw tons of complaints. I decided to do a test game myself and after conquering two provinces which I had claims on in a 10 year span, I had 30k rebels in a 5 province minor (Hansa, 3 +2 I conquered) and had coalitions with the likes of Denmark and the Teutonic Order forming against me. This has completely broken the game for me and my play style. I mean honestly? Two provinces in two years caused that much problem? Anyways, I thank the community for giving me a heads up and letting me save my money for now. Maybe I'll grab the expansion later when the game is back to where I can enjoy it again.
You are right that games should be balanced with focus on SP and not on MP...
but this game is not supposed to be a blobbing engine...
if you play with slow and reasonable expansion, and avoid going on a rampage the game will flow fine as it is in 1.6...
but this game is not supposed to be a blobbing engine...
if you play with slow and reasonable expansion, and avoid going on a rampage the game will flow fine as it is in 1.6...
Not to be a fish or anything, but I still very much feel that Paradox is working well with the community, frequently posting on the forums to answer questions and taking suggestions. Look at about every post on the Runemaster for a perfect example.
If there is a problem, PDS have shown that they'll get to it. In the past they always have, they've always listened and when they find a solution they put it in the patch.
What they don't do is jump at the first command and do whatever they get told to. With the DLC just out and the patch too, there hasn't been time for anything but a knee jerk reaction, there is no community consensus for them to react to. Just a vocal minority.
In time maybe that'll become the majority, but it's just out. It's a bit soon to claim that Paradox has turned it's back on being Paradox.
If there is a problem, PDS have shown that they'll get to it. In the past they always have, they've always listened and when they find a solution they put it in the patch.
What they don't do is jump at the first command and do whatever they get told to. With the DLC just out and the patch too, there hasn't been time for anything but a knee jerk reaction, there is no community consensus for them to react to. Just a vocal minority.
In time maybe that'll become the majority, but it's just out. It's a bit soon to claim that Paradox has turned it's back on being Paradox.
Speak for yourself OP. Some of us like the design direction they have been moving in with this game. If you don't like the changes that's your prerogative, but all the hyperbole people are throwing around these forums is not helping.
But did they even increase the AE compared to 1.5? The AE cost of annexing provinces seemed to be lower for me and the only things I noticed were the new AE for giving cores to your vassals and getting AE for giving your ally a vassal in peace treaties.
The new diploannexation is really nice imho. You get what you pay for. small nations are almost instantly annexed and cost almost nothing.
I partially agree on the nationalism though. It can certainly get annoying with the rebels sometimes but that is hardly game breaking for me.
- Status