|
Farecoal posted:I haven't heard anything about it since it was announced and it seemed really cool? What's happened since then? Apparently not much in the way of creating a game
|
#
?
May 1, 2021 01:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 23:40 |
|
|
Farecoal posted:I haven't heard anything about it since it was announced and it seemed really cool? What's happened since then? They fired the leads last August, then pulled the game from the developers earlier this year. It's indefinitely delayed with unspecified developers, which means it's not happening any time soon or probably ever.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2021 01:57
|
|
|
Dr. Video Games 0031 posted:extremely dystopian that actions in a game might cost a different set of points than money, which totally isn't also an arbitrary point accumulation system in most strategy games. At the extreme every grand strategy game is just juggling resources appropriately, but without going that far it seems reasonable to say that currencies such as monarch points or Imperator's political influence can feel a little generic.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2021 02:00
|
|
|
Get ready for Victoria: Remastered outsourced to a mobile game development company.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2021 03:35
|
|
|
A gacha game where all the characters are influential 19th century people
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2021 04:10
|
|
|
Magic: The Gathering GSG
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2021 04:19
|
|
|
I tap my factory to activate adam smith the enchanter, doing 1 point of damage
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2021 04:52
|
|
|
i somersault my cheese factory
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2021 05:25
|
|
|
Dr. Video Games 0031 posted:I know this post isn't meant to be taken entirely seriously, but I'd like to point out that EU3 and Victoria 2 were both released prior to the Steam-required days, back when a very significant percentage of the people playing their games bought them outside of Steam. That will skew the numbers and make them out to be smaller than they truly were. (though obviously Paradox's games are more popular than ever currently)
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2021 06:03
|
|
|
I bought Victoria II on Impulse back in the day precisely because it didn't need to be running like Steam does. Then Impulse got sold to Gamestop who later just shut the whole thing down. Good thing I was already used to Steam at that point or it would've proven the misgivings I had about buying games digitally back then 
AG3 fucked around with this message at 10:20 on May 1, 2021 |
|
#
?
May 1, 2021 08:31
|
|
|
oscarthewilde posted:As much as I’d like to play an actually playable Vicky, I don’t think PDS in 2021 are the right people to do it. Pretty much everything that made Vicky 2 interesting - the pop system and the economy, the feeling of being part of a larger whole instead of an abstracted agent among other abstracted agents that play by the exact same rules- is diametrically opposed to modern Paradox design. If they are actually making Vicky 3, which I highly doubt, it might be a good game but it won’t be Vicky Yeah, that's what I am saying. Do people want a remake with QoL features? Maybe, but those systems would probably expose weakness of systems that are a black box now. Do people want a modern Paradox game that still has Victoria 2 coolness in it? I'm not sure it's possible. The complexity of Vicky2 devolves to rather simple optimal play. I don't beleive it's feasible to try to even approach the same level of similation while allowing for a variety of playstyles instead of making everyone start by boosting clergy, researching same techs and attacking African defenseless gold mines. And just to clarify, I like EU4 or Imperator Rome approach. I'd be very happy if PDX would make a Victorian era GSG. It's just Victoria has a grand legacy of juvenile ambitions. You play Victoria 2 and you see how cool it all might be, you forgive a lot and fantacize about how great would it be to play a game like this but good. Hence a lot of mods trying to hide inherent problems of the game beyond additional layers of abstraction. ilitarist fucked around with this message at 09:50 on May 1, 2021 |
|
#
?
May 1, 2021 09:44
|
|
|
Dr. Video Games 0031 posted:extremely dystopian that actions in a game might cost a different set of points than money, which totally isn't also an arbitrary point accumulation system in most strategy games. The problem with mana isn't that it exists, it's that it's used for wildly different actions to create some artificial "oh you must choose between these, it's fun gameplay I swear" options. I will die on the hill of tech research based on your nation size and income being a great system. GrossMurpel fucked around with this message at 09:55 on May 1, 2021 |
|
#
?
May 1, 2021 09:53
|
|
|
But it is a fun gameplay.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2021 09:54
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:really i'd take a steam achievement compatible re-release of vicky2 and a manual that has all the shortcut keys laid out don't forget stable multiplayer, for me and the other 10 sickos that regularly play it.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2021 10:12
|
|
|
ilitarist posted:But it is a fun gameplay. I didn't even like it in EU3 when I had to wait for my diplomats to respawn so I could create a new general.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2021 10:31
|
|
|
ilitarist posted:But it is a fun gameplay.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2021 10:37
|
|
|
ilitarist posted:Yeah, that's what I am saying. Do people want a remake with QoL features? Maybe, but those systems would probably expose weakness of systems that are a black box now. Do people want a modern Paradox game that still has Victoria 2 coolness in it? I'm not sure it's possible. The complexity of Vicky2 devolves to rather simple optimal play. I don't beleive it's feasible to try to even approach the same level of similation while allowing for a variety of playstyles instead of making everyone start by boosting clergy, researching same techs and attacking African defenseless gold mines. That said, I don't see why the gameplay couldn't be reimagined in a way that maintains the core hook of the game, that being the tensions between state, people, capital, as well as various ancient institutions, while also being much better about QoL features. The main trick would be to define where the player should have a lot of control, and where the game is supposed to be more simulation based on everything happening in the world - creating a dynamic landscape the player has to use their vastly improved QoL features to navigate. Like, what are the core features of a state, especially as relevant to the focus of the game?: - Making armies - Making war - Subjugating people - Doing diplomacy - Economic policy QoL features should be prioritized for that poo poo, giving the player as much power to do what they want as is appropriate for the state they control. Maybe cut down on explicit "Can't do that" features and instead make it more about having to pay the consequences for using features that a certain party/faction doesn't like. So like, if you have a Laissez-faire party in power you could piss them off a little bit with subsidies for your factories producing military goods, but they'd be far more pissed-off about doing it for other types of goods, rather than subsidies just being off the table entirely. A Laissez-faire pacifist party would of course be pissed off regardless. I think the above, where things are less binary, would make the underlying simulation not being as easy to interact with less of an issue. It sucks rear end if a minor victory for an LF party completely changes your industrial policy over night, but if the degree of their dominance in parliament is limited and you can delay the worst parts of their ideology from coming into effect through smart play then you don't care as much that you don't have as much power to shift the opinions of voters. Basically, Vicky 2 makes voting the most important battleground, and thus the player desires more control over voter ideology - far beyond what a simulationist would ever feel appropriate. If the battleground shifts into the halls of power, after the election, then the tension between gameplay and simulation dissipates - in fact, the disconnect between how you deal with gameplay vs. the apparent desires of your people just strengthens the narrative of your campaign.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2021 10:50
|
|
|
Vivian Darkbloom posted:Imperator's political influence can feel a little generic. I think political influence in Imperator is pretty clever. The way it's generated by the loyalty of your office holders and not their competence. So you are constantly trading off having loyal lackeys vs people who are actually good at the job. Just one of the cool trade offs that makes Imperator a pretty interesting game. I'm honestly bummed that they're giving up on it. I think I already said this but I don't think I can go back to EU or CK after experiencing the pop system of Imperator. They would just feel so empty.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2021 10:54
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Victoria is a game like itself but good. I do get what you're saying though, that "Victoria II + QoL features" is not a straight upgrade because it'd partially undermine the way the game creates narratives that make you forget little annoyances, or make you behave irrationally. Well, maybe it is possible. But it's very hard to imagine. Victoria 2 but comprehensible sounds to me like a classic trap of killing the point of the product by giving people what they want. It's like X-Files but they finally get together. I'd like to be proven wrong but I understand why devs wiuld be hesitant to try to do Vic3.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2021 11:55
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure EU3 to EU4 was the same kind of thought process though. Off the top of my head there were things like: No Centres of Trade you could build? How does fixed point trade EVEN WORK PARADOX!? No Sliders? No buy. EU3 even had a province population system that affected / was affected by manpower and that went out of the window too. The manpower system was also bizzare in that provincial sense, It also affected how *quickly* you built troops.. and ships. Like what?
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2021 16:18
|
|
|
EU3 had simulation elements but those were light. Like coring happened inits own in what, 50 years? And you couldn't affect it. Same for culture conversion IIRC. There was a population stat that had some effect but it was an afterthought and every decent provinces maxed out at 999.999 people by the end of the game. Victoria is in another league in terms of simulation VS gameplay abstraction.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2021 16:24
|
|
|
EU3's long and immutable coring time and probabilistic culture conversion system are both better than the impossibly fast systems EU4 has.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2021 16:42
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
Cultural conversion in euiv is horrible. You should either have to live with non accepted cultures or slowly convert it over centuries, or expel the old and take a huge hit to dev and let neighboring states eat the extra dev
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2021 16:46
|
|
|
ItohRespectArmy posted:don't forget stable multiplayer, for me and the other 10 sickos that regularly play it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlXv1Ym9a-w&t=111s What's unstable about this, Itoh?
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2021 16:54
|
|
|
only thing unstable are the sickos playing it imo
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2021 17:10
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:i feel like anything that encourages people to identify with and grow attached to the factions in tyranny isnt in the spirit of the original This wouldn't be particularly strange when it comes to paradox GSGs
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2021 18:24
|
|
|
Gaius Marius posted:Cultural conversion in euiv is horrible. You should either have to live with non accepted cultures or slowly convert it over centuries, or expel the old and take a huge hit to dev and let neighboring states eat the extra dev im being told its fun to spend 50 mana genociding the irish rather than interacting with any sort of larger system
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2021 18:31
|
|
|
I love Victoria 2 but every single game it reminds me that every single mechanic is simply not that great. On its own, the mechanics kinda suck: -what the hell is the influence mini game? -why are regiments strictly locked to a province? -why does great Britain have to research dreadnoughts OR better medicine? -why am I unable to force a government change in a puppet? Why does my czarist Russia rear end has to accept a communist Romania and have no choice in the matter? -why do I have to manually develop every single thing in a communist government? -why are tariffs global to all products and resources? Each mechanic is deeply flawed, but when put together, the game is somehow fascinating. I guess the broken aspects is what makes the game so intriguing?
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2021 18:33
|
|
|
Mans posted:-why are regiments strictly locked to a province? They are tied to pops (which do reside in a province) so that they can become aligned with a rebel movement and join uprisings and revolutions depending on the pop's militancy etc
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2021 18:40
|
|
|
Yeah, the army being constructed of literally your population of soldiers is a very good mechanic and allows for some of the best interactions with the internal political sphere.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2021 18:44
|
|
|
karmicknight posted:Yeah, the army being constructed of literally your population of soldiers is a very good mechanic and allows for some of the best interactions with the internal political sphere.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2021 18:53
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Yeah, that’s probably near the top of mechanic interactions in any Paradox games. That said, I feel like you could do it on a state by state basis instead without losing anything - while letting the system work better in lower population regions. Some mods change soldiers to be state instead of province (still tied to pops though) by using the script effect that bureaucrats get, so when a pop promotes to soldier they are moved to the state capital and join the big blob of soldiers there. That helps get rid of tiny useless soldier pops too small to support a regiment
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2021 19:01
|
|
|
Sure would be a shame if I avoided ever building army units from Dixie pops and the American Civil War turned out to be a wet fart. Besides that, I recall unreliable army units just defect to rebels at random and then instantly lose against your army. Not all that interesting.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2021 19:05
|
|
|
Enjoy posted:Some mods change soldiers to be state instead of province (still tied to pops though) by using the script effect that bureaucrats get, so when a pop promotes to soldier they are moved to the state capital and join the big blob of soldiers there. That helps get rid of tiny useless soldier pops too small to support a regiment That is an incredibly smart and clever bit of scripting. It also feels right for the way soldiers are modeled in the game that they would be yeeted to the capital of a state in order to work.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2021 19:07
|
|
|
karmicknight posted:Yeah, the army being constructed of literally your population of soldiers is a very good mechanic and allows for some of the best interactions with the internal political sphere. Mobilisation is the cherry on top where you can bulk out your army with non-soldier pops, but if you lose too many of them you can really damage your economy - as well as tanking it in the short term since your working pops aren't working any more
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2021 19:18
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:EU3's long and immutable coring time and probabilistic culture conversion system are both better than the impossibly fast systems EU4 has. i dunno about the former but hell yeah to the latter
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2021 20:14
|
|
|
I mean 50 Years Always has its issues, having it take culture and religion into effect is better, but <5 year coring is so silly. Particularly if there wasn't a suitable administrative apparatus that could be hijacked by a conquering state. It took Russia basically a century to really integrate the Volga areas conquered by Ivan the Terrible. The one thing this whole franchise really needs to figure out is some way to limit you from conquering, not because the rest of the world will gang up on you, but because your state's forces need to be in too many places at once. And also a way to represent non states, particularly Steppe Hordes.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2021 20:34
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:your state's forces need to be in too many places at once That's literally mana
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2021 20:43
|
|
|
Enjoy posted:They are tied to pops (which do reside in a province) so that they can become aligned with a rebel movement and join uprisings and revolutions depending on the pop's militancy etc karmicknight posted:Yeah, the army being constructed of literally your population of soldiers is a very good mechanic and allows for some of the best interactions with the internal political sphere. This is a cool concept that ends up in some frustration like, for example, your recruitment being a pain in the rear end playing as Portugal, Spain or the Ottos due to the low population provinces. Why can't I put some soldiers from Vigo into the regiment from Coruna? Not the Messiah posted:Mobilisation is the cherry on top where you can bulk out your army with non-soldier pops, but if you lose too many of them you can really damage your economy - as well as tanking it in the short term since your working pops aren't working any more A centralized army builder would make me so happy.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2021 20:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 23:40 |
|
|
VostokProgram posted:That's literally mana You're not wrong, that's what mana is supposed to be, but there's far too much of it and it works too well. But I meant that literally, where the armed forces are required to be in too many places at once, forcing other areas to be left thinly guarded. Together with a realistic army movement speeds (much slower, and tied to geography) it could go a long way towards depowering blobs and making non-total wars a thing.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2021 20:59
|
|