Dev Diary #108: Dev Diary Scheduling & Community Activities

[DinoMight]

And then there are those non-lazy players who don't care about memes, attempt to roleplay in CK3 in a realistic fashion and use mods to make the game harder...like the one removing said one-assasination-restriction-for-AI-vs-player. Those players don't like everything about CK3 in its current state, too. They do not like everything Paradox does as well, but they are also not declaring their private or public boycotting feud vs. pdx or start a strategic review bombing campaign against CK3 to "IR" it. They instead believe that there is hope left that things will develop to the better in future, as they view 1.7 as a big step forward - and they look forward to what the next patch will bring (even if they would prefer getting a 1.7.2)

Now lets see if I used the plural in the paragraph above correctly or if everyone disagrees

bro, you said it yourself "And then there are those non-lazy players who don't care about memes, attempt to roleplay in CK3 in a realistic fashion and use mods to make the game harder...like the one removing said one-assasination-restriction-for-AI-vs-player. Those players don't like everything about CK3 in its current state, too."

so you are not satisfied with product with that you bought, you complain about it and than saying that you dont complain about it and that you refuse to vote with your wallet, and will just feed them more

but somehow you expect products to increase in quality, but you wont complain (even though you just did) and will continue to buy stuff from them, and still expect change


wow

and honestly i didnt part take in "review bombing", i left negative review on ck3 like 3 months after its release, when everybody was still fooled that this wont be another I:R

left negative review on northen lords and RC the day it was release because i really didnt like them from the start (i bought royal edition)

FoL broke my game and made it unplayble for entire month after release of that DLC, also why i left negative review

from my perspective "the review bombing" is just actual score of game is catching up to the actuality of the game
43% positive reviews on dlcs is imho the realistic review of CK3, and dlcs should have like score of 20%
if you look positive reviews, most are written by bots, one sentence which references incest, for real
from my perspective the game is being positive review bombed by bots

why are negative reviews always details and actually mature, compared to one sentence "haha incest funny" positive ones?

as i said 43% positive is realistic valuation of ck3, its a bad game


you really think i would be a fool to buy anything anymore from them after all that?
after all i went through with I:R? imho that game is borderline scam

this comment on this thread is also a review in essentiality, which paradox can see, its not public at all actually, compared to steam and metacritic (which i didnt even touch), but it seems PDX doesnt care anymore

i will say one thing though, i do agree that 1.7 is a step in right direction, but without 1.7.2 its still just smoke in mirrors, because there are still buggs not fixed from the game release, and not to mention the myriad of buggs introduced by dlcs, like 80% of FoL buggs still isnt fixed, you can soft lock your struggle mechanic, and some kingdom titles and archduchies are still bugged and dont work to the point of being unplayble the way the game was meant to be played

if they dont give us 1.7.2 large buggfix patch this year, you can just see how much they value you as a customer... in short they dont care, they are feeding you breadcrumbs, and it seems a lot of people here are happy with it
im not, i will vote with my wallet


and i advise all of you folk to do the same, if you want this game to become at least remotely good

and to paradox, you are losing a long time customer, since EU3 days, was fun, but i cannot support you anymore, its really shame

P.S.

i genuinely wouldnt be surprised if i got banned for this comment, was banned recently for less fr
haha

 

[DinoMight]

Right. I was comparing my playstyle to those of players who move heaven, earth, and maybe even hell just to conquer the entire world. Compared to those players, I must seem lazy, in that I'm just sitting pat, managing my domain, managing vassals, and marryint kids off, all the while, enjoying the heck of the changes the world around me is going through...

you barely need to lift the finger in CK3 for WC

"players who move heaven, earth, and maybe even hell just to conquer the entire world" it really isnt that hard

there is a clip of a guy on YT forming ireland in 867 starting date without even unpausing time, getting the achievement in like 30 seconds

and with 1.7 that tactic got even easier, you really dont have to do much to conquer europe in like less than 100 years, without even trying,
the same guy took kingdom of france in less than 20 years as isle of man(one county), also just playing normally, seriously no exploits were involed

but you can believe what you want, and im sure you will do that

 

[vandevere]

you barely need to lift the finger in CK3 for WC

"players who move heaven, earth, and maybe even hell just to conquer the entire world" it really isnt that hard

there is a clip of a guy on YT forming ireland in 867 starting date without even unpausing time, getting the achievement in like 30 seconds

and with 1.7 that tactic got even easier, you really dont have to do much to conquer europe in like less than 100 years, without even trying,
the same guy took kingdom of france in less than 20 years as isle of man(one county), also just playing normally, seriously no exploits were involed

but you can believe what you want, and im sure you will do that

Part of the problem is that there seem to be at least four playstyles. WC, RP, Sitting down and watching the world Burn, and playing the Edge cases, like breeding an Incest Dynasty, or other things along those lines..

We don't play the same. We don't play to reap the same benefits. For us, however we play, we derive fun from how we play...

 

[kawamuratc]

why are negative reviews always details and actually mature, compared to one sentence "haha incest funny" positive ones?

Oh, that’s an easy one to answer! It’s called confirmation bias, where you look out for evidence that fits your belief. It’s why, when I look at the same pool of reviews, I say to myself “G-D, all the negative reviews aren’t about actual problems with the game, they’re all about being mad at DLC”.

you barely need to lift the finger in CK3 for WC

"players who move heaven, earth, and maybe even hell just to conquer the entire world" it really isnt that hard

there is a clip of a guy on YT forming ireland in 867 starting date without even unpausing time, getting the achievement in like 30 seconds

and with 1.7 that tactic got even easier, you really dont have to do much to conquer europe in like less than 100 years, without even trying,
the same guy took kingdom of france in less than 20 years as isle of man(one county), also just playing normally, seriously no exploits were involed

but you can believe what you want, and im sure you will do that

Not everyone wants to aggressively expand; you aren’t required to conquer things, and even if it’s easy to do such, you’re still going out of your way to map paint instead of doing other things in the game.

I don’t think of CK3 as a satisfying map painter. That’s why I don’t play it that way (outside of a few games here and there). I don’t usually play it as a single entity through generations (like I might do in Civ). I have my most fun when I’m a series of people, one after the other.

Maybe you should try that?

PS: my spouse loves IR, and when I told them it’s now in legacy, they went AWWW MAN. Considering my first PDX game was Sengoku, I had sympathy for them.

CK3 is doing no where near as poorly as either of those games did. It’s orders of magnitude more popular.

It’s okay if you don’t like the path the game is taking (I dipped out of Stellaris for awhile because of gameplay changes), but it sounds like you’re confusing your own personal taste with objective quality or something.

 

[Herennius]

bro, you said it yourself "And then there are those non-lazy players who don't care about memes, attempt to roleplay in CK3 in a realistic fashion and use mods to make the game harder...like the one removing said one-assasination-restriction-for-AI-vs-player. Those players don't like everything about CK3 in its current state, too."

so you are not satisfied with product with that you bought, you complain about it and than saying that you dont complain about it and that you refuse to vote with your wallet, and will just feed them more

but somehow you expect products to increase in quality, but you wont complain (even though you just did) and will continue to buy stuff from them, and still expect change


wow

Yes, wow Where did I say that I don't "complain" (though I don't like the word - doesn't sound like constructive critizism I prefer to utter over just calling things "bad")? If you have read e.g. my posts in the thread about "harder difficulties" I constantly beat the drum there for removing extra-pampering for the player like said assasination-limitation. So yes, I'm not satisfied with the game in this particularly aspect. And yes, there are more things. I also "complained" about too little (visual) reaction in the bug sub forum. I "complain" that I need a mod to see my opinion of other characters. But does that inevitably rule out that I can't have fun when playing the game, especially when using mods? Or that I need to stop buying DLC? Why should I, if I deem theire content worth the price and that they indirectly fuel also patching of the game, leading e.g. version1.7 ? Following your logic, a game needs to be 100% perfect that one can be "satisfied" with it. Without any bugs of course. Only then worth to be purchased and allowed to have DLC. Now tell me that piece of sotware...

and honestly i didnt part take in "review bombing", i left negative review on ck3 like 3 months after its release, when everybody was still fooled that this wont be another I:R

I didn't say that you take part in review bombing; I just mentioned it because I have already read comments from others suggesting it

left negative review on northen lords and RC the day it was release because i really didnt like them from the start (i bought royal edition)

Fair, if you didn't like them.

FoL broke my game and made it unplayble for entire month after release of that DLC, also why i left negative review

Not sure what FoI broke for you...for me I didn't break anything serious. Yes, there are bugs...but again: Tell me the game without them. And yes, I'm able to dislike bugs, the lack of them getting fixed...and still I can have fun with the game.

from my perspective "the review bombing" is just actual score of game is catching up to the actuality of the game
43% positive reviews on dlcs is imho the realistic review of CK3, and dlcs should have like score of 20%
if you look positive reviews, most are written by bots, one sentence which references incest, for real
from my perspective the game is being positive review bombed by bots

why are negative reviews always details and actually mature, compared to one sentence "haha incest funny" positive ones?

as i said 43% positive is realistic valuation of ck3, its a bad game

Review bombing is in my book giving out bad ratings which don't have anything to do with the game itself, e.g. the ones thrown out after IR development was supended. What does have future development (or non-development) to do with how I rate the game ATM (which is IMO the intention of such a review)? IR v2.03 did not suddenly get any worse, just because chances dropped that a 2.1 would ever appear. However, what that review bombing in worst case achieved was killing the last bit of hope for IR.

And are you really serious on that negative reviews CK3 are always detailed and constructive, while any good review is short and bot-written? Sorry, but one click and glance without any scrolling on the review page proofed that wrong for me (and I doubt that this is only because of my review settings in regard to language etc.)

you really think i would be a fool to buy anything anymore from them after all that?

Thats your decision - and I will decide based on further DLC content or that of new released games. Looking forward to Vicky 3!

after all i went through with I:R? imho that game is borderline scam

I already had more than 1000h of fun with IR. And as much as I'm sad about the decision to shelve it - why I should feel scammed?

i will say one thing though, i do agree that 1.7 is a step in right direction, but without 1.7.2 its still just smoke in mirrors, because there are still buggs not fixed from the game release, and not to mention the myriad of buggs introduced by dlcs, like 80% of FoL buggs still isnt fixed, you can soft lock your struggle mechanic, and some kingdom titles and archduchies are still bugged and dont work to the point of being unplayble the way the game was meant to be played

if they dont give us 1.7.2 large buggfix patch this year, you can just see how much they value you as a customer... in short they dont care, they are feeding you breadcrumbs, and it seems a lot of people here are happy with it

If I understand them correctly, there is another free patch planned this year, while no paid DLC comes (and even that gets criticism: Why not more content faster?). I would prefer 1.7.2 and 1.8 over only 1.8, but I disagree that 1.7 isn't something without 1.7.2 (or what else your are trying to say by "smoke in mirrors"?). Also, no one yet knows what 1.8 will be about - and if they should need time for more fixes...why not?

I maintain my statement that I look forward to CK3s feature, even if development is slow and not everything is perfect.

 

[Germanicus_Caesar]

You really think i would be a fool to buy anything anymore from them after all that?
after all i went through with I:R? imho that game is borderline sca

After all you went through with IR…? You bought a game, played the game, didn’t like how the game was, they updated/changed the game, then stopped developing the game. Can you please explain how this is a harrowing experience? Less than ideal? Sure. A scam? Then I’m not sure you’ve been scammed before. Mind you, I LOVED IR and still quite enjoy it even though I wish it were still being developed. But it’s not, I bought it for what, 40 bucks years ago? Probably less, I can’t even remember. I think it was worth it.

Also, I don’t think @Herennius has a problem with critique or criticism but rather a certain brand of complaining though they can correct me…

Edit: Also, no one thinks you’re a fool, you’re free not to buy any game or product anymore. So do so. But it seems like you keep buying PDX games and expansions.

 

[TJFish]

I'm not going to lie - I'm trying to find the point in continuing my most recent run as an African nation (Alodia). Bare bones content paired with the same dialogue from events, same court problems, the same bland decisions being available and continuous crusades being called that amount to nothing. I just seem to be watching time go by in my RP playthrough, and I'm just finding it very unsatisfying.

It's kind of sad that 2 years in and I'm much more anticipating the eventual release of the AGOT mod. That's not a slight to the mod at all - it's likely going to be a better experience in every perceivable way with their developers essentially having no budget towards coding/writing but still producing considerably more in less amount of time.

 

[kawamuratc]

It's kind of sad that 2 years in and I'm much more anticipating the eventual release of the AGOT mod. That's not a slight to the mod at all - it's likely going to be a better experience in every perceivable way with their developers essentially having no budget towards coding/writing but still producing considerably more in less amount of time.

Hilariously, the group of devs you’re holding up as an example for PDX devs to strive for get a lot of the same treatment as the PDX devs.

Did I say hilariously? I meant tragically and just as unfairly. My b.

 

[dezzter]

Will the script for AI to join co-religionists to defend against holy wars ever be fully added, even in a DLC? There is a tooltip for it (which lies since the script for AI to do it is empty last time I checked) and you can defend your own co-religionist but AI will never do it unless they are in an alliance.

EDIT: Ah, they didn't specifically say co-religionist in the patch notes so I missed it.

 

[Herennius]

Will the script for AI to join co-religionists to defend against holy wars ever be fully added, even in a DLC? There is a tooltip for it (which lies since the script for AI to do it is empty last time I checked) and you can defend your own co-religionist but AI will never do it unless they are in an alliance.

This is fixed since 1.7 - it is listed in the changelog and I experienced it myself ingame working. It is one of the reasons why I think 1.7 is such a huge step forward. You now really have to watch out before using a religious CB.

 

[Pixox]

Honestly I'm tired Ill be back here next year hoping something more. Also moda community is mostly Dead No mods are updated , with some great few exceptions. There is no hope here. I think EU4 and hoi4 should be closed now after ten years tons of dlcs and focus on new games. But I think this is not the case for the next future. It's easier to sell new stupid mission trees. Ck3 needs new mechanics in IR direction

 

[Audio-Man]

The reactions have been terrible, judging from the amount of Disagrees here on the forum, the dislikes and comments on YouTube and Steam, the tweets mocking Paradox and virtually any other source of opinions on the matter.

 

[grommile]

essentially having no budget towards coding/writing

Hobby modding: No budget. No deadlines. No bureaucracy. No obligation to anything except your self-selected goals. You can walk away whenever you want.

(That's a bit of an oversimplification, of course, since there's always the question of things like "the commissioned artist has taken the money, hadn't produced the art, and isn't answering emails".)

Salaried gamedev: Deadlines to meet. Bureaucratic process before you can share something with people outside the company. Goals set (or at least subject to approval) by your manager. Before you walk away you need a plan for how you're going to pay the rent.

 

[kawamuratc]

The reactions have been terrible, judging from the amount of Disagrees here on the forum, the dislikes and comments on YouTube and Steam, the tweets mocking Paradox and virtually any other source of opinions on the matter.

Yes. This is called self selection.

People who show up to these places are generally those with a negative opinion. Some of that is because lots of folks only give feedback when things break/there’s a problem. For example, when I tell my partner “love of my life, my better half, my tomatillo, one more moment, I cannot wash the dishes yet as the naysayers on the CKIII forum are wrong,” his response is “what are people complaining about? It’s a good game. Come do the dishes, you idiot.”

My partner doesn’t post or even check the forums because they have no need. In his mind, the forums are where you file bug reports. He doesn’t even read the DDs; any info he gets before release comes from me wandering around, following him, and giving him the tl;dr. Hell, I don’t even think he’s listening half the time.

Considering how many people play CKIII on the reg, there are likely thousands of people like my partner.

So the forum is missing a lot of those people, the people who like the game but don’t have the need or desire to visit. Not only that, but because these places are so unpleasant, even if they decide to check out the hashtag or the forums or the YouTube comments, they immediately nope out.

Combine that with confirmation bias, and you get ... well, the unexamined position you took in this post.

 

[Karlington]

Yes. This is called self selection.

People who show up to these places are generally those with a negative opinion. Some of that is because lots of folks only give feedback when things break/there’s a problem. For example, when I tell my partner “love of my life, my better half, my tomatillo, one more moment, I cannot wash the dishes yet as the naysayers on the CKIII forum are wrong,” his response is “what are people complaining about? It’s a good game. Come do the dishes, you idiot.”

My partner doesn’t post or even check the forums because they have no need. In his mind, the forums are where you file bug reports. He doesn’t even read the DDs; any info he gets before release comes from me wandering around, following him, and giving him the tl;dr. Hell, I don’t even think he’s listening half the time.

Considering how many people play CKIII on the reg, there are likely thousands of people like my partner.

So the forum is missing a lot of those people, the people who like the game but don’t have the need or desire to visit. Not only that, but because these places are so unpleasant, even if they decide to check out the hashtag or the forums or the YouTube comments, they immediately nope out.

Combine that with confirmation bias, and you get ... well, the unexamined position you took in this post.

I've heard this "people mainly join the forums if they are upset with the game"-notion repeated so many times on this forum, and it seems to have been more or less quietly accepted as truth, but my question is... Says who?

I certainly didn't join this forum because I was upset with anything. I joined it ages ago because I had a question about some game, IIRC. I became active on the forum a few years ago because I got into CK2 and flippin' loved it! My joining the forum had nothing to do with dissatisfaction with anything.

In fact, I can't recall ever having joined a forum just to complain. And I've joined a lot of forums - I first accessed the Internet in 1994, and have been using it regularly (as in pretty much every day) since 1996.

Now, it may be that I am such a special little flower that there is just nobody like me, but I highly doubt it. I suspect that people join forums for a wide variety of reasons, and the notion that "the reason for joining is predominantly that people are upset, so the forum is self-selected for negative people" is probably false.

My guess would be that people like that are more likely to just voice their complaints through "forums" they already have access to, like Steam or Reddit, rather than go through the trouble of looking up if the company has its own dedicated forum, registering for it, and then coming here just to have a negativity "circlefest."

That's not to say that nobody ever joins for that reason. I'm sure people have joined for every reason under the sun. I just don't believe the notion that negative people self-select for the forum, which appears to have been born out of someone's imagination.

 

[Mortrag]

Yes. This is called self selection.

People who show up to these places are generally those with a negative opinion. Some of that is because lots of folks only give feedback when things break/there’s a problem. For example, when I tell my partner “love of my life, my better half, my tomatillo, one more moment, I cannot wash the dishes yet as the naysayers on the CKIII forum are wrong,” his response is “what are people complaining about? It’s a good game. Come do the dishes, you idiot.”

My partner doesn’t post or even check the forums because they have no need. In his mind, the forums are where you file bug reports. He doesn’t even read the DDs; any info he gets before release comes from me wandering around, following him, and giving him the tl;dr. Hell, I don’t even think he’s listening half the time.

Considering how many people play CKIII on the reg, there are likely thousands of people like my partner.

So the forum is missing a lot of those people, the people who like the game but don’t have the need or desire to visit. Not only that, but because these places are so unpleasant, even if they decide to check out the hashtag or the forums or the YouTube comments, they immediately nope out.

Combine that with confirmation bias, and you get ... well, the unexamined position you took in this post.

And this forum also misses the group of people who bought the game, got dissapointed/frustrated really quickly and either refunded the game or kept it, but only remember it as a "shopping mistake".
So if we ad both groups, I'm not sure if the overall response would change that much.

 

[Tomray94]

Yes. This is called self selection.

People who show up to these places are generally those with a negative opinion. Some of that is because lots of folks only give feedback when things break/there’s a problem.

While I think this is true in many instances, it is not the refutation you think it is. If people's attitudes most of the time are "if it ain't broke, don't fix it", then there is clearly something "broke" here, otherwise this response would not be so overwhelmingly negative.

Seeking people who don't seem to care or aren't angry, when there are clearly many people who are, and saying "well, the people who don't care aren't really that angry, and half of them don't care" doesn't do anything to get the number of people who are angry placated, and that is exactly something any company with customers should be doing if they want to keep more people around.

 

[kawamuratc]

I've heard this "people mainly join the forums if they are upset with the game"-notion repeated so many times on this forum, and it seems to have been more or less quietly accepted as truth, but my question is... Says who?

I certainly didn't join this forum because I was upset with anything. I joined it ages ago because I had a question about some game, IIRC. I became active on the forum a few years ago because I got into CK2 and flippin' loved it! My joining the forum had nothing to do with dissatisfaction with anything.

In fact, I can't recall ever having joined a forum just to complain. And I've joined a lot of forums - I first accessed the Internet in 1994, and have been using it regularly (as in pretty much every day) since 1996.

Now, it may be that I am such a special little flower that there is just nobody like me, but I highly doubt it. I suspect that people join forums for a wide variety of reasons, and the notion that "the reason for joining is predominantly that people are upset, so the forum is self-selected for negative people" is probably false.

My guess would be that people like that are more likely to just voice their complaints through "forums" they already have access to, like Steam or Reddit, rather than go through the trouble of looking up if the company has its own dedicated forum, registering for it, and then coming here just to have a negativity "circlefest."

That's not to say that nobody ever joins for that reason. I'm sure people have joined for every reason under the sun. I just don't believe the notion that negative people self-select for the forum, which appears to have been born out of someone's imagination.

When have you not seen a forum skewed to complaints? That’s always been my experience, it makes sense based on more general concepts (negativity bias), and reflects conversations in game design where devs are cautioned to look at actual gaming activity vs the loudest voices in what’s essentially an echo chamber.

And I phrased it wrong, so let me correct that: I believe people post on forums more often when they have complaints, whether or not they join for complaining.

 

[vandevere]

I've heard this "people mainly join the forums if they are upset with the game"-notion repeated so many times on this forum, and it seems to have been more or less quietly accepted as truth, but my question is... Says who?

I certainly didn't join this forum because I was upset with anything. I joined it ages ago because I had a question about some game, IIRC. I became active on the forum a few years ago because I got into CK2 and flippin' loved it! My joining the forum had nothing to do with dissatisfaction with anything.

In fact, I can't recall ever having joined a forum just to complain. And I've joined a lot of forums - I first accessed the Internet in 1994, and have been using it regularly (as in pretty much every day) since 1996.

Now, it may be that I am such a special little flower that there is just nobody like me, but I highly doubt it. I suspect that people join forums for a wide variety of reasons, and the notion that "the reason for joining is predominantly that people are upset, so the forum is self-selected for negative people" is probably false.

My guess would be that people like that are more likely to just voice their complaints through "forums" they already have access to, like Steam or Reddit, rather than go through the trouble of looking up if the company has its own dedicated forum, registering for it, and then coming here just to have a negativity "circlefest."

That's not to say that nobody ever joins for that reason. I'm sure people have joined for every reason under the sun. I just don't believe the notion that negative people self-select for the forum, which appears to have been born out of someone's imagination.

I joined because I loved, and still love CK2, and I also love CK3. Does that mean the CK Series is perfect? Of course not! Made by humans for humans, it's going to have flaws and bugs. But literally every Game out there has all of that. In this world, nothing is perfect. But the CK Series is still damn good, flaws and bugs notwithstanding...

 

[Karlington]

When have you not seen a forum skewed to complaints?

Pretty often?

That’s always been my experience, it makes sense based on more general concepts (negativity bias), and reflects conversations in game design where devs are cautioned to look at actual gaming activity vs the loudest voices in what’s essentially an echo chamber.

Negativity bias is about how things affect us psychologically, not about voicing complaints (though it can lead to that in some cases). But negativity bias isn't tied to forums, so it would make people complain equally in real life, and in other forms of communication. And I sure hope that, at least for most of us, our social lives and work lives don't mainly circulate around hearing people complain.

And I phrased it wrong, so let me correct that: I believe people post on forums more often when they have complaints, whether or not they join for complaining.

Fair enough.

So you reckon people join the forums for various other reasons, even an appreciation of the game(s), but they still usually just end up complaining without objective basis? I don't really believe that is true for the majority of people.

And if that were the case, why is it that CK3 specifically attracts such a level of criticism, in contrast with CK2? CK2 had its issues and its fair share of complaints as well, but I think it's fair to say that there are more (and more... spirited) complaints about CK3 overall. Certainly negativity bias or other parts of human nature haven't changed that much since mid-2020 before CK3 was released.

I joined because I loved, and still love CK2, and I also love CK3. Does that mean the CK Series is perfect? Of course not! Made by humans for humans, it's going to have flaws and bugs. But literally every Game out there has all of that. In this world, nothing is perfect. But the CK Series is still damn good, flaws and bugs notwithstanding...

Well, I can half agree with you: I do love CK2.