|
It's more than just dynamic development, I think allowing a finer level of granularity for religion/culture is pretty meaningful. It also leaves it way more open to being expanded on in the future.
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2019 01:54
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 14:45 |
|
|
Randarkman posted:(though I bet there's a lot of assholes who think they do, probably based on having played Rome Total War 1 about 15 years ago, and don't know that they're also getting it wrong) I don’t care how many times I hear people pronounce it imperAtor, it’s always gonna be imPErator to me
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2019 10:59
|
|
|
My stance is that if there’s one vaguely tangible benefit to putting however many hundreds of hours into these games, it’s that it helps you put into context those names you’d normally see devoid of it in a textbook or whatever. Which is completely nullified if you don’t use the standard accepted names.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2019 23:14
|
|
|
Progression systems often get mocked but playing imperator is putting into relief a bit how important it is for me. Even dumb as poo poo stuff like unlocking the next building type is a motivation to keep going,even if the difference is all in my head. What seems like the lack of anything like that hurts a bit imo. Maybe that’s just me though. Unrelatedly, or maybe semi-relatedly, anyone know how you get that map editor and stuff going? Is it through a startup command?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2019 01:46
|
|
|
The modding forum is up now, including a tutorial on the map editor: https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/map-modding-map-editor-101.1170943/
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2019 14:18
|
|
|
ColdIronsBound posted:Not much content to add other than I'm having the same issue. Hands down the most difficult to read Paradox UI I've had to contend with. Reading the odd looking font on the 90's website backgrounds is a bit too much. Yeah for real, a lot of it is a bit perplexing, I don't understand how they took some steps backward from EU4. Like why do the government tabs cover up the macrobuilder button now? Why doesn't it show us monetary values we'll be getting when we build buildings? Gameplay-wise I've been mostly enjoying it but I feel like I'm wrestling with the interface in ways I feel like I shouldn't have to. Also the color choices for some of the icons...it's real fuckin' hard to tell at a glance whether the happiness drama mask is smiling or frowning, bronze everything looks neat and all but it hurts usability a bit. Conversely, while I agree with whoever said it that the god icons for tabs are a bit confusing, I think they're all distinctive enough that given a bit of time they will work well. OTOH the audio is loving on point. dublish posted:That's a lot of changes. It's like releasing a whole expansion for free. This is the upside of Paradox games. Assuming the game doesn't like, bomb or something, even without DLC I think it'll probably be pretty sweet like a year or two from now. IMO the core systems really are incredibly good, it completely fixes EU4's peacetime lack-of-gameplay issue.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2019 02:56
|
|
|
KOGAHAZAN!! posted:I feel like, even though it's just out of scope, the game should be able to handle Alexander's conquests. I dunno dude. I think having it model more conventional stuff really well is more important than being able to simulate the exceptional events like that in history. You can't really do a full Napoleon in EU4 either. Would be kind of neat for the occasional ridiculous conquest to happen to shake things up though.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2019 00:38
|
|
|
Jack2142 posted:Maybe some type of "great conquest" casus beli that lets a nation take over absurd amounts of territory in single wars? The mod Imperatium Universalis for EU4 had a kind of similar idea, where monarchs with exceptional stats unlock some stupidly powerful CB to simulate that kind of thing. Not sure how well it worked but it seems like a neat idea on paper.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2019 00:48
|
|
|
I just see that causing all sorts of other potential issues for what's really a super unusual situation. I'd much rather they balance a more robust system around saner kinds of expansion, even if it does sideline the occasional exception.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2019 00:52
|
|
|
I disagree with CK fitting this period better than EU. CK's period is very decentralized, so the character focus works well there; states didn't really get larger or more consolidated over its period. This game by comparison sets out to follow the establishment of an empire that ended up ruling most of the map, and largely irrespective of any individual dynasty. I'd definitely like to see the characters doing even more (and iirc that's a stated goal?) but the fractiousness family-play allows would feel kind of out of place I think. That said I kind of agree that playing sub-national powers would be nice, although if you can't as a family I'm not sure how it'd work. I have to say I've actually ended up pretty disappointed with the setting; the ancient world is my favorite period by a mile, but the setup is strikingly limiting in this format compared to how varied the CK2 and EU4 start dates are; it's basically 4 huge blobs on one side of the map and a mass of interchangeable OPM barbarians on the other half, with just a handful of regions with anything much different in between. It'll get better once there's more to set the barbarians apart more I hope, but being able to play as a part of one of the massive successor kingdoms would definitely add more variety. Eimi posted:Conquest SHOULD be easy. Holding it should be the hard part. Even more so than any other time in history, you should be able to point at land and go, I want that, it's mine, and the trouble is having to hold it. This would make for really boring gameplay if you can just squash your rivals irrecoverably after one big war though, wouldn't it? Expansion being slow enough for them to regain strength/change alliances between wars is important I think.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2019 03:20
|
|
|
ilitarist posted:This never happens. No game that had "potential" on instead of quality on release had ever become great. If you didn't like EU4 or CK2 or Stellaris on release you won't like them years later. Oh come on, that's a load of poo poo, there've been plenty of games that've been turned around. Especially with Imperator where its issue is mostly sweet gently caress all in terms of content rather than its core systems being bad, there's every reason to believe it'll become dramatically better as long as Paradox doesn't drop it. I think "mostly negative" is pretty unfair but at the same time I don't feel like I really wanna recommend it in its current state either. Paradox has dealt with bad steam reviews plenty of times though so I hope it's not gonna be a big deal.
|
|
#
¿
May 4, 2019 23:24
|
|
|
ilitarist posted:Yep, what @steinrokkan said. Fixing UI issues and bugs is not turning around the game, they turn the game you like but have some problems into game you like and have fewer issues. Maybe games like Final Fantasy 14 were salvaged but this case was more like remaking a game and putting an old label on it. Still, if you say that the game "has potential" it means you won't like playing it later, unless it's some specific case like it's a sequel that changed a lot and you need time to get used to a new paradigm (like Civilization 5). I don't think this is some kind of immediately determinable thing you can spout some universal rule for. There have been plenty of games that have been turned around, and that's only going to be getting more common than less as we go forward and people get their foot out of their asses about expectations they made based around the industry before it got the infrastructure to release patches instantly to its entire userbase. Also Stellaris seems like a really weird example to prove your guys' point considering how much it's changed, although admittedly I enjoyed it on launch so I don't really have a good perspective on that one. Anyway, leaving that aside, I'm glad you phrased this in terms of "turning around the game" because I think it illustrates how I'd put it perfectly: Imperator doesn't need turning around, it just needs to make it to the station. The game's systems are fine; pretty good, even. What it needs is content, and that's something Paradox have demonstrated they're willing to give.
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2019 02:54
|
|
|
I mean, that happens with literally every patch or release (or period without patch or release), no matter how good or bad.
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2019 03:10
|
|
|
Johan's always been frank and honest and I think it's pretty lovely to get pissy about it here. On the one hand yeah he's a little (kind of understandably) passive aggressive, but on the other hand he's openly admitting problems with the game, and has been since the launch really. Anyway it's a kind of minor thing in the grand scheme of things but: quote:First of all, we are adding bonuses to each religion, so that different religions have different impacts. That in itself does not make the game suddenly great, but it gives a bit more flavor. I feel like this will make such a difference. Right now I just have no loving idea who to play half the time, there's no real draw to half the countries other than the handful of big names I know. In EU4 checking out the ideas really helps with that, so I'm glad they're adding an analogue.
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2019 16:54
|
|
|
Dr. Video Games 0031 posted:I actually wasn't aware that there were people complaining about the premise of monarch power itself, but I guess I shouldn't be surprised. Oh boy, this has been a regular thing since EU4 first came out.
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2019 05:40
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Beamed posted:I think calling a game which actively reverted a bunch of UI improvements (and MP chat lmfao) and openly is missing things talked about in dev diaries "polished" is ambitious, but this is the most active this thread has been since launch so at least this debate is the most lively the game's community looks What things were these? They've added more than was in the dev diaries if anything, and improved on a few things in later diaries that people didn't like. I agree on the UI and how there still doesn't feel like there's a lot there anyway, but I think it's pretty unfair to claim Paradox was being misleading. Also yeah, a couple of days ago this thread, for a like 2 week old game, got like 3 posts over the course of an entire day or something. I hope it'll bounce back over time but jeez PederP posted:I guess my point is that even the best of strategy game AI isn't at the level of chess AI, where it is able to beat human at playing the game proper. I mean yeah, no kidding, and chess is probably like 3 or 4 orders of magnitude simpler than a strategy game like Paradox's. Don't get me wrong I'd love it if the AI could play by the rules and be properly challenging, but that people hold that as though it's the standard devs should be able to achieve right now is ridiculously unreasonable. I can appreciate wanting that kind of fair play but honestly I think people's obsession with having the AI never cheat is really harmful to making the games better too; I'd so much rather have a cheating but challenging or interesting AI than one that plays by the same rules as me and falls flat for doing so. Your comment about how the asymmetric starts don't tickle your strategy itch is really interesting though, I love them and I think they provide a great challenge and are one of Paradox games' bigger strengths, but I guess I can see why it's not something everybody would want. IMO it kind of sounds like Paradox games just aren't for you though.
|
|
#
¿
May 11, 2019 16:26
|
|
|
I think the brigading is pretty stupid though and that makes up a good chunk of the reviews. The game definitely doesn't deserve to be at mostly negative, although yeah conversely I'm gonna wait until how 1.1 turns out before I want to actually recommend it.
|
|
#
¿
May 11, 2019 17:18
|
|
|
e^ I dunno, I think it goes farther, especially with lots of the DLCs. Things like last year when every Paradox game got review bombed because of whatever that controversy was, or when there's a bad localization and so on. Honestly I mostly agree with the complaints against Imperator, and I wanted to like it, even. Still don't think it deserves the rating it has on steam though. People like that dude who bought 5 copies just so he could leave more negative reviews. Although yeah I guess it's kind of murky. I would disagree with a lot of the complaints people get vocal about (e.g. the mana stuff) and think people get way too angry about them, but then I guess it's not like they're invalid opinions, you're right. Koramei fucked around with this message at 17:47 on May 11, 2019 |
|
#
¿
May 11, 2019 17:44
|
|
|
Have you seen Paradox reviews? It's 100% believable. Not like it's even logistically particularly difficult. The "took away my ability to feel human" thing is one thing but there absolutely are people like that 5 reviews guy.
|
|
#
¿
May 11, 2019 17:48
|
|
|
Otoh that means you as the consumer are more enticed to buy DLC you'd otherwise not have any interest in. There's still a clear theme around each one too so it's not like you're just buying into a grab bag of whatever the gently caress. The CK2 DLCs are definitely cleaner though.
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2019 00:36
|
|
|
I think people way overstated how "necessary" some of those DLCs were; Common Sense was sort of necessary if you wanted to play (optimally) outside of Europe, and Art of War made things a lot easier, but I don't really agree with the "you just need to have Army Professionalism" or whatever like so many of those lists went on about. It was really just one or two things you should probably buy in the end. Plus there were always a bunch of people complaining about how there was nothing in the DLC for them when they released the non-European ones. Yeah I totally agree it's better for the consumer, but I kind of get why Paradox would rather mix up their DLCs a bit than make a discrete pack for horse nomads that only 3 people end up buying. I'd be curious to know how successful the EU4 vs CK2 DLC styles were; even while the EU4 ones were getting review bombed, the devs usually posted that each new one was selling better than ever. I guess we'll see what they end up doing with Imperator.
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2019 01:55
|
|
|
drat I wasn't expecting that at all. I was never super anti-mana but the new systems he's describing do sound a lot more natural, really looking forward to this patch.
|
|
#
¿
May 26, 2019 22:17
|
|
|
Huh I like the addition of weather, hope that'll come to some other games too.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2019 22:31
|
|
|
I read that it was a few hundred right? But yeah still not much. e: oh you say that, sorry I'm part of that honestly, at this point I'm waiting on the mana removal patch before I try it out again. Koramei fucked around with this message at 01:38 on Jun 29, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2019 01:36
|
|
|
What's your stance on EU4's random world? e: also re: the sudden beta, I don't think it's necessarily that concerning. Since they're doing an overhaul of something that's practically a fundamental system, getting more feedback in its earlier stages can only be a good thing, and doing that when they're all away for a month sounds like a fine time for it. Koramei fucked around with this message at 18:06 on Jul 4, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Jul 4, 2019 17:52
|
|
|
Magissima posted:I also kind of appreciate that not every low-pop, low-civilization patch of desert is considered a "city" anymore. Yeah, I recognize that in many senses it's basically meaningless, but things like this and them having added more types of somewhat-redundant buildings and so on actually have a lot of impact for me. The little things like that add a lot.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 5, 2019 23:16
|
|
|
I was  but I stopped because 1. Another group is/was making a Three Kingdoms mod with aspirations to cover Warring States too and I thought it’d be a bit redundant, and 2. After it came out it turned out... I didn’t enjoy the game very much at the moment.So I shifted to a CK2 mod in a different period instead. I still have all the research and a lot of the art and mapping done though so I might come back to it in a year or something, especially since it seems like that other China mod team ran out of steam after the Total War game came out and nothing’s actually gonna happen with it anymore. I still really feel like it’s got perfect game mechanics to cover the Warring States period.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2019 13:37
|
|
|
KOGAHAZAN!! posted:Nah, continuous-assimilation has been in the 1.2 beta for... a month? Keep in mind that a month of that month or more was when they were out on vacation for the entirety of July
|
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2019 22:04
|
|
|
Oh poo poo they actually released it? I kind of assumed all the Imperator mods diedArrhythmia posted:Someday, someone will make my ideal paleolithic game. I'm curious to hear your thoughts about what this kind of game would be
|
|
#
¿
Jul 27, 2020 00:45
|
|
|
Dawn of Man's paleolithic stuff is just a shoehorned in nomadic start I thought. Isn't it almost entirely neolithic and later? I think a paleolithic game where you lead a band and go on adventures could do some justice to the setting but I don't think it would fit a strategy game that well. Also Dawn of Man suffers from them setting it in damp, dreary Europe where your villagers are lily white and covered in mud. A near eastern setting would have been so much more evocative imo.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 27, 2020 04:37
|
|
|
Oh cool, I hadn't heard of that, it looks completely like my thing.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2020 00:22
|
|
|
quote:In the Marius Update there are no longer any permanent armies at start in most of the world (there are exceptions, we will return to those). Instead troops are raised in time of need directly from the non-slave pops of your empire. quote:Since all able-bodied men from that pop are now part of your armed forces, any pop that is part of the levy will stop contributing to the economy, until the levy is disbanded. quote:Unlike the current version of the game, you do not have direct control over what kind of troops your levied armies contain. What kind of troops you get is instead dependent on the culture of the pops being raised, with each culture in the game having its own preferred troop type template. This actually sounds pretty nice; it seems like it's a system that actually makes use of what the pop system has to offer. Also really like how simulationist it is, although I can imagine that will frustrate some people since it seems like it'll be a lot harder to directly set up your army composition. I should probably actually give the game a go again. Basically every change I've seen them making in the dev diaries has sounded nice, but for some reason I just can't motivate myself to start a game of it again.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2020 18:56
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 14:45 |
|
|
Dang, looking sick. For the first time in a year and a half I'm actually getting kinda hyped to play it.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2020 23:58
|
|