|
NoNotTheMindProbe posted:While a "boycott" may seem harsh and unproductive, I do believe it is a necessary evil in order to convince paradox to change its corrupt business policy.
|
#
?
May 8, 2019 21:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 05:55 |
|
|
Zane posted:incredible. paradox fans deserve whatever they've got coming. That person is obviously returning the game every time. They're doing it to review bomb.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2019 21:12
|
|
|
StarMinstrel posted:Do yourself a service anyway and put the music volume to 0 and pop the EU:Rome Soundtrack by Waldetoft in your browser Total war Rome 1 ost is also a classic.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2019 21:18
|
|
|
Listening to the music in paradox games and not like, a podcast or something is a good way to get schizophrenia, and assorted mental illnesses
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2019 02:19
|
|
|
I paid for the fancy music in euiv and by god im gonna get my money's worth
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2019 02:29
|
|
|
That feel when you get a 257 slave revolt in Roma.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2019 02:46
|
|
|
StarMinstrel posted:Do yourself a service anyway and put the music volume to 0 and pop the EU:Rome Soundtrack by Waldetoft in your browser I just listened to this whole thing and you can't convince me that this isn't just two or three different songs playing on repeat.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2019 04:13
|
|
|
Zane posted:incredible. paradox fans deserve whatever they've got coming. I figure it's just part of what happens when a whole generation of people were taught by marketing agencies to incorporate video games as part of their personal identity. Why else would people fly into an apoplectic rage over something as mundane as mana pools in a video game?
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2019 04:24
|
|
|
Imperator Rome: While a "boycott" may seem harsh and unproductive ... I have bought the game five times
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2019 04:26
|
|
|
my favorite part about this game being bad is that it won't, like, kill paradox as a dev studio or anything, not financially at least. People will still keep hitting that horse, it's a surprisingly encompassing market they practically have a monopoly on. Their only competitors are dramatically worse in every way. I wonder what the ultimate take away on their end will be, or if it'll just be more passive aggressive "gently caress you, fans" and exasperation from lovely reviews on the plus side given this is a pretty obvious eu:rome remake probably because there was interest in house for it clearly vicky 3 is next
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2019 05:55
|
|
|
I enjoy the game and already have 40 hours out of it so I'd call it a success. Its biggest problem is the same one as in every other Paradox game in that once your nation hits a certain critical mass the game becomes trivial. The complaints over mana are disproportionate to its role as a game play mechanic and anybody complaining about the DLC policy self-owned when they bought the game in the first place. Maybe I'm just easy to entertain.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2019 06:08
|
|
|
That's why they added achievements - clear goals for those who want it. Those are usually time-sensitive and require some planning. But if you play in a relaxed manner then yes, soon there's no feeling of danger and I:R RNG is far from CK2 cruel goddess putting an imbecile dwarf on your throne.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2019 09:35
|
|
|
Mr.Unique-Name posted:That person is obviously returning the game every time. They're doing it to review bomb.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2019 10:10
|
|
|
Talking about flavor made me think why Paradox hasn't return to ideas of CK2 expansion Charlemagne. It added a lot of very specific historical events. With CK2 they might have spiced up some starts by adding those big crossroads events for some characters. Hard to name anyone as big as Charlemagne but they could do smaller event chains for various characters. They did add a lot of flavour with mechanics and I think bloodline feature does it very well.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2019 10:39
|
|
|
Strudel Man posted:Alternatively, they're trolling. I'm already amazed at the number of people itt reacting to it like it's an earnest post.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2019 15:27
|
|
|
Eimi posted:Total war Rome 1 ost is also a classic. THIS LAND IS ROMAN
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2019 20:09
|
|
|
Eimi posted:Total war Rome 1 ost is also a classic. I thought about that one for sure. Ideally: modding it so like with the I:R's OST, the modded OST weight which track to choose according to if you're at war or not. Deceitful Penguin posted:When I get this after the first patch or two you better belieb imma tell myself after every war Make a mod that changes the unit selection sound to "TRI-AY-RAY-EYE!!!!"
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2019 20:14
|
|
|
 I don't know poo poo about india in this time period. But... I mean. Also... am I a retard? I noticed my characters were getting pretty thin so I conquered some Illyrians and adopted a couple families since they were hellenic and graeco-something. Then every single character turned out to be fuckin populist. Can I convert them from populist? These fuckers are about to put me in a hole.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2019 01:44
|
|
|
Paradox music is overly bombastic and totally at odds with the mood of the games. I hate CK2's menu music. Thanks.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2019 02:06
|
|
|
Faffel posted:Paradox music is overly bombastic and totally at odds with the mood of the games. I hate CK2's menu music. You would also have to be the kind of person that scratches the eyes out of family photos to listen to ~12 tracks in games that are supposed to take hundreds of hours.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2019 02:11
|
|
|
SnoochtotheNooch posted:Can I convert them from populist? These fuckers are about to put me in a hole. See the thing at the bottom of the character panel with the faction icons and a bunch of numbers? Mousing over them tells you why that dude is supporting whatever faction. So far the easiest way I've found to change someone's faction is making them a general since having loyal armies gives a lot of military support.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2019 07:13
|
|
|
So I'm trying out a welsh tribal start. I recruit to army, but the units don't actually join the army? They just stand there as individual 1 cohort units, their current order says "joining army", but years go by and they're still just sitting there as their own cohorts. I can't merge either by multi-selecting because it tells me the chief of the main army I want to merge them into doesn't want to merge. What am I doing wrong?
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2019 12:40
|
|
|
Clan chiefs have their own personal retinues. To add units to them you need to build them from that army's build button. The other guys you hired you should merge together into a separate stack and put your main leader or a family in charge as the clan chiefs are not reliable and like to go off and do their own thing. e: Clan retinues will show as blue in the army stack while state troops will be red. Mercenaries are gold
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2019 13:10
|
|
|
does this game actually suck at a base level or are the complaints mostly coming from elite paradox pros with 10000 hours across all games? not saying that the game being not very fun for super experienced people isn't a valid complaint, but if im a dumb baby who doesnt understand how to play these games what would the experience be like? will the game be a beautiful wonderland of sunshine and roses once it gets a load of dlc and patches or is it just flawed at a fundamental level?
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2019 14:02
|
|
|
Charlie Bobson posted:does this game actually suck at a base level or are the complaints mostly coming from elite paradox pros with 10000 hours across all games? not saying that the game being not very fun for super experienced people isn't a valid complaint, but if im a dumb baby who doesnt understand how to play these games what would the experience be like? will the game be a beautiful wonderland of sunshine and roses once it gets a load of dlc and patches or is it just flawed at a fundamental level? No, it doesn't suck. It's polished, decently balanced, doesn't have terrible AI and has a well-oiled game loop. However, it's much more "boardgamey" than EU4 and CK2, and much more tuned towards map-painting than playing tall and/or larping. If you like blobbing in EU4 you'll have good fun. If you like role-playing some backwater Count in CK2 you might get slightly bored and annoyed with this game. I think there are some design problems regarding Culture mechanics and Oratory gating too many actions, but they're not really a problem if you focus on expansion and warfare. It's also a problematic game for compulsive micromanagers (if you play Stellaris you'll know if you're one) because micromanaging pops and city development isn't really that fun.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2019 14:17
|
|
|
cool im glad its good! im currently trying to make sense of crusader kings 2 but its nice to know i have another cool game to play in the future if i ever manage to comprehend ck2
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2019 14:30
|
|
|
Charlie Bobson posted:does this game actually suck at a base level or are the complaints mostly coming from elite paradox pros with 10000 hours across all games? not saying that the game being not very fun for super experienced people isn't a valid complaint, but if im a dumb baby who doesnt understand how to play these games what would the experience be like? will the game be a beautiful wonderland of sunshine and roses once it gets a load of dlc and patches or is it just flawed at a fundamental level? it kinda does suck at a base level, as it's a fairly shallow experience with poor UI and prompts you to fiddly micromanage your pop-numbers around. It's not an awful, buggy mess, just a kind of weak rear end one. At a fundamental level? Maybe, it depends on how uppity they are about keeping the design pathos. Which given how passive aggressive the dev's comments are is a real toss up. 
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2019 14:39
|
|
|
PederP posted:However, it's much more "boardgamey" than EU4 and CK2, and much more tuned towards map-painting than playing tall and/or larping. If you like blobbing in EU4 you'll have good fun. I have a theory that a Very Large number of Paradox players actually strongly prefer larping as a country to map painting, and that this is one reason Imperator has crap reviews.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2019 15:14
|
|
|
Imo there are problems at a base level but nothing fundamental, if that makes sense. I wouldn't recommend it right now (although I also don't think it's bad necessarily) but if you come back to it in some months / a year it's nothing that can't be fixed with patches, which is something Paradox is almost guaranteed to do. Fintilgin posted:I have a theory that a Very Large number of Paradox players actually strongly prefer larping as a country to map painting, and that this is one reason Imperator has crap reviews. definitely true for me.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2019 15:27
|
|
|
Fintilgin posted:I have a theory that a Very Large number of Paradox players actually strongly prefer larping as a country to map painting, and that this is one reason Imperator has crap reviews. I ask myself, why can't we have both? I mean, CK2 is clearly a LARP thing but that doesn't stop people from blobbing insanely. Not my cup of tea, but whatever EU4 is clearly a map painter first and foremost, but that doesn't stop people from "roleplaying" the country and just stopping and smelling the flowers once they have their cultural area conquered, their estates 100% happy, France destroyed or whatever other goal they set for themselves (I tend to do that, especially late game when every war becomes a hellwar and saps my will to keep playing) Imperator is, unsurprisingly, between the two but much nearer to EU4; in time, depending on DLC and possibly even patches / mods, this might change in one direction or the other. Right now it's relatively barebones, meaning that there's quite noticeable problems (UI, missing flavor, balance, little variance between countries, etc...) but nothing that can't be patched or fixed, considering the devs have shown that they're not shy about completely overhauling stuff if the situation calls for it, see Stellaris Personally after my first game as Rome (40 hours) and a couple botched attempts at Gallic tribes (2-3 hours) I stopped because I don't feel like going again as a superpower, and tiny nations are a bit "barren" and devoid of content or interesting features really, plus some balance issues make playing them a PITA sometimes. Still, 42 hours is already more than quite a bunch of games will ever give you and this one has been out for less than a month, so I find the game a bargain since I had plenty of fun already, and will surely have more with the coming patches and improvements. 1130 hours in EU4, 220 in CK2 if that helps
TorakFade fucked around with this message at 15:39 on May 10, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 10, 2019 15:35
|
|
|
 Finished my first game  Did the boring vanilla route and tried to role-play a realistic Republican Rome and stick to a roughly historical timeline of conquests (no Byzantion 14/53). Had to speed things up toward the end, owing to truce timers. Tried to keep my borders as clean and pretty as I could, within the region setup. I ended up with about 15 years left in which I just ran down the clock at speed 5 to burn off my AE and make everyone happy again. About all I was missing was Phrygia and Cappadocia, which I don't think were Republican provinces, instead some type of client state? I wasn't really playing optimally until the last hundred years about burning off AE and juggling warscore. Something that hosed me up a few times until I realized it at the end of the run was that if you have a CB on a guaranteed country and use that to draw in their guarantor to 100% the guarantor, they count as only having "show superiority" which inflates their province warscore costs 3x. Along those lines, I remember at some point seeing a "+33% not the war goal" modifier on province costs at some point but I don't remember the exact context. Something about CBs and alliance/guarantee chains. Maybe they were a cobelligerent and they were big enough for it to matter for the first time? Along that line, it seems inconsistent to me when declaring on country A, who is guaranteed or allied with country B, whom you have a truce with, will lead to a truce break stabhit. Half the times it does half the times it doesn't.Phrygia didn't explode in my game, had a sprawling empire through Asia Minor, the Levant, and even beat up Egypt and took the Nile Delta for a while. Phrygia and Egypt both took many wars. I took Iberia in successive waves over several centuries, a giant Gallaecia consolidated the northwest. Gaul remained fragmented all game, with about 30 years left on the clock, right on schedule for Caesar's wars, I lined up about two-thirds of a million legionaries in Transalpine Gaul and declared on about 15 countries spread over 5 wars, and about 5 years later I'd annexed 90% of it. Suebia colonized across the wasteland and blobbed into Belgica, and had to be pushed back to the Rhine.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2019 15:38
|
|
|
I still can't believe how much of a negative reaction there's been to this game. It's good but not perfect, my biggest criticisms would be some missing QoL features from prior games, and the interface and how information is shown, there's lots of things where relevant information is spread across multiple screens instead of one, and managing things takes too many clicks, badly needs a better pop management interface and a fully-fleshed macrobuilder. But I'm confident those things will be improved and built upon, and they're already working on some of it with the next 1.1 patch. Release 1.0 was relatively bug-free for me as well, in contrast to some of their older titles. The only really annoying one was the peace deal bug in 1.0.1, and I'm on GOG which never got the 1.0.2 beta hotfix so I was stuck with that for a week until the official 1.0.2 dropped yesterday. Here's all the possible explanations I can think of: A. People thought the game was going to be something it wasn't. I get this vibe from people who really liked CK2. I loved EU4 and could never get into CK2, so a 70/30 eu4/ck2 split is right up my alley, while I could see how someone who was expecting 30/70 eu4/ck2 would be disappointed. At the same time, though, compared to previous titles, they were super open about the game during its development, with the weekly diaries and all the pre-release streams and previews, so I'm not sure how anyone would've thought it'd be a radically different game than what we got. B. People mad at Paradox about unrelated issues, like their DLC business model. I sympathize with this, I too eventually got burnt out on EU4 and quit buying it (mostly because the game got so bloated with unrelated systems duct-taped on, they need to consolidate everything into EU5 and start fresh IMO) but it feels like people are venting their frustration on Imperator indirectly? D. People who forgot what EU4 and CK2 were like at release, and are comparing vanilla Imperator to those games after years and years of development and dozens of patches and expansions. E. People burnt out on Paradox games in general after thousands and thousands of hours. I've legit read this game called "arcadey" which I think speaks for itself. F. Nerds are whiny and entitled? Sometimes I read the Paradox forums and just go "Jesus Christ". Anyway, I can't think in recent memory of feeling this kind of disconnect between what I think of a game and what the general consensus online seems to be. Vocal minority maybe? Or maybe everyone really does hate it
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2019 16:28
|
|
|
Yep, this game certainly is no Stellaris. It looks to me more playable today than Stellaris is after three years. But people gave slack Stellaris. I remember them saying that it's a new type of game so everything is forgiven. Even now I see people refusing to compare Stellaris to similar games because need of reworking fundamental system for 3 years absolves current state of the game. I:R certainly doesn't need much rework. It will be a great game after several patches and QoL improvements. And I hope that free additions and flavor in DLCs will make all the LARPers happy. And I myself will enjoy those nice pictures and text too, of course, but they'd be moot without a proper strategy game behind them.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2019 16:54
|
|
|
TorakFade posted:I ask myself, why can't we have both? I mean, CK2 is clearly a LARP thing but that doesn't stop people from blobbing insanely. Not my cup of tea, but whatever People like me exist, where the RP stuff actively detracts from the strategy side, unless the RP events all require me to make game-mechanically-interesting choices and not "choose between having a good thing and a bad thing happen lol" (and to be fair Imperator and EU4 are also guilty of this) I mean I also hate the whole "blobbing" thing because in some ways it's an implicit admission that whatever game is broken and too easy but I'm definitely into Paradox games as an exercise in systems mastery with a tiny slice of "history is cool" on top.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2019 17:10
|
|
|
Azuren posted:Anyway, I can't think in recent memory of feeling this kind of disconnect between what I think of a game and what the general consensus online seems to be. Vocal minority maybe? Or maybe everyone really does hate it I think it's about play-styles, and Paradox overestimating how many "map-painters" they have among their customers. Most of the Paradox games are really good at pleasing map-painters, micro-managers, strategy-masochists, min-max'ers and larp'ers alike (possibly other playstyles too). That's actually a decently impressive achievement from a design perspective. My brother loves stuff like playing EU4 as Albania, min-maxing to stay alive in a brutal early game, micro-managing his way into a good position and then map-painting for a short while until he gets bored. I love empire micro-managing - I am pretty happy with the constant busywork of Stellaris. I love trying to build a strong CK2 realm with some culture that was either swept away in history or barely survived it. Looking at Paradox streamers and blog-style LPs there are so many different playstyles. I think the far more narrow game design of Imperator: Rome wasn't communicated well to players. I've found ways to enjoy the game, doing more map painting than usual and having fun migrating some tribe into a wildly a historical position. Luckily there are life things making it so I don't have much time to play, as I suspect I would get bored if I poured the usual number of hours into it. The game does a good job at presenting interesting obstacles to expansion and keeping your empire stable. Another aspect is that Imperator:Rome has a lot of punitive mechanics. A new player will spend a lot of time handling "This number is bad - fix it or suffer!" situations. I think most players prefer gathering positives and resources, and then utilizing these to go either tall or wide. EU players have a history of disliking Bad Boy mechanics. Many CK players dislike powerful vassals and hostile internal factions. Stellaris players really didn't like the penalties for going above the planet cap. If we go with A. from your list - I agree to some extent that players could see what they were getting, but then again to someone who just looks casually for 15 minutes at a stream, they might not notice how expansion focused the game is. I don't think expectations can be simply categorized as how much CK2, EU4 and Vicky2 was going this. It's about what playstyles are supported. The game design actively discourages you from min-max'ing and micromanaging. Some of the players who insist on doing it anyway have a really bad time. It very much feels like the design expects you to do expansion and warfare, and then micromanage and min-max as solution to punitive effects of expansion. But hey, this is about an era of empire building. Nations conquered or were conquered. I can't think of any examples that prospered and had stable borders (maybe India, I know very little of that region). So the setting itself is weighted towards map-painting. If the game had a few centuries tacked to the end, it would be a very different situation. Imperator:Rome wants you to expand and manage punitive mechanics. Many players either don't get this, stubbornly refuse to do so or simply don't like that playstyle. Other Paradox games had much room for non-expansion and actively avoiding punitive mechanics. Some players expected this and were disappointed, which along with your points (and the UI problems) created a spiral of negativity. As mentioned, I'm sure that expansions and mods will add playstyles for everyone in due time. I think that being more open about expansion and empire-building being the focus of the game - and having a better UI, would have avoided a lot of negativity. But hindsight is 20/20. ilitarist posted:Yep, this game certainly is no Stellaris. It looks to me more playable today than Stellaris is after three years. I love Stellaris, now, at release, and during the various stages of redesign. It's got just the right mix of micromanagement, minmax'ing and larping for my taste. And it makes map-painting completely optional. For me it's a far better game than EU4, HOI4 and Imperator:Rome - and only eclipsed by CK2 (which is a masterpiece, imo). PederP fucked around with this message at 17:44 on May 10, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 10, 2019 17:37
|
|
|
doing the "early access" thing without telling people you were was probably a bad move
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2019 17:43
|
|
|
Prav posted:doing the "early access" thing without telling people you were was probably a bad move I think that's wildly unreasonable. It's a polished, playable product, with minimal bugs (that were patched pretty quickly) and a solid core game-loop. Some may dislike the game-play, but that doesn't make it a work-in-progress. Patch 1.1 looking to be amazingly beefy is a bonus. But I don't expect 1.1 or future non-expansion patches to fundamentally change the game design - and I think anyone who expects this, will be sorely disappointed. This is a game of empire building (through conquest) until an overhaul mod or an expansion makes it otherwise.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2019 17:50
|
|
|
lotta wildly unreasonable people out there, apparently
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2019 18:02
|
|
|
Azuren posted:D. People who forgot what EU4 and CK2 were like at release, and are comparing vanilla Imperator to those games after years and years of development and dozens of patches and expansions. This argument is silly. EU4 and CK2 on release weren't competing with DLC'd up games in the same space. Imperator is. In any case, EU4 got compared to CK2 constantly, even though they have more differences than Imperator has with either. Expecting that QoL features from both games, implemented in DLC or not, would be there on release is hardly some draconian gamer entitlement. Most people who point to EU4 and CK2, at least here, don't bemoan the lack of equivalent and equal amounts of content, but rather that the game lacks QoL and features that are present in EU4 and CK2. That what is there wasn't polished doesn't help.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2019 18:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 05:55 |
|
|
Prav posted:lotta wildly unreasonable people out there, apparently yep. im thinking of the steam reviews?
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2019 18:20
|
|
