|
Darkrenown posted:Oh no! Pack it up Paradox, you'll never succeed if you don't cater to the crazy people who post on your forums.
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2014 23:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 22:09 |
|
|
gently caress, you mean this completly optional dlc I don't have to buy would allow me to do something I don't want to do? BURN PDS TO THE GROUND AND SALT THE EARTH.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2014 23:45
|
|
|
drat it Paradox, you ruined this game, I'm going to tell everyone I know to not buy your games ever again (the only people I know are my mother and my cat).
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2014 23:45
|
|
|
Sindai posted:Funny you should mention that... http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?745246-East-vs-West-MP But then how will they know how to balance the game? 
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2014 23:54
|
|
|
Guys Paradox has been over for a LONG time. They've had a FULLSCREEN option for so long now! I don't want to play in fullscreen! Paradox is finished!
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2014 23:55
|
|
|
DrProsek posted:Guys Paradox has been over for a LONG time. They've had a FULLSCREEN option for so long now! I don't want to play in fullscreen! Paradox is finished! You can pause with the spacebar instead of the pause button. Why even have a pause button then?
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2014 23:57
|
|
|
uPen posted:You can pause with the spacebar instead of the pause button. Why even have a pause button then? Emperor Norton of America is not playable; pack it up, failures.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 00:01
|
|
|
Dibujante posted:Emperor Norton of America is not playable; pack it up, failures. Mods to the rescue! 
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 00:07
|
|
|
Was "They took away my ability to feel human" a sincere comment or a troll?
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 00:08
|
|
|
DrProsek posted:Guys Paradox has been over for a LONG time. They've had a FULLSCREEN option for so long now! I don't want to play in fullscreen! Paradox is finished! What about these dynamic start dates? I don't want to start in a time when Byzantium doesn't exist anymore!  How dare they include an optional feature in an optional purchase!
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 00:10
|
|
|
CharlieFoxtrot posted:Was "They took away my ability to feel human" a sincere comment or a troll? Troll.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 00:10
|
|
|
I almost hate to bring this up again, since it usually starts a flame war, but a possible solution to "Benny Hill Warfare" could be to tie army movement to army size. Smaller armies moving faster is something that makes intuitive sense, and can potentially reward interesting army maneuvering (split the army to go faster, then bring them down at the same place at the same time to leverage their strength). Benny Hill warfare would actually still be a thing, but at least it would make more intuitive sense, since a smaller defeated army would be able to naturally move faster than the larger, victorious one. To prevent players from exploiting this by stacking multiple small armies together on one province, you could ramp up each army's attrition footprint for each additional friendly army in that province. I'm suggesting this because you wouldn't even need to fiddle with combat itself, and it could integrate fairly smoothly into the existing gameplay.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 00:27
|
|
|
Darkrenown posted:Oh no! We jest, but I remember an actual argument in the thread back when EU3 was released where goons were devastated that historical railroading had been taken out of the game and that Spain wouldn't randomly go bankrupt regardless of context and that all the soul was gone.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 00:32
|
|
|
quote:paradox Darkrenown posted:Oh no! This is the biggest scandal since Wallpapergate and will rock the foundations of your company. Prepare for utter madness.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 00:33
|
|
|
Sky Shadowing posted:What about these dynamic start dates? I don't want to start in a time when Byzantium doesn't exist anymore! Don't worry, you can always recreate it. I can't wait for space Byzantium if they ever get around to making a 4X game.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 00:58
|
|
|
Wasn't the reason (the biggest one anyway) for Magna Mundi being terminated that it didn't have working multiplayer? I remember something about Paradox policy being to always have multiplayer in their games or so which made that a dealbreaker at the time.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 01:07
|
|
|
I think the problem with MM was that it didn't have working anything.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 01:11
|
|
|
V for Vegas posted:I think the problem with MM was that it didn't have working anything. Yeah from what I heard from beta testers, core things like trading didn't work in the latest builds. I don't know any EvW beta testers so I can't say if it's quite that level, but broken multiplayer actually isn't too big an issue since that can later be patched in or made an expansion, while broken basic mechanics means neither single player not multiplayer work right on launch.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 01:20
|
|
|
DStecks posted:I almost hate to bring this up again, since it usually starts a flame war, but a possible solution to "Benny Hill Warfare" could be to tie army movement to army size. This would be awful for gameplay since it means any time you have a numerical advantage it would be extremely difficult/impossible to force a fight.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 01:24
|
|
|
DStecks posted:Smaller armies moving faster is something that makes intuitive sense, and can potentially reward interesting army maneuvering (split the army to go faster, then bring them down at the same place at the same time to leverage their strength). That's not interesting army maneuvering, that's brain-dead micromanagement hell.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 01:30
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:We jest, but I remember an actual argument in the thread back when EU3 was released where goons were devastated that historical railroading had been taken out of the game and that Spain wouldn't randomly go bankrupt regardless of context and that all the soul was gone. I never played any of the earlier EU games, and didn't even play EU3 until the 1.3 patch was out. I think if I had always had the historical railroading I would be sad to see it go, but without ever having it I can't say one way or the other. That said, there is still a ton of it in EU3/4. Not so much actual railroading as unique missions for certain nations that greatly encourage following a set historical path. I've changed most of them to be more generic in my own mod, so I guess now that I think about it I'm glad that actual railroading is gone.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 01:31
|
|
|
NihilCredo posted:That's not interesting army maneuvering, that's brain-dead micromanagement hell. Army chasing should matter less; sieging down and taking important provinces (like a capital?) should matter enough in a war that it should force a confrontation. Also, sieges should become harder but more influential to reduce the "carpet siege" stuff that turns warfare into micromanagement hell. If I take Paris, it should mean a lot, even if I haven't taken a bunch of trivial French countryside.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 01:35
|
|
|
uPen posted:This would be awful for gameplay since it means any time you have a numerical advantage it would be extremely difficult/impossible to force a fight. I'm not advocating that it be the most important factor in army movement, just something that comes into play. You could have the penalty be reduced by better military developments or by better leadership. Also, you don't need to force a battle if they can't stop you from laying siege. SeaTard posted:I never played any of the earlier EU games, and didn't even play EU3 until the 1.3 patch was out. I think if I had always had the historical railroading I would be sad to see it go, but without ever having it I can't say one way or the other. I think historical railroading sounds amazingly lovely, and pretty much as far as possible from the reason I play any of these games.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 01:53
|
|
|
DStecks posted:I think historical railroading sounds amazingly lovely, and pretty much as far as possible from the reason I play any of these games.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 01:54
|
|
|
DStecks posted:I'm not advocating that it be the most important factor in army movement, just something that comes into play. You could have the penalty be reduced by better military developments or by better leadership. It doesn't matter if it's the most important factor or not. Players want to play optimally. If their armies will move faster by splitting them all up into tiny pieces, then they're going to do so even if they think doing so is a chore. The fact of the matter is that managing a ton of smaller armies just isn't very fun in Paradox games and doesn't really contribute "interesting maneuvering" but "tiresome busywork." Doing anything to encourage that kind of thing would be pretty bad design.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 01:58
|
|
|
DStecks posted:I'm not advocating that it be the most important factor in army movement, just something that comes into play. You could have the penalty be reduced by better military developments or by better leadership. Look, I know you don't want to start another flamewar with this, and the players do agree that the current combat is less than optimal - but, I mean, you're not very good at these design ideas so far.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 02:00
|
|
|
Dr. Video Games 0031 posted:It doesn't matter if it's the most important factor or not. Players want to play optimally. If their armies will move faster by splitting them all up into tiny pieces, then they're going to do so even if they think doing so is a chore. The fact of the matter is that managing a ton of smaller armies just isn't very fun in Paradox games and doesn't really contribute "interesting maneuvering" but "tiresome busywork." Doing anything to encourage that kind of thing would be pretty bad design. "Do I want to do this busywork?" is a perfectly legitimate thing to balance against. Not everybody plays like their life is on the line, so offering an advantage for a little extra effort is perfectly good design. And splitting your army is hardly "optimal", since it leaves you vulnerable if your enemy wants to use a big ugly doomstack.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 02:04
|
|
|
Beamed posted:Look, I know you don't want to start another flamewar with this, and the players do agree that the current combat is less than optimal - but, I mean, you're not very good at these design ideas so far. I think the CK2 system on a basic level is close to perfect (barring a massive redesign/new engine where we get 2d random battlefields on a board like Football Manager), the issue is better communicating to the player the difference their general/tactics/army composition results in over something else.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 02:16
|
|
|
Darkrenown posted:Well, there's pathfinding, ease of forming fronts, familiarity for players of our other games, and the fact the engine is based on provinces If your next game is a new HOI, just make a really, really, really, really, REALLY, REALLY, good tutorial and maybe even a starter scenario. Also i'm sorry you have to deal with racists and crazies on your forums. edit: Often times I check the LP subforum on HOI3 for a tutorial LP and it's just... well people roleplaying. I always wanted to really give HOI3 a try but there aren't any tutorial LPs with the latest expansions, whereas you have good ones for CK2, EU4 and Vicky2. Necroneocon fucked around with this message at 02:22 on Jan 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 02:19
|
|
Probably more, but just off the top of my head it's not a trivial change.
|
DStecks posted:"Do I want to do this busywork?" is a perfectly legitimate thing to balance against. Not everybody plays like their life is on the line, so offering an advantage for a little extra effort is perfectly good design. And splitting your army is hardly "optimal", since it leaves you vulnerable if your enemy wants to use a big ugly doomstack. Thankfully Paradox have taken the line that boring lovely gameplay shouldn't even be an option in their games. They're not there yet, but they are moving in the right direction.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 02:20
|
|
|
V for Vegas posted:Thankfully Paradox have taken the line that boring lovely gameplay shouldn't even be an option in their games. They're not there yet, but they are moving in the right direction. Yeah man, splitting your army in HALF? gently caress that noise, so much loving work. Actually having the option of using some tactics is so boring and lovely compared to throwing everything in a big ole doomstack and just right clicking the enemy until they're all dead. EDIT: No, even that's just loving busywork. Moving armies around at all is too much busywork, just make wars a number that you drive up through various arcane and inscrutable means.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 02:23
|
|
|
For my part, the ideal strategic-level wargame would involve drawing or placing a lot of fronts and troop movements and stuff like the battle planner in Victoria 2, and pressing the "play" button, without having to manage divisions and brigades and whatnot at all. Basically, I'd prefer it if I didn't have to manage the army aspect at all beyond deciding what types of units to build. EDIT: That's Hearts of Iron 3 isn't it? But I look at it and its millions of provinces and squares with X'es in them, and my eyes kind of glaze over.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 02:28
|
|
|
DStecks posted:Yeah man, splitting your army in HALF? gently caress that noise, so much loving work. Actually having the option of using some tactics is so boring and lovely compared to throwing everything in a big ole doomstack and just right clicking the enemy until they're all dead. gently caress do you mean tactics? Okay, I tried being nice but now you're just yammering on like a dumbass. Here is the difference between the status quo and your idea: Status quo: "Oh, no, his army is going to escape! I'm going to have to lure them into a trap.. maybe I should try sieging their province and force them into conflict? Or, maybe I should play it defensive for now." Your idea: "Oh, no, his army is going to escape! *clicks Split in Half, orders both armies to attack* There we go, now I can safely destroy his army. Good thing evasion is pointless now!" EDIT: And then it just gets blatantly loving reductionist, and everyone will have stacks of 1 regiment that are all in a single province, and you have the current system except now you don't combine armies. Great job. Beamed fucked around with this message at 02:31 on Jan 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 02:29
|
|
|
It's a shame EvW is looking like to be a clusterfuck. I was really looking forward to that game. As in one of the few in this thread defending it. You gotta ease players in, P-dox, just like you did with CK2 aka your most popular game.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 02:32
|
|
|
DStecks posted:"Do I want to do this busywork?" is a perfectly legitimate thing to balance against. Not everybody plays like their life is on the line, so offering an advantage for a little extra effort is perfectly good design. And splitting your army is hardly "optimal", since it leaves you vulnerable if your enemy wants to use a big ugly doomstack. You are a terrible designer, a terrible poster, and a terrible person. This entire post is just an incredible whirlpool of wrongness. Every sentence is worse than the last. Please stop.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 02:47
|
|
|
Beamed posted:gently caress do you mean tactics? Okay, I tried being nice but now you're just yammering on like a dumbass. Here is the difference between the status quo and your idea: You missed the part where I said that armies would have their attrition footprint increased for each additional friendly army in the same province. It's fun arguing with people who don't even read what I'm saying. DStecks posted:To prevent players from exploiting this by stacking multiple small armies together on one province, you could ramp up each army's attrition footprint for each additional friendly army in that province. Combat would need to be changed so that there's a meaningful difference in how 1 big army vs. two smaller armies enter battle, but that's part 2 of the fix, and significantly harder to implement, and it would vary depending on which game is being discussed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 02:47
|
|
|
DStecks posted:You missed the part where I said that armies would have their attrition footprint increased for each additional friendly army in the same province. It's fun arguing with people who don't even read what I'm saying. So, you'd want to split armies until you exactly hit the attrition cap for the area you're going through? That sounds fun. DStecks posted:Combat would need to be changed so that there's a meaningful difference in how 1 big army vs. two smaller armies enter battle, but that's part 2 of the fix, and significantly harder to implement, and it would vary depending on which game is being discussed. Whatever happened to DStecks posted:I'm suggesting this because you wouldn't even need to fiddle with combat itself, and it could integrate fairly smoothly into the existing gameplay. ?
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 02:49
|
|
|
DStecks posted:You missed the part where I said that armies would have their attrition footprint increased for each additional friendly army in the same province. It's fun arguing with people who don't even read what I'm saying. ..s-so why don't you just increase the attrition of armies to compensate, without needing to increase the number of armies in general to do so? What.. do you.. aaaaagh. How the hell does this sound good? I mean you are seriously arguing for increasing micromanagement to punish players who don't want to micromanage! That was actually a thing you said! Beamed fucked around with this message at 03:02 on Jan 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 03:00
|
|
|
PleasingFungus posted:So, you'd want to split armies until you exactly hit the attrition cap for the area you're going through? That sounds fun. See below, but I'd also retool attrition to scale a bit instead of being a binary cap system. PleasingFungus posted:Whatever happened to I guess I was wrong about not needing to fiddle with combat. It would be better, if this were going to be implemented, that the combat system would be designed with it in mind from the beginning. Beamed posted:..s-so why don't you just increase the attrition of armies to compensate, without needing to increase the number of armies in general to do so? What.. do you.. aaaaagh. How the hell does this sound good? Because "Just increasing the attrition of armies" does absolutely gently caress all to stop the player from splitting their armies in half but keeping them in the same province, getting all the benefit for none of the penalty. Beamed posted:I mean you are seriously arguing for Completely reversing my argument, then using "micromanagement" as a dirty word for "any army management more complicated than just click the enemy" is a pretty convenient way to argue, huh?
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 03:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 22:09 |
|
|
DStecks posted:"Do I want to do this busywork?" is a perfectly legitimate thing to balance against. Not everybody plays like their life is on the line, so offering an advantage for a little extra effort is perfectly good design. And splitting your army is hardly "optimal", since it leaves you vulnerable if your enemy wants to use a big ugly doomstack. It really isn't a legitimate thing to balance against. This is like one of the basic principles of game design, players in general play to win the game, and so will always tend to take the action that seems like the best play, even if that play is not fun, and when they discover that the best way to play is not fun, they will not come to the conclusion that they should play differently, they will come to the conclusion that your game is not fun, and stop playing altogether. To make a good game, you need to give the player multiple options and you need to make all the options fun, because having fun is the entire point of playing games. If you have an option players can take and it is not fun, it shouldn't be in the game because on the occasions where it is the best play, the best thing the player can do is Not Have Fun, which is a game design failure state.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 03:35
|
|
