Dev Diary #108: Dev Diary Scheduling & Community Activities

[Ilya Belkin]

A Duke would have a permanent +2 from innovations and +2 from rank, in addition to whatever they get from stewardship, for a minimum average of 5. Most Duchies in the game have 5 or less Counties (598 out of 676, only 78 have more than 5), which leads to a lot of consolidation.

I wonder if crown authority 3 and 4 should say give +1 domain limit making it more of an administrative policy instead of Stewardship perk to maintain a larger domain. It would be nice to represent centralisation and how it is not liked by vassals. Currently high domain limit somehow does not effect vassals opinion… I think it should.

 

[Tomray94]

I think people's concern is that the regular schedule isn't enough to fill in the game map. Seriously, I don't think one flavor pack per year is actually enough to cover the entire map given what we've seen with from flavor packs so far. Lets assume there are nine more flavor packs. Filling in the rest of Europe (Britain, France, Germany, Italy, West Slavs, the Baltic, South Slavs and/or Hungary, and Russia) could potentially use up all of those slots! Unless major expansions also start doubling as flavor packs, the game's development will have to go one for a long time to properly fill in the map.

To run with this point a little, If we assume that there will be 1 pack for the Middle East(possibly with Muslim Persia), 1 for India/Afghanistan/Burma (Possibly with Zoroastrian Persia), 1 for the West and East Slavs (Poland, Czechia, Slovakia, Rus), 1 for Balkans, 1 for Baltics, 1 for France/Germany/Italy, 1 for Britain and Ireland, 1 for Tibet/whatever appears of East Asia, 1 for Nomads, 1 for Africa (and that's a stretch because they'd probably need to split that in 2 parts at least), that's already 9.

By this schedule, the game will take approximately 9 years to complete, much like CK 2 I suppose, but still, you'd expect there to be some improvement in the time of development.

 

[Bat-Ushanka]

To run with this point a little, If we assume that there will be 1 pack for the Middle East(possibly with Muslim Persia), 1 for India/Afghanistan (Possibly with Zoroastrian Persia), 1 for the West and East Slavs (Poland, Czechia, Slovakia, Rus), 1 for Balkans, 1 for Baltics, 1 for France/Germany/Italy, 1 for Britain and Ireland, 1 for Tibet/whatever appears of East Asia, 1 for Nomads, 1 for Africa (and that's a stretch because they'd probably need to split that in 2 parts at least), that's already 9.

By this schedule, the game will take approximately 9 years to complete, much like CK 2 I suppose, but still, you'd expect there to be some improvement in the time of development.

Right, and one of the things I really liked about CK3 at launch is that it built on its predecessors and gave us (versions of) things that took several expansions to add to CK2. The "one flavor pack a year" strategy makes sense if you're making parts of the map more unique/allowing for enthusiasts to enjoy specific content for that region that we couldn't get in a previous game, but whole swathes of the game world are just generic. I don't want to wait 9 years for a fleshed-out map, I already did that with CK2!

 

[FunGaming]

The Dukes revoking titles left and right is a bit too much guys, I hope it gets reversed or tuned down a bit because right now its a spam fest of title revocation.

 

[InsidiousMage]

To run with this point a little, If we assume that there will be 1 pack for the Middle East(possibly with Muslim Persia), 1 for India/Afghanistan (Possibly with Zoroastrian Persia), 1 for the West and East Slavs (Poland, Czechia, Slovakia, Rus), 1 for Balkans, 1 for Baltics, 1 for France/Germany/Italy, 1 for Britain and Ireland, 1 for Tibet/whatever appears of East Asia, 1 for Nomads, 1 for Africa (and that's a stretch because they'd probably need to split that in 2 parts at least), that's already 9.

I actually that's being really generous about what can be covered in a Flavor Pack. There is no way that the East and West Slavs are being included in one pack. France, Germany, and Italy are certainly not being included in one pack.

 

[johnty5]

I think people's concern is that the regular schedule isn't enough to fill in the game map. Seriously, I don't think one flavor pack per year is actually enough to cover the entire map given what we've seen with from flavor packs so far. Lets assume there are nine more flavor packs. Filling in the rest of Europe (Britain, France, Germany, Italy, West Slavs, the Baltic, South Slavs and/or Hungary, and Russia) could potentially use up all of those slots! Unless major expansions also start doubling as flavor packs, the game's development will have to go one for a long time to properly fill in the map.

I don't think we have the same vision for CK3 "filling the map". I'm far less concerned about dedicated flavour packs that are as granular as your list (do you honestly think we're going to get a "West Slavs" flavour pack and then a "South Slavs" flavour pack?) - and far more concerned about big mechanical additions that vary according to the culture system.

For example, a Trade DLC with differing Trade mechanics for Italy vs Byzantium vs the Middle East is the flavour I want.

 

[Tomray94]

I actually that's being really generous about what can be covered in a Flavor Pack. There is no way that the East and West Slavs are being included in one pack. France, Germany, and Italy are certainly not being included in one pack.

yeah, I was being quite generous with it. The Slavs would be split like with East, West and North Africa, as would the Italians from the French and Germans most likely.

 

[Ilya Belkin]

The team's intent to ship more than one flavour pack a year was communicated. It feels weird to keep making calculations around it as if the output is static. The dev team was scaled up in 2022 and we already see more than before. We are likely to see even more content in 2023 compared to 2022. Of course, only time will show.

 

[InsidiousMage]

I'm far less concerned about dedicated flavour packs that are as granular as your list - and far more concerned about big mechanical additions that vary according to the culture system.

I'm just going off they type of DLC Paradox has released so far and the two flavor packs they've released have been very, very narrow. Flavor packs are what the devs have used to flesh out the map. Royal Court didn't significantly change the way various parts of the map feel, even with the all of the culture traditions. Again, that's what flavor packs are for, not major expansions. Unless things change, the map will be improved by flavor packs and mechanics will be improved by expansions. Unless the game is developed for 20 years, there is never going to content parity across the map and, again, what's the point of including something of the map if it going to be little better than filler?

 

[johnty5]

I'm just going off they type of DLC Paradox has released so far and the two flavor packs they've released have been very, very narrow. Flavor packs are what the devs have used to flesh out the map. Royal Court didn't significantly change the way various parts of the map feel, even with the all of the culture traditions. Again, that's what flavor packs are for, not major expansions. Unless things change, the map will be improved by flavor packs and mechanics will be improved by expansions. Unless the game is developed for 20 years, there is never going to content parity across the map and, again, what's the point of including something of the map if it going to be little better than filler?

Like I said. I think you've got a narrower view about the purposes of expansion packs and flavour packs than me. I think you're extrapolating on the basis of a tiny sample size (three CK3 DLCs).

 

[InsidiousMage]

I think you're extrapolating on the basis of a tiny sample size (three CK3 DLCs).

And I could say you have unrealistic expectations based on what we've from the DLCs so far. Unless the devs announce otherwise, I see no reason not to assume that what we've seen so far is the standard for what will see going forward.

 

[SeekTruthFromFx]

<said many things>

Your post today should hopefully clear up quite a lot of the confusion expressed earlier in the thread.

 

[Germanicus_Caesar]

There will not be a DD next week, but there will be one in the coming few weeks. It won't be about any of the content updates, but I'd like to do something similar to the one Areho made for HoI, as mentioned in the above quote. Though I don't necessarily agree that it's explicitly about the 'immediate or near future', it's more long-term ambitions with some short-term ones mixed in.

Thank you for the response. Much appreciated.

Why does it seem like the promise to "cater to all player fantasies we can reasonably accommodate" never seem to include grounded, historically based fantasies but only things like becoming God Emperor of Europe and the head of a bizarre incest cult?

I’d argue here that just because you can do something doesn’t mean you should do something. Like if your goal is a grounded and historical based play through, then don’t go the route of the incest god emperors that reform their faith on a whim. In order to cater to all, some of those options must be necessary and it’s up to the player to decide how to play.

I should note, I very much respect your opinions and posts that often offer constructive criticism and hope that you can see some value in my counterpoint. For example there is a lot of value in your post here (which is why I only quoted the portion I took issue with) such as the lack of mechanics for a slower paced and more detailed play through.

 

[johnty5]

And I could say you have unrealistic expectations based on what we've from the DLCs so far. Unless the devs announce otherwise, I see no reason not to assume that what we've seen so far is the standard for what will see going forward.

Indeed. That's why I said we both have a different view - rather than arguing that I'm right and you're wrong.

We're both basically, at best, making an educated guess on very little evidence and, at worst, engaging in our own personal confirmation bias.

 

[InsidiousMage]

I’d argue here that just because you can do something doesn’t mean you should do something. Like if your goal is a grounded and historical based play through, then don’t go the route of the incest god emperors that reform their faith on a whim. In order to cater to all, some of those options must be necessary and it’s up to the player to decide how to play.

No, I agree that you can play differently, and I always try and play more grounded and historically minded, but the game doesn't really offer a lot to support the player in doing so. That's my problem - the game clearly offers tools to the power gamers and memers, or whatever you want to call them, but doesn't offer anything else to someone who wants to play differently, they just have access to all of the basic stuff in the game generally. Want to constantly be recreating your religion? Have at it. Want a substantive interaction with your faith's religious hierarchy? Out of luck. Want to play the loyal vassal that maintains close ties with the royal family and has the best interests of the realm in mind? Well, you can join all of the king's wars and murder fellow vassals that start factions, and that's literally it, but the game would honestly prefer it if you were the king, not the vassal. That's what I mean. You can play differently but the game doesn't help with you mechanics to do so. I honestly think that's why I've rarely made it two hundred years into a game post Royal Court.

And, I honestly have no idea how accurate this is, but I don't think you can cater to more powergaming tendencies without unbalancing the game for other types of players. Again, a third of the Spiritual Ethos's bonuses are based around faith creation and reformation and if you never intended to create a custom religion in the game and prefer to play as already reformed faiths, you now have a bonus that you will never use. I'm not sure why the game needs permanent bonuses to faith creation unless its the intended playstyle for the game. Why isn't the 50% discount from the Theologian perk tree enough? That's my broader issue with the game.

 

[Mortrag]

We're aware of this issue (and have made a fix). Interestingly enough the issue was caused by something deep in the opinion code, something that had been around for some time, and fixing it actually yields a slight performance gain in addition to fixing the stutter. It's unlikely that we'll make a 1.7.2 just for this issue though, but I'm not saying it's impossible - ideally we'd find a fix for the missing faces to go along with it.

Please, just also add fixes for the bugs which cause a "Game Over" in ironman mode and you have enough issues for a patch this month.
I mean, how do you want to motivate some one playing your game (in ironmode), when suddenly all the progress is lost because of a bug?

(Or let us get achievements also without ironman mode enabled. But that solution seems highly unlikely, because ironman mode was also needed in Ck2.)

 

[GeorgieBest]

I don't understand how the suits upstairs have come to the conclusion that the last two years is a good way to continue development of this game post-release. Things just keep getting worse.

 

[grommile]

But that solution seems highly unlikely, because ironman mode was also needed in Ck2

Vicky 3 will not require ironman for achievements.

With a bit of luck, we can successfully agitate for that decision to be proliferated.

 

[Cymsdale]

(Or let us get achievements also without ironman mode enabled. But that solution seems highly unlikely, because ironman mode was also needed in Ck2.)

Might not be as unlikely as you think. The Victoria 3 devs came to the realization that attaching achievements to ironman was silly.

 

[Silens]

There are always problems with sharing things too early, and I don't think this is the time to start sharing specifics for what we're working on, as we want to nail everything down and make sure that the scope is set before we start. I can say that we're working on an expansion in the Stockholm studio, and that we'll probably start sharing specifics sometime within Q1 next year.

When you're in the DevDiary cycle for an expansion it's much easier to do meatier diaries and also sneak peeks, and it's very likely that the next cycle will be similar. In that sense nothing has happened really, except that we're being transparent about not wanting to start posting specifics too early.

Thank you for your response, I really appreciate it.

Aside from new content, there are other things worth talking about. Just one look at Stellaris DDs shows that there's more than just new content.

One thing I always liked was/is a wishlist of sorts, just a few thought from the devs on long-term goals for the game (you can find it here). No promises, not a roadmap, no nothing, just a list of things that gave the community an idea of what the devs thought could use a bit of love. CK3 could use such a thing, as we're currently completely in the dark about... well, anything. What parts of the game are you happy with? What do you think might change in a few years, and what not? That's worth talking about, don't you think?

You could also share your thoughts on game balance, what ideas didn't make it and why, or why certain things are the way they are and so on.

It is easy to talk about new content, I agree. But there is more than just that. Many people here would be happy to read not only what you think about the current state of the game and what is possible in your opinion, but also what you think is outside the scope of your resources, to curb certain expectations.

There are many things to talk about, and in my personal opinion it's a wasted opportunity to keep everything to yourself and going mostly cold and aloof on us.