CK3 Dev Diary #87: Royal Modding

[grommile]

Umm because it isn't core to the game. Mod support has always been core to paradox games.

And modders want to be able to have gay marriage in their mods, so they made the necessary changes to allow mods to have it.

And while they were there, they added a game rule (which disables achievements when set to "yes") so that you don't need to have a mod to turn it on.

 

[GoldenSilver]

And modders want to be able to have gay marriage in their mods, so they made the necessary changes to allow mods to have it.

And while they were there, they added a game rule (which disables achievements when set to "yes") so that you don't need to have a mod to turn it on.

And he was already complaining back when the feature was going the be modding-only lol. Or even when it was only people asking for it to be mod only.

If enough people want it, then of course they should do it. It isn't like I'm going to be upset if they add it. I wouldn't ever use the feature, unless it was included in one of the major mods like CK2++ or HIP or GoT.

I like how a lot of people wanted it, and you say you wouldn't be upset if they get it... except when they do you get so upset that one of your posts had to be moderated.

 

[dSERVED99]

I applaud the teams openness and encouragement of modding. Absolutely spiffing.

 

[grommile]

Moving on to all the other awesome t hings in this post, I'm liking the look of Scripted Widgets, even though I have no mod plans of my own. UI customization for the win!

 

[GUmby_Aaron]

Umm because it isn't core to the game. Mod support has always been core to paradox games.

If this dev diary would of been about the adding of glitterhoof, I would of said the same thing.

I would prefer they add things that are core to the game.

Anyway, I've made my point. Have a good day; we can just agree to disagree.

HOW DARE YOU. Glitterhoof is core to the game!

Here is our beloved Glitterhoof as Pope whom sadly died from horsing around.
" " being crowned default Grand Tournament Champion since you can't defeat a horse in jousting you fools.
And finally, there is Glitterhoof getting it on spreading its horse culture.

 

[Nienke_vk]

Umm because it isn't core to the game. Mod support has always been core to paradox games.

If this dev diary would of been about the adding of glitterhoof, I would of said the same thing.

I would prefer they add things that are core to the game.

Anyway, I've made my point. Have a good day; we can just agree to disagree.

this (gay marriages) was one of the most requested modding features. so by your logic core to the game.

 

[GoldenSilver]

Sorry it took a while for me to reply, your post is longer so I had to set aside some time so I waited for friday.

And out of everything you listed the specific comparisons blackninja actually used were the royal court scene that you yourself just admitted is directly related to the DLC and the widgets, which as I argued is at least tangentially related to the type of UI mechanics already used in the DLC.

Except there were also the console commands, error logging and the widgets that might not be necessary to have the DLC for them so it's not DLC related. The DLC might use these themselves but a modder or player without the DLC can still benefit from it; this fits more as a 1.5 free patch content than DLC content. A user without RC very likely will not use the editor, that seems more like DLC content to me.

I already mentioned the Azure patch dev diary myself so there's no need for you to act as if I were somehow unaware of it.

Yet you did not address the negativity when it was only a modding feature. That post is also an example to the previous quote above that these were modding improvements not related to the RC DLC and yet they were not singled out. BlackNinja's post context takes into mind months of what happened on this forum as well, not just a simple response to a particular user.

I outright quoted the relevant part of their post in the text of my paragraph you're replying here and it explicitly brought up lack of complaints about changes brought in the upcoming DLC going beyond the scope of this thread. So you should direct the remark about there being no need for off-topicness at them.

And yet there were people opposed to it that argued in this thread about historicity before his post like Prometheus_1 did on page 2 (and failed to compare to other ahistorical content from the game or from RC), and more recently other users did after his post. So the historicity of features is relevant to the dev-diary and not off-topic if people are using it to argue against one of the features of said dev-diary.

If you think people are ignoring not only other ahistorical content but these specific examples just because they weren't complained about in a pre-release dev diary, you're not really paying much attention to the forums. Things like incest, nudity or cannibalism are common targets of criticism about CK3 being ahistorical or "pandering to memers", while what people arguing that consider more important content is being ignored.

Also, quoting pre-release dev diary is just apples to oranges comparison here in the first place. For two reasons. First, people were much more optimistic then and willing to give Paradox the benefit of the doubt. Now with Royal Court development having a crawling pace and other issues, the overall attitude on the forum turned more sour from what I've observed. Secondly, during the development of the base game things were still up in the air one way or another. But came release, (lack of) gay marriage was something that was already hard-coded into the game, which then had to be undone to make it work. Which by Paradox's own admission, required enough work to do that it couldn't even been done in a major patch like 1.4. Not exactly the case with cannibals, is it now?

Ahistorical and "memey" content has been present since CK2 (can't say about CK1 as I never played it) and it has become almost a staple of the series; I do not see such opposition to this as you claim. Especially since cannibalism religion (not the other two you mentioned) and a same-sex marriage feature would require player intervention to become commonplace in the game world, so people should complain about these even less. As was clear in this dev diary (or when it was a modding feature) same-sex marriage is not enabled by default and yet people keep complaining about its historicity but rarely that of a cannibalism religion (or a religion with the most "memey" tenets possible).

For the second part, about the historicity argument his complaints are still valid because people are not raising concerns about historicity of RC content even if the community is as soured up as you say. Comparing the pre-release dev-diary to RC we can see in both cases people are ignoring historicity concerns except when same-sex marriage is mentioned (this even happened on that pre-release dev-diary), which is also something he mentioned on his post.

For the last two sentences about development time, (he complained of this in his post as well, last paragraph), how common are the complaints about development time of ahistorical features in RC? And for the technical aspects specifically only they can respond since we don't know the internal mechanics of the game or what exactly they changed.

As for cannibalism, there is a trait, events, crime type, a secret for it, a hook for it, character opinion, execution method, stress impact and events, and maybe more. While these are expected implementations for such a specific trait, all these have to be accounted for when a religion has it as a tenet and great virtue so it might require reasonable amount of work to implement. How it compares to same-sex marriage, only Paradox can say, but BlackNinja seemed to mention it was not that much work compared to other things. If you want to know if it was either too complicated or there was some other reason why it was not in patch 1.4, only they can clarify it, if they wish.

And the other half of this tangent of yours is just a false. I've seen people call the whole culture rework as something that doesn't give enough gameplay for how large it is, as in their eyes you'll only interact with it just a few times during a campaign and then forget about (and I've seen that complaint numerous times). While calling culture-changing parts of it in particular more "meme content". Which kinda falls squarely under the umbrella of wasted development time and ahistorical content. And the court itself has not only been called a waste of development time, it's been outright accused of being the culprit behind the very 8 month development time you brought up.

For people complaining about feature depth is more of a implementation criticism; I was only responding to historicity and development time. Either way for the culture-change feature in particular, as is understandable now from the previous dev-diaries, you can use it either historically or ahistorically so it being deep or not or how often it'll be used makes no difference for historicity. Same-sex marriage can only be used ahistorically by most accounts here, yet several other things in the game can also; a cannibalism kingdom even if with a lot of depth would not be historical.

But almost nowhere in these threads where same-sex marriage comes up have I seen "this RC dlc is so ahistorical you can make whatever crazy culture, get the hairsack of the pope as an artifact, have a nudist court, and also same-sex marriage lol". It's more like:

"GRRRRR same-sex marriage AHISTORICAL, why have ahistorical things in my game??? These STUPID dev diaries that ONLY talk about same-sex marriages and NO OTHER FEATURES that took time to develop!!!! Gonna make my HISTORICAL nudistic incestual CANNIBAL KINGDOM just to MURDER ALL who have same-sex accepted!!!!!".

Still, from what I saw at least the culture-changing feature seems to be one of the most anticipated features of RC. As an example (anecdotal sure, but there are plenty around the forum), even a very historically focused and strict player like Torredebelem we can see in his first post on this thread he is looking forward to it.

If people are indeed complaining that much about the development time of RC, then it's indeed good to see some consistency. But even still there seems to be a difference in the level of opposition to the development time of what is a minor feature (even when it was just a modding improvement) compared to what is pretty much the main feature of the RC DLC.

Yeah, no, you made that "context" up. Such remark is nowhere to be found in either blackninja's comment (which simply talks about gay marriage being singled out for complaints, period) nor the post they were replying to. Instead that post literally called the complaint at hand "an important point", that's simply worded in an "uncouth" manner.

I made it up? Let me quote his last two paragraphs here and explain what I understood:

And I'm gonna be incredibly blunt here, nobody is complaining we added scripted widgets as mod support. Or made a court scene editor that mods can use too. Or any of the other bits of mod support we added. Or about any other of the myriad of reworks and changes coming in 1.5 and Royal Court of which plenty enable incredibly ahistorical behaviour on top of the options already provided.

But gay marriage gets singled out for complaints? Lets not pretend that is for any remotely genuine reason or concern in where we spend our time developing the game, because we all know it isn't.

I said: "The context of his post is not that people "only complain about same-sex marriage", it's that people keep complaining about it with double standards"

He says in that first paragraph that nobody is complaining about the historicity and development time of ahistorical features of RC besides same-sex marriage. And on the last he says that same-sex marriage is singled out (singled out as in argued against with the same arguments). On the last sentence he frustratedly doubts that these are the real reasonings for the opposition because he thinks they have double standards.

To me at least, that is the context, not just that "which simply talks about gay marriage being singled out for complaints, period". If you understood that differently, then I guess you should just ask him more clarification or wait for him to respond directly if he wants to. I think at this point we are just getting in circles; I don't even know if I have anything else relevant to add.

 

[christisking1992]

also you can easily inherit entire kingdoms or empires for your children as a count or duke simply by abusing the ai's terrible marriage acceptance behaviour
lets say there is an emperor, he has a son, who is heir to the empire, and that son has a son.
The emperor does not let you matrilineally marry his son because that is his primary heir and doing so will just kick his dynasty off the throne.
But he will let you marry the 2nd in line to the throne, his grandson because he is not directly the heir and so the AI does not factor this is in, which it did within ck2, so within 100 years your dynasty would be the powerhouse by doing nothing but marrying someones grandson because they're too stupid to check the line of succession

 

[Flockingbird]

my question wasn't "why is it being added" my question was "why is it being added when the game is so barebones and both gameplay and rp are repetitive and unenjoyable after a few playthroughs" Grommile.

Even that has been answered—by the dev who wrote this diary. Simply put, because it was a much-requested feature that they were able to put in at this time. Quoting from post#114 again,

reworking some code and script to enable gay marriage is infinitely less time than any of the reworks you proposed.

To reiterate his final point in that post, this dev diary announced the following features:

• in-game court editor
• same-sex marriage
• scripted widgets
• value breakdowns
• event and localization debug buttons
• new console commands
• modifiers everywhere

Why, out of these seven features, do you single out only one? The one that’s been asked for the most, as far as I know?

Edit: one that adds rp possibilities, too!

I’ll add here, that several posters have implied that only LGBQT+ players want or will use this feature. I am not LGBTQ+, but I will happily rp with this; I’m looking forwards to it. I’m expecting it to make for some interesting succession scenarios and stories!

 

[thevirgo]

I'm relatively new to Paradox games. Stellaris got me hooked. I'm obsessed.

Crusader King III has been on my Wishlist for weeks. Thanks to the Steam sale, I finally found the budget to buy the game yesterday. And I'm loving it!
I played for almost eight hours straight.

While playing, I was hoping that my bisexual Iberian King can seduce one of those Viking Warlords of the north. I was disappointed that I couldn't.

Then I saw this Dev Diary. Let me tell you: I. Cannot. Wait.

I'm excited for King Arnau Miro Ponc de Minerva to rule the land and sea with his Viking, Irish, and Byzantine husbands.

 

[DreadLindwyrm]

While playing, I was hoping that my bisexual Iberian King can seduce one of those Viking Warlords of the north. I was disappointed that I couldn't.

It's hard, but if you can find a bisexual or gay Viking Warlord, the world is your oyster.

 

[Baron Bratwurst]

It's hard, but if you can find a bisexual or gay Viking Warlord, the world is your oyster Oysteinn.

FTFY

 

[thevirgo]

It's hard, but if you can find a bisexual or gay Viking Warlord, the world is your oyster.

With that strong naval tradition, there's bound to be one or two, right?
If it proves difficult, then that, my friend, will be my King's quest.
The goddess Frigg will light the way.

 

[Calvarok]

a lot of really depressing posts in this thread so i just wanted to mention i think the same sex marriage implementation owns. For a game where part of the fun of it is shaping medieval society according to your own modern ideals (or contrary to them, or even completely arbitrarily), this is a big deal for making more varied fantasies possible.

 

[JasonSTGer]

I think the reason why same sex marriage is debated hotly in this diary is just a misunderstanding between devs and customers. As far I remember correctly is that one patch made same sex marriages impossible to mod. This made some angry even accusing paradox to be homophobic. Now they braught that back as a game rule. This made some angry again because of the delay, and that game rule alone appears so isolated and random they couldn't understand why devs are bringing that up so suddenly.

 

[Deeps93]

Wow, this thread does not disappoint in a lot of sad ways...
I think it's awesome that the Devs implemented the same-sex marriage in the way the diary describes, way to go <3

I think the reason why same sex marriage is debated hotly in this diary is just a misunderstanding between devs and customers. As far I remember correctly is that one patch made same sex marriages impossible to mod. This made some angry even accusing paradox to be homophobic. Now they braught that back as a game rule. This made some angry again because of the delay, and that game rule alone appears so isolated and random they couldn't understand why devs are bringing that up so suddenly.

You are in fact not remembering correctly. A patch broke some mods regarding same-sex concubines. There is no misunderstanding. Same-sex marriage mods were never possible in CK3 because of the way the game was coded. These changes have been hugely requested by the community and there is a very long thread about it here on the forum. Eventually, the devs committed to making those changes and they were supposed to come up with the Royal Court patch, which is why they are talking about it in the modding-focused dev diary. It is neither random nor sudden but anticipated and from what I saw in the original thread about these changes, it's no surprise to see sad and bigoted comments here. If someone was not interested in a feature like this in the first place, maybe they don't see the reason why it is mentioned here so in-depth but that is not an excuse to be a jerk about it.

 

[Bezborg]

• Added console command "bypass_requirements" (alias "bypass") that lets you do decisions, interactions, schemes, laws, and title creation despite the requirements not being met

Does this console command allow us to choose any tradition when diverging our culture?

If not, is there a code that allows absolute freedom in choosing traditions?

Or is this simply achieved by the prestige cheat, and you can access any tradition at exorbitant cost?

 

[Draky]

Well thankfully for all of us you aren't in charge of how we spend our time!

Well thankfully for the actual "us", our shared community that is, your players are still very capable of accurately evaluating your decisions on what to and what not to spend your valued time on, at least judging by the user review score on steam that is

 

[DreadLindwyrm]

Well thankfully for the actual "us", our shared community that is, your players are still very capable of accurately evaluating your decisions on what to and what not to spend your valued time on, at least judging by the user review score on steam that is

Unfortunately you don't speak for the universal "us". I like the DLC and accompanying patch since they feel like they need to be considered together, and although it's not entirely what I'd have chosen to go with first, I'm getting to grips with it.

And most of the reviews I've read so far don't even relate to the content as such. It's pretty much all complaining about price point and time.

 

[thevirgo]

One would think that being a gay guy living in a mostly conservative country that I would be used to casual homophobia but it still feels like a pinch in the heart to read some of the comments about this patch, especially the ones pertaining to same-sex game options.

For me, playing CK3 and other similar games is like a dream fulfillment where I can shape history based on how I wish it was. English is my third language and I can't seem to find the right combination of words to emphasize how incredible and empowering it is to be able to play a game where it is possible to play a king who can marry a man and have a court full of both queer and straight knights and vassals.

There's a sense of amusement and healing to be able to play a gay king who has the approval of both his religion and culture. In my case, it provides a good escape away from the oppressiveness of the current state of reality for queer people like myself.

And this is why it sucks to read some of the comments minimizing the value of the same-sex game options included in this patch. It's painful to see that people who love the same game that I do be so hostile and dismissive of a game option that means a lot to people like me. The comments saying that the devs should've put these game options to the bottom of the list are so depressingly similar to the rhetoric of the people against any LGBTQIA+ rights. It is just another disheartening way for them to trivialize and devalue over and over and over again, in many ways, the needs and wants of queer folks like me.

Ooooof. Writing that last part just made me all of a sudden feel so little and sad.

My original goal when I opened the forums was to just post that I really enjoyed the patch and played all afternoon yesterday. So that's the happy note I'll just end this.