• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.

Dev Diary #171 - Post-Release Support

Hello everyone! I’m Jacob, the Community Manager with Paradox Studio Black.

My role within the studio is to strengthen communication between us and you, the players, to ensure that we understand what you want from the game and that you understand what our intentions are for the future. While I’m just one part of the broader Community Team for Crusader Kings, I’m ultimately responsible for nearly every piece of public-facing communication we publish as a studio: dev diaries, feature breakdowns, chapter premiere videos, social media posts, etc. I’m also responsible for the reverse; every piece of feedback that ends up on a designer’s desk goes through me at some point in the process.

Today, I’m going to talk about the release of Khans of the Steppe and the feedback we’ve received from players, as well as how we’re addressing it. After that I’ll give a brief overview of how our development cycles work, what the hell Post-Release Support even is, and then cap it off with a quick look at what our next steps are as a studio.

I am a map gamer, so fair warning: There will be a good amount of graphs and charts in this dev diary.

State of Launch

As you may or may not be aware, Khans of the Steppe and the 1.16 “Chamfron” Update were released on April 28th, and the initial response was fairly positive both from a technical perspective and a player sentiment one. However, we quickly noticed a spike in crash reports and commentary from players confirming this. Setting our lovely QA team to work, we quickly identified two major contributors to instability in 1.16 and pushed hotfixes to tackle both of them.

These fixes have led to a significant reduction in crash rates, but we’re still seeing elevated levels, so we’re still working to identify and resolve the causes of these crashes.

image_01.png

[Crash rate analytics since the release of Khans of the Steppe. The 1.16.0.2 hotfix (circled in red) made a big difference, but there’s still work to be done.]

While there was an immediate spike in negative reviews due to stability issues, the response at large to Khans of the Steppe was quite positive right out of the gate. When you spend months working on a specific project, it’s always an immense relief to see that it went well and players were having fun with the new content, so everyone at the studio was elated at the response!

Then the review score started dropping.

image_02.png

[Steam reviews for Khans of the Steppe. You can see the ratio of positive to negative reviews shrinking over time; In the “biz”, this is considered a Bad Thing. While the amount of people who leave reviews are a sliver of a fraction of the greater playerbase, this is still a valuable source of information for us.]

With all of our releases, we do a series of internal reports on the state of things at predefined intervals. There’s a Day 0 report, Day 1, Day 7, etc. While the Day 0 and Day 1 reports were initially positive, by the end of the week it became clear that there were outstanding problems that took some time to reach a breaking point for players.

So, what were those problems? In order to figure that out, we have to do some basic analysis of the reviews themselves. To begin, I took every negative review on Steam and put them into a spreadsheet where they’re arranged, translated (we try to assess feedback from as many languages as we possibly can), and categorized based on what their main complaint is.
(This isn’t the only way we analyze feedback, but reviews are fairly easy to explain so they make ideal content for demonstrating the point in this dev diary.)

Once everything has been neatly categorized (a task I find immensely soothing, for the record), I can generate a quick chart showing which complaints are dominating the conversation. The main cause of stability complaints in the reviews were already addressed or being investigated, so we can skip that category and take a look at the next one in the list: Balancing.


image_03.png

[Outside of stability issues, balancing concerns make up the majority of complaints about Khans of the Steppe.]

With my chart prepared, I can go to the design team and our Game Director to tell them “Players think the balancing is wonky, and here’s data to prove it.” From there, we can actually go through feedback to identify specific pain points and begin to address them in our first post-release support update (more on what that specific term means later).

If you’re only interested in what’s next for Khans of the Steppe, then I’ll summarize here and save you some time: We know that players have concerns with the DLC and we’re working to address as many of these concerns as we can within the time we have allotted for post-release support before anything else is pushed off to Realm Maintenance.

If you want to know more about how our communication pipeline from player to developer works, and how we act on what we hear from you, then read on! I intend to ramble for a bit longer.

Player Feedback

In order to properly explain how we turn comments on the internet into changelog entries, I first need to talk about how we collect and parse feedback from all of our supported platforms.

Pre-Release Feedback

Our handling of player feedback for Khans of the Steppe started quite a while back, before the announcement of Chapter 4 in fact. Our preview dev diary back in February was published so far ahead of the normal schedule specifically so that we could gather information about player desires and expectations regarding a Nomad-focused DLC. The feedback we received from that DD is directly responsible for a variety of changes that made it into the release version of Khans of the Steppe, such as expanding the new Nomadic government type to certain non-steppe regions.

Additionally, we run a persistent closed beta program of roughly 100 people from our community. This includes members of various high-profile mod teams, historians, members of the community with a history of sending detailed and actionable feedback, and a small pile of content creators. The point of this program is to get direct player feedback on upcoming content as early into the development process of an update as we can (For Khans of the Steppe, this began roughly a year ago). As development progresses, more of the design is solidified and becomes more difficult to change in response to feedback, so this program is considered vital to us.

Once the development version has progressed far enough that we’re able to announce it publicly, we begin a fresh dev diary cycle. These serve to inform the playerbase of what we’re working on while giving us a chance to get broader opinions and suggestions about the upcoming content. Our companion videos that are released on our YouTube channel are also helpful here, since viewer retention stats can inform us which sections within a given dev diary are of particular interest to viewers.

image_04.png

[Retention graph for Dev Diary 166; the bump at the 11 minute mark shows that viewers were particularly interested in the “Blessings of the Blue Sky” segment]

Finally, in the last month or so before releasing Khans of the Steppe, we ran a separate preview group to get a final round of feedback. This is essentially a time-limited version of our persistent beta, and has a similar selection criteria for participation. During this stage, we essentially throw the flood gates open and pull in as many people as we think we can manage while maintaining some semblance of operational security. Mod team representation increases dramatically during this stage in order to give them a head start on compatibility patching their mods, and any content creator too slow to outrun our Influencer Relations Manager is also pulled into this time-limited program. Before you ask: Yes, that youtuber you’re thinking of is in this program. Yes, that one is too. Yes, them as well.

image_05.png

[A snippet from the aforementioned preview group. Yes, we run this through Discord.]

The goal here is to make sure that the content we’re working on matches the expectations of our players as closely as possible ahead of release; the persistent beta program allows us to do this in broader strokes while the DLC is still taking shape, and the preview program allows us to catch more issues that would have slipped through the net (as well as giving us a head start on our first post-release support update).

Post-Release Feedback

That’s all well and good, but what do we do about feedback after something is released?

After a major release, gathering immediate feedback from players is crucial to ensure that any critical issues that made it through testing phases are swiftly handled, and that our post-release support cycle is focused on addressing player pain points with the new content. We actively collect this feedback from a wide variety of places; our own forums, Facebook, Steam, YouTube, Twitter, Reddit, Discord, QQ Guild, Bilibili, Tieba, among others. Essentially, if it’s posted on a publicly visible platform, odds are that we’re going to see it one way or another.

image_06.png

[The pc-feedback channel on our official Discord server is one of several “primary” feedback channels we use. Voting systems make it easier to tell at a glance which posts are more important to the community there. Sadly, Reddit votes aren’t as useful for this purpose.]

To facilitate the collection of this amount of information, we have a set of Community Ambassadors (or “CAs”) who act as additional support for the bridge between our players and the development team.

One of the main responsibilities of our CAs revolves around collecting player sentiment and feedback, monitoring discussions, and identifying pressing issues that players report post-release. You’ve said it? They’ve probably read it. They help cast the net as far as possible to ensure no significant feedback slips through. After a major release drops, they immediately begin scouring for reactions then compile them into a detailed Day 1 post-release report for the studio.

image_07.png

[A snippet from the Day 1 report for Khans of the Steppe. These initial reports are crucial for identifying standout issues that need to be handled as soon as possible]

They condense hundreds of discussion threads, suggestions, and reports into a more digestible format to quickly identify what the community finds most pressing. As you can see above, crashing was the most prevalent issue highlighted in the Day 1 report, while balance issues weren’t widely reported until after the Day 1 report period.

Feedback gathered this way is used to determine what the priorities of the development team should be during the post-release cycle, which finally brings us to the namesake of this dev diary…

Post-Release Support

Our studio is structured into various internal teams, with each one focusing on specific updates or expansions. We have a team for Khans of the Steppe, All Under Heaven, Coronations, and others we can’t discuss quite yet. Post-Release Support (PRS) is the final stage of development for a Major Update before the team assigned to that update is dissolved and its members moved to other teams within the studio.

The main objective of the PRS stage is to address any outstanding issue that may have slipped through the pre-development cycle. This includes fixing bugs, tweaking gameplay balances, and implementing various improvements or alterations to systems based on player feedback. The goal is to essentially “finalize” the DLC, but this doesn’t mean we cease work on the DLC outright. Any further updates or fixes that aren’t able to be implemented during the PRS stage go towards Realm Maintenance to be integrated into future updates rather than having their own dedicated release.

During a PRS stage, we step up our Quality Assurance (QA) efforts by bringing in additional specialists to assist with PRS. These specialists work closely with the development team to review bug reports and ensure that as many reported issues as possible are investigated, identified, and assigned to a member of the development team to be addressed. If you’re reporting bugs on our official forums during a PRS stage, these are the people replying to and tagging your posts.

image_08.png

[As an aside, the tags are there to signal to other members of the team that a post has been looked at; this reduces the chances of us wasting time by going over threads that are already being handled.]

Another important aspect of the PRS stage is taking care of issues that were “locked out” of the initial release for one reason or another. Two of the main reasons this could happen are feature freeze and loc freeze. During feature freeze, no new mechanics can be added to a DLC; anything that needs to be tacked on after feature freeze must target a future update. Similarly, a loc freeze means that no new player-facing text can be added, as localization into all of our supported languages takes a significant amount of time; any content that requires new or updated text after localization freeze must be scheduled for a future update. While these freezes mean that our response to feedback can sometimes be delayed, they ultimately help ensure that updates actually release when they’re intended to.

In most cases, the aforementioned future update will be one of the “point releases” during PRS. Each PRS stage typically has time allocated for two or three of these updates, with the expectation that we’ll need them to tackle issues that cropped up after feature/loc freeze or issues reported by the community. Additionally, we allocate time for hotfixes as necessary to allow emergency updates.

image_09.png

[It’s a bit messy to look at, but you can see here how certain commits by the development team are sent to different branches depending on their contents. We have a lot of internal development branches.]

Post-Release Support is an essential part of the development cycle in that it allows us to address player feedback as it’s submitted to us, but also to set the stage for future development by giving us a stronger idea of what players expect and want from the game.

Next Steps

So, what has the feedback we’ve gotten since Khans of the Steppe been about, and what do players want from the game?

Mainly, that the balancing is wonky and that our more dedicated players want the game to be harder. We’ve released Update 1.16.1 and 1.16.2 already to tackle the former, and I’ve been working directly with our Game Director to implement something to help us address the latter; this will take the form of Hard and Very Hard difficulty modes releasing alongside Update 1.16.2.1 sometime later this week.

image_10.png

[Highly experimental! Mostly untested! Probably imbalanced! Try it out later this week and tell us what you think.]

As we’ve said in the past, we want difficulty and challenge to be something that arise organically from how our mechanics interact, and think that giving flat buffs to the AI or penalties to the player for arbitrary reasons isn’t an ideal solution. That said, our community has made it clear that we’re not meeting our objective, and doing something is better than doing nothing. So while we intend to continue pursuing our goal of emergent challenge in the long term, we’re introducing these new difficulties for players who want the game to be harder right now.

image_11.png

[A small collection of some of the bonuses AI characters will receive in Hard/Very Hard difficulties.]

We’ve also heard quite a few people asking for a passive herd decay mechanic. To go ahead and rip the bandaid off: We’re not planning on implementing this. Put simply, the system wasn’t designed with this in mind and is instead built around discrete reductions. Too much of the game goes off the rails when it tries to deduct what doesn’t exist, and herd decay ultimately impacts AI rulers far more than it impacts players (compounding balance/difficulty concerns). With the PRS stage for Khans of the Steppe coming to an end, we don’t have the time or resources available to rework a core aspect of the DLC to this degree. Additional adjustments to this system are still possible in Realm Maintenance updates, but these are unlikely to fundamentally rework the system itself.

Aside from that, we’ve heard we still have bugs to squash! AI asking you for paizas should be significantly reduced in the next update, the steppe region map mode should be properly colored in again, etc etc etc. We’ll have a full changelog of what’s been fixed releasing alongside the update itself later this week.

After that, we’ll have a period of relative stability where mod authors can update their mods and players can finish a longer campaign without worrying about another update dropping and causing them grief. We’ll still be working on bugs and other issues that get reported (or already have been), but they’ll be packaged up alongside the release of our next piece of Chapter IV.



While this is far from a comprehensive overview of development cycles, post-release support, or even feedback loops, I hope this gives you a stronger understanding of how these systems work at a glance. I’m always happy to talk at length about damn near anything involving Studio Black (as anyone subjected to one of my rants on our Discord can attest), so if you have any specifics you’d like to know more about then feel free to drop a comment and I’ll answer them as best I can!

That’s all we have for this week, but be sure to come back next Tuesday; we’ll be talking about the design vision for a small piece of content we’re working on called All Under Heaven.
 
  • 113Like
  • 40
  • 24
  • 13Love
  • 5
  • 1Haha
Reactions:
One thing that would help a lot with difficulty: making alliances more difficult to procure. Right now, any difficult war can be mitigated by marrying a child to the HRE and calling them in. Any strong AI realm can be countered by setting up a bunch of alliances. The CK2 approach where marriage instead granted NAP's would still give them a diplomatic purpose, make diplomacy more interesting and make the game more 'difficult'.
Should also help in making marrying children/dynasty members off less annoying – less chance of getting a stupid ally calling you in for every random war with a count they decide to have.

Edit: removed redundancy. I really should stop commenting on these on my phone...
 
Last edited:
  • 5
Reactions:
sorry if this wrong. but would it be easy to make land be expesive to maintain like military building having up keeping and control beeing like eu5 where it gets lower and lower the fruther away from captital? forcing to have vassals and the like?
 
  • 3Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Hello everyone! I’m Jacob, the Community Manager with Paradox Studio Black.

My role within the studio is to strengthen communication between us and you, the players, to ensure that we understand what you want from the game and that you understand what our intentions are for the future. While I’m just one part of the broader Community Team for Crusader Kings, I’m ultimately responsible for nearly every piece of public-facing communication we publish as a studio: dev diaries, feature breakdowns, chapter premiere videos, social media posts, etc. I’m also responsible for the reverse; every piece of feedback that ends up on a designer’s desk goes through me at some point in the process.

Today, I’m going to talk about the release of Khans of the Steppe and the feedback we’ve received from players, as well as how we’re addressing it. After that I’ll give a brief overview of how our development cycles work, what the hell Post-Release Support even is, and then cap it off with a quick look at what our next steps are as a studio.

I am a map gamer, so fair warning: There will be a good amount of graphs and charts in this dev diary.

State of Launch

As you may or may not be aware, Khans of the Steppe and the 1.16 “Chamfron” Update were released on April 28th, and the initial response was fairly positive both from a technical perspective and a player sentiment one. However, we quickly noticed a spike in crash reports and commentary from players confirming this. Setting our lovely QA team to work, we quickly identified two major contributors to instability in 1.16 and pushed hotfixes to tackle both of them.

These fixes have led to a significant reduction in crash rates, but we’re still seeing elevated levels, so we’re still working to identify and resolve the causes of these crashes.

View attachment 1302669
[Crash rate analytics since the release of Khans of the Steppe. The 1.16.0.2 hotfix (circled in red) made a big difference, but there’s still work to be done.]

While there was an immediate spike in negative reviews due to stability issues, the response at large to Khans of the Steppe was quite positive right out of the gate. When you spend months working on a specific project, it’s always an immense relief to see that it went well and players were having fun with the new content, so everyone at the studio was elated at the response!

Then the review score started dropping.

View attachment 1302670
[Steam reviews for Khans of the Steppe. You can see the ratio of positive to negative reviews shrinking over time; In the “biz”, this is considered a Bad Thing. While the amount of people who leave reviews are a sliver of a fraction of the greater playerbase, this is still a valuable source of information for us.]

With all of our releases, we do a series of internal reports on the state of things at predefined intervals. There’s a Day 0 report, Day 1, Day 7, etc. While the Day 0 and Day 1 reports were initially positive, by the end of the week it became clear that there were outstanding problems that took some time to reach a breaking point for players.

So, what were those problems? In order to figure that out, we have to do some basic analysis of the reviews themselves. To begin, I took every negative review on Steam and put them into a spreadsheet where they’re arranged, translated (we try to assess feedback from as many languages as we possibly can), and categorized based on what their main complaint is.
(This isn’t the only way we analyze feedback, but reviews are fairly easy to explain so they make ideal content for demonstrating the point in this dev diary.)

Once everything has been neatly categorized (a task I find immensely soothing, for the record), I can generate a quick chart showing which complaints are dominating the conversation. The main cause of stability complaints in the reviews were already addressed or being investigated, so we can skip that category and take a look at the next one in the list: Balancing.


View attachment 1302671
[Outside of stability issues, balancing concerns make up the majority of complaints about Khans of the Steppe.]

With my chart prepared, I can go to the design team and our Game Director to tell them “Players think the balancing is wonky, and here’s data to prove it.” From there, we can actually go through feedback to identify specific pain points and begin to address them in our first post-release support update (more on what that specific term means later).

If you’re only interested in what’s next for Khans of the Steppe, then I’ll summarize here and save you some time: We know that players have concerns with the DLC and we’re working to address as many of these concerns as we can within the time we have allotted for post-release support before anything else is pushed off to Realm Maintenance.

If you want to know more about how our communication pipeline from player to developer works, and how we act on what we hear from you, then read on! I intend to ramble for a bit longer.

Player Feedback

In order to properly explain how we turn comments on the internet into changelog entries, I first need to talk about how we collect and parse feedback from all of our supported platforms.

Pre-Release Feedback

Our handling of player feedback for Khans of the Steppe started quite a while back, before the announcement of Chapter 4 in fact. Our preview dev diary back in February was published so far ahead of the normal schedule specifically so that we could gather information about player desires and expectations regarding a Nomad-focused DLC. The feedback we received from that DD is directly responsible for a variety of changes that made it into the release version of Khans of the Steppe, such as expanding the new Nomadic government type to certain non-steppe regions.

Additionally, we run a persistent closed beta program of roughly 100 people from our community. This includes members of various high-profile mod teams, historians, members of the community with a history of sending detailed and actionable feedback, and a small pile of content creators. The point of this program is to get direct player feedback on upcoming content as early into the development process of an update as we can (For Khans of the Steppe, this began roughly a year ago). As development progresses, more of the design is solidified and becomes more difficult to change in response to feedback, so this program is considered vital to us.

Once the development version has progressed far enough that we’re able to announce it publicly, we begin a fresh dev diary cycle. These serve to inform the playerbase of what we’re working on while giving us a chance to get broader opinions and suggestions about the upcoming content. Our companion videos that are released on our YouTube channel are also helpful here, since viewer retention stats can inform us which sections within a given dev diary are of particular interest to viewers.

View attachment 1302672
[Retention graph for Dev Diary 166; the bump at the 11 minute mark shows that viewers were particularly interested in the “Blessings of the Blue Sky” segment]

Finally, in the last month or so before releasing Khans of the Steppe, we ran a separate preview group to get a final round of feedback. This is essentially a time-limited version of our persistent beta, and has a similar selection criteria for participation. During this stage, we essentially throw the flood gates open and pull in as many people as we think we can manage while maintaining some semblance of operational security. Mod team representation increases dramatically during this stage in order to give them a head start on compatibility patching their mods, and any content creator too slow to outrun our Influencer Relations Manager is also pulled into this time-limited program. Before you ask: Yes, that youtuber you’re thinking of is in this program. Yes, that one is too. Yes, them as well.

View attachment 1302673
[A snippet from the aforementioned preview group. Yes, we run this through Discord.]

The goal here is to make sure that the content we’re working on matches the expectations of our players as closely as possible ahead of release; the persistent beta program allows us to do this in broader strokes while the DLC is still taking shape, and the preview program allows us to catch more issues that would have slipped through the net (as well as giving us a head start on our first post-release support update).

Post-Release Feedback

That’s all well and good, but what do we do about feedback after something is released?

After a major release, gathering immediate feedback from players is crucial to ensure that any critical issues that made it through testing phases are swiftly handled, and that our post-release support cycle is focused on addressing player pain points with the new content. We actively collect this feedback from a wide variety of places; our own forums, Facebook, Steam, YouTube, Twitter, Reddit, Discord, QQ Guild, Bilibili, Tieba, among others. Essentially, if it’s posted on a publicly visible platform, odds are that we’re going to see it one way or another.

View attachment 1302674
[The pc-feedback channel on our official Discord server is one of several “primary” feedback channels we use. Voting systems make it easier to tell at a glance which posts are more important to the community there. Sadly, Reddit votes aren’t as useful for this purpose.]

To facilitate the collection of this amount of information, we have a set of Community Ambassadors (or “CAs”) who act as additional support for the bridge between our players and the development team.

One of the main responsibilities of our CAs revolves around collecting player sentiment and feedback, monitoring discussions, and identifying pressing issues that players report post-release. You’ve said it? They’ve probably read it. They help cast the net as far as possible to ensure no significant feedback slips through. After a major release drops, they immediately begin scouring for reactions then compile them into a detailed Day 1 post-release report for the studio.

View attachment 1302675
[A snippet from the Day 1 report for Khans of the Steppe. These initial reports are crucial for identifying standout issues that need to be handled as soon as possible]

They condense hundreds of discussion threads, suggestions, and reports into a more digestible format to quickly identify what the community finds most pressing. As you can see above, crashing was the most prevalent issue highlighted in the Day 1 report, while balance issues weren’t widely reported until after the Day 1 report period.

Feedback gathered this way is used to determine what the priorities of the development team should be during the post-release cycle, which finally brings us to the namesake of this dev diary…

Post-Release Support

Our studio is structured into various internal teams, with each one focusing on specific updates or expansions. We have a team for Khans of the Steppe, All Under Heaven, Coronations, and others we can’t discuss quite yet. Post-Release Support (PRS) is the final stage of development for a Major Update before the team assigned to that update is dissolved and its members moved to other teams within the studio.

The main objective of the PRS stage is to address any outstanding issue that may have slipped through the pre-development cycle. This includes fixing bugs, tweaking gameplay balances, and implementing various improvements or alterations to systems based on player feedback. The goal is to essentially “finalize” the DLC, but this doesn’t mean we cease work on the DLC outright. Any further updates or fixes that aren’t able to be implemented during the PRS stage go towards Realm Maintenance to be integrated into future updates rather than having their own dedicated release.

During a PRS stage, we step up our Quality Assurance (QA) efforts by bringing in additional specialists to assist with PRS. These specialists work closely with the development team to review bug reports and ensure that as many reported issues as possible are investigated, identified, and assigned to a member of the development team to be addressed. If you’re reporting bugs on our official forums during a PRS stage, these are the people replying to and tagging your posts.

View attachment 1302676
[As an aside, the tags are there to signal to other members of the team that a post has been looked at; this reduces the chances of us wasting time by going over threads that are already being handled.]

Another important aspect of the PRS stage is taking care of issues that were “locked out” of the initial release for one reason or another. Two of the main reasons this could happen are feature freeze and loc freeze. During feature freeze, no new mechanics can be added to a DLC; anything that needs to be tacked on after feature freeze must target a future update. Similarly, a loc freeze means that no new player-facing text can be added, as localization into all of our supported languages takes a significant amount of time; any content that requires new or updated text after localization freeze must be scheduled for a future update. While these freezes mean that our response to feedback can sometimes be delayed, they ultimately help ensure that updates actually release when they’re intended to.

In most cases, the aforementioned future update will be one of the “point releases” during PRS. Each PRS stage typically has time allocated for two or three of these updates, with the expectation that we’ll need them to tackle issues that cropped up after feature/loc freeze or issues reported by the community. Additionally, we allocate time for hotfixes as necessary to allow emergency updates.

View attachment 1302677
[It’s a bit messy to look at, but you can see here how certain commits by the development team are sent to different branches depending on their contents. We have a lot of internal development branches.]

Post-Release Support is an essential part of the development cycle in that it allows us to address player feedback as it’s submitted to us, but also to set the stage for future development by giving us a stronger idea of what players expect and want from the game.

Next Steps

So, what has the feedback we’ve gotten since Khans of the Steppe been about, and what do players want from the game?

Mainly, that the balancing is wonky and that our more dedicated players want the game to be harder. We’ve released Update 1.16.1 and 1.16.2 already to tackle the former, and I’ve been working directly with our Game Director to implement something to help us address the latter; this will take the form of Hard and Very Hard difficulty modes releasing alongside Update 1.16.2.1 sometime later this week.

View attachment 1302678
[Highly experimental! Mostly untested! Probably imbalanced! Try it out later this week and tell us what you think.]

As we’ve said in the past, we want difficulty and challenge to be something that arise organically from how our mechanics interact, and think that giving flat buffs to the AI or penalties to the player for arbitrary reasons isn’t an ideal solution. That said, our community has made it clear that we’re not meeting our objective, and doing something is better than doing nothing. So while we intend to continue pursuing our goal of emergent challenge in the long term, we’re introducing these new difficulties for players who want the game to be harder right now.

View attachment 1302679
[A small collection of some of the bonuses AI characters will receive in Hard/Very Hard difficulties.]

We’ve also heard quite a few people asking for a passive herd decay mechanic. To go ahead and rip the bandaid off: We’re not planning on implementing this. Put simply, the system wasn’t designed with this in mind and is instead built around discrete reductions. Too much of the game goes off the rails when it tries to deduct what doesn’t exist, and herd decay ultimately impacts AI rulers far more than it impacts players (compounding balance/difficulty concerns). With the PRS stage for Khans of the Steppe coming to an end, we don’t have the time or resources available to rework a core aspect of the DLC to this degree. Additional adjustments to this system are still possible in Realm Maintenance updates, but these are unlikely to fundamentally rework the system itself.

Aside from that, we’ve heard we still have bugs to squash! AI asking you for paizas should be significantly reduced in the next update, the steppe region map mode should be properly colored in again, etc etc etc. We’ll have a full changelog of what’s been fixed releasing alongside the update itself later this week.

After that, we’ll have a period of relative stability where mod authors can update their mods and players can finish a longer campaign without worrying about another update dropping and causing them grief. We’ll still be working on bugs and other issues that get reported (or already have been), but they’ll be packaged up alongside the release of our next piece of Chapter IV.



While this is far from a comprehensive overview of development cycles, post-release support, or even feedback loops, I hope this gives you a stronger understanding of how these systems work at a glance. I’m always happy to talk at length about damn near anything involving Studio Black (as anyone subjected to one of my rants on our Discord can attest), so if you have any specifics you’d like to know more about then feel free to drop a comment and I’ll answer them as best I can!

That’s all we have for this week, but be sure to come back next Tuesday; we’ll be talking about the design vision for a small piece of content we’re working on called All Under Heaven.
Whether it can increase the influence of weather on nomadic regime, in ancient East Asia, when nomadic regime showed strong aggression and aggressiveness, it was often that grasslands suffered serious disasters, and nomadic tribes would choose bloody looting of agricultural countries, while in the absence of serious meteorological disasters, nomadic tribes with little pressure to survive tended to prefer bloodless trade activities.Of course, I don't know whether nomadic tribes in Europe and Central Asia are like this. The reason why I put forward this opinion is because I feel that the weather system in the game is too weak for nomadic tribes
 
  • 8Like
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
That massive wall of text and long words about quality control.
And yet not a single mention of pillaging system.
So all of your testers(bot paid and beta)played nomads, and were like "Yeah, this is ok".
Not a single one of them said something to the effect of "I don't think clicking every single holding manually, then keeping it, and clicking it again years after, is a good idea".
 
  • 5
  • 5
Reactions:
While I agree that mechanical bonuses to the AI isn't an ideal solution for difficulty, having the option for it is still much better than not having the option. As someone who would like CK3 to be more challenging, I really appreciate the addition of harder difficulties.
 
  • 14Like
  • 2
Reactions:
That was an interesting read!
Can you share what you know, do other PDS teams / titles have similar process and staffing?
Are there PDS-level standards of QA, and metrics to check whether these standards are upheld?

An unrelated question: why does playerless simulation play so seemingly little role in QA? It looks like in Grand Strategy (where thorough regression testing can not possibly cover all bases) it would be worth it to run a thousand simulation and look at the share of games where certain facts happened (e.g. HRE formed), so that if some of the percentage is wonky (HRE forms only in 0.8% of runs; HRE forms in 99.7% or runs) you would know where to dig.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Couple suggestions for new difficulty levels:
  • Teach AI to detect situations when the player or other AI tries to matri-/patrilenally marry their kids to second, third, ..., nth heirs and then kill older heirs. AI should either reject such marriages or keep an eye on older children's safety. For example, this will make "A.E.I.O.U. and Me" achievement really hard to unlock. This ability should depend on AI's own, spouse's and council's intrigue skills and past experience.
  • Teach AI to trick players into such marriages.
  • I don't play normal games much after new schemes were released, mostly as overpowered character, but if murder events such as getting carpet or poisoned gold still exist (I saw a character having "Not feeling well" modifier yesterday) then they should be disguised as normal gift events, for example, a carpet given by Persian ruler can be absolutely harmless.
  • Changing faith should involve pilgrimages to new faith's holy sites before converting, raising questions. Imagine your Archbishop sending a letter to Pope with suspicions about your weird behavior.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
That massive wall of text and long words about quality control.
And yet not a single mention of pillaging system.
So all of your testers(bot paid and beta)played nomads, and were like "Yeah, this is ok".
Not a single one of them said something to the effect of "I don't think clicking every single holding manually, then keeping it, and clicking it again years after, is a good idea".
They probably done that so if a player lose their domain to nomads it doesnt get grazed right away
 
It's encouraging to see that difficulty concerns are being taken seriously with the new hard mode...but I do still think there are changes that can be made that would increase difficulty (mostly by hindering rapid player expansion) without needing to either introduce arbitrary AI bonuses or re-configure entire systems from the ground up. Eg:

- marriages only grant non-aggression pacts, not alliances; defensive alliances must be negotiated, and offensive alliances require hooks or quid-pro-quos.
- escalating opinion maluses with lieges and peer vassals accompanying a character's rise in status (maybe 'up-jumped count/duke/adventurer', 'jealousy', or something like that, which would be even more severe for ambitious/paranoid AIs, and possibly mitigated by the 'Administrator' trait).
- Relevant vassals can be called as allies in defensive wars.
- Pending a re-configuring of the MAA system or an update that enables the AI to station them effectively, allowing building bonuses to apply universally to AI MAA.
- Local lower-level office holders and unlanded imperial councilors/court position holders at the emperor's court/noble family heads are automatically placed in the line of succession for administrative governorships.
- making dread impact players by causing stress whenever you make your character act against someone they are afraid of.
- More nerfing of strategies that only players use, such as eugenic marriages, bringing in talented knights/courtiers through matrilineal marriages to existing courtiers, etc.
 
  • 19Like
  • 3
  • 2Love
  • 2
Reactions:
Any spoiler for you-know-what? It's just hard to wait until next Tuesday.
We'll give a brief overview of the major features and mechanics, but won't give any crunchy/detailed information on said mechanics until their own dedicated dev diaries.

An unrelated question: why does playerless simulation play so seemingly little role in QA? It looks like in Grand Strategy (where thorough regression testing can not possibly cover all bases) it would be worth it to run a thousand simulation and look at the share of games where certain facts happened (e.g. HRE formed), so that if some of the percentage is wonky (HRE forms only in 0.8% of runs; HRE forms in 99.7% or runs) you would know where to dig.
We do exactly that! We run overnight simulations on a regular basis during development and graph the data from them to help us approximate the likelihood of certain outcomes.

It's encouraging to see that difficulty concerns are being taken seriously with the new hard mode...but I do still think there are changes that can be made that would increase difficulty (mostly by hindering rapid player expansion) without needing to either introduce arbitrary AI bonuses or re-configure entire systems from the ground up. Eg:

- marriages only grant non-aggression pacts, not alliances; defensive alliances must be negotiated, and offensive alliances require hooks or quid-pro-quos.
- escalating opinion maluses with lieges and peer vassals accompanying a character's rise in status (maybe 'up-jumped count/duke/adventurer', 'jealousy', or something like that, which would be even more severe for ambitious/paranoid AIs, and possibly mitigated by the 'Administrator' trait).
- Relevant vassals can be called as allies in defensive wars.
- Pending a re-configuring of the MAA system or an update that enables the AI to station them effectively, allowing building bonuses to apply universally to AI MAA.
- Local lower-level office holders and unlanded imperial councilors/court position holders at the emperor's court/noble family heads are automatically placed in the line of succession for administrative governorships.
- making dread impact players by causing stress whenever you make your character act against someone they are afraid of.
- More nerfing of strategies that only players use, such as eugenic marriages, bringing in talented knights/courtiers through matrilineal marriages to existing courtiers, etc.
Broadly speaking, those are the kind of changes that are out of scope for a PRS update like the one being discussed here.

Only reason we were able to justify what we've done outside of the normal development cycle is because it's a self-contained gamerule and has minimal odds of messing things up in Unforeseen Ways. Regardless, it'll be a while before our QA team forgives me for my role in this going out during PRS.
 
  • 19
  • 8Like
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
Whether it can increase the influence of weather on nomadic regime, in ancient East Asia, when nomadic regime showed strong aggression and aggressiveness, it was often that grasslands suffered serious disasters, and nomadic tribes would choose bloody looting of agricultural countries, while in the absence of serious meteorological disasters, nomadic tribes with little pressure to survive tended to prefer bloodless trade activities.Of course, I don't know whether nomadic tribes in Europe and Central Asia are like this. The reason why I put forward this opinion is because I feel that the weather system in the game is too weak for nomadic tribes
We could get something like this with dynastic cycles in all under heaven tbh. Because as far as I know the nomads situation also had to do with the ruling chinese dynasty.

If the chinese dynasty is a native one and strong empire it in turn created a strong nomadic ruler to the north through expanded trade and gifts. If the chinese dynasty weakens and cannot provide trade or gifts the nomadic empire also weakens economically. When this happens the nomads descend from manchuria and become the ruling chinese dynasty through conquest. Because the dynasty is of nomadic origin it continues to fight and dissolve the remaining nomads. After some generations the chinese rise up and remove the nomadic-origin dynasty. The native empire again becomes strong and establishes diplomatic relations with the nomads creating a stable nomadic empire. Until the dynasty weakens...

Idk how exactly accurate it is historically but it's a theory that the 2500 year chinese history has this cycle of interaction with the nomads. Theres a book on it called The Perilous Frontier. Just sounded pretty similar to the dynastic cycle mechanic they talked about in the chapter 4 reveal
 
  • 1
Reactions:
We'll give a brief overview of the major features and mechanics, but won't give any crunchy/detailed information on said mechanics until their own dedicated dev diaries.


We do exactly that! We run overnight simulations on a regular basis during development and graph the data from them to help us approximate the likelihood of certain outcomes.


Broadly speaking, those are the kind of changes that are out of scope for a PRS update like the one being discussed here.

Only reason we were able to justify what we've done outside of the normal development cycle is because it's a self-contained gamerule and has minimal odds of messing things up in Unforeseen Ways. Regardless, it'll be a while before our QA team forgives me for my role in this going out during PRS.

Cool, thanks for the feedback!
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
I was really expecting to get information on the turks and magyars. It even appears on the chart!
Decisions and flavour not working or fitting properly, lack of general content, taltoism not being a steppe religion...
Any thoughts or plans?
Thanks!
 
Last edited:
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
It seems like a good process, thanks for sharing the details of it.

Could you clarify whether Realm Maintenance is a permanent team or an occasional development period?

There seems to be some confusion about that and I would like to be able to point people to a statement clarifying that.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Also wondering whether an equivalent of 'obfusckate' mod could be integrated as an optional game rule (and/or part of higher difficulty levels).

A lot of us don't want to play without it and have to wait for the mod to update before being able to play on a new version of the game properly...
 
  • 8Like
  • 1
Reactions:
And other suggestion. Instead of "Hard" and "Very Hard" levels make two rule categories (after you reorganize the rule window of course):

"Roleplay" section with rules like:
  • Hide (or Show) event results. Options: Yes | No
  • Hide (or Show) character info. Options: All | Unknown | None
  • Hide (or Show) portraits of unknown characters. Options: Yes | No
  • (EDIT) Or better than above: Portrait type of unknown characters. Options: Normal (Full 3D) | Painting (Using legends shader) | No portrait
  • Remove Medieval matching app (all marriages only using portraits, by visiting or blindly, depending on culture or faith). Options: Yes | No
  • Hide (or Show) factions (should not affect Spy mechanic). Options: All | Small (or Big) | None
  • Hide (or Show) faction members (should not affect Spy mechanic). Options: All | With High (or Low) Intrigue | None
  • etc.
"AI Buff/Player Debuff" section with rules which simply change numbers.
 
Last edited:
  • 9
  • 6Like
  • 2
Reactions:
Not being able to reduce herd size massively seems like an issue in core game design that wasn't pointed out by people early enough. It's a shame the mechanic won't be redesigned.
 
  • 11
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Mostly agree with comments in this DD about what the game needs to be more difficult but i have to add what would made the game more engaging for me. Just repeating some suggestions from myself but again :

• Hide information/resources from player about other AI or other players (Hide their gold, influence, herd, army numbers, relationships unless spied/schemed or having a relationship with them).

• More historical invasions like for example : Knut (North Sea Empire) or others…

• Micromanage wars day by day with mechanics like “traps” or “climate” during battles.

• Adding complex mechanics like Banking (Something like from AGOT maybe) or trade if it is made in the future, so that players have bigger challenges in specific mechanics of the game.

• Adding a slavery mechanic so that players get more punished with its unique mechanics, mainly if they are landless.

• Adding traits or reworking existing ones that forces the player to focus in other mechanics of the game rather then just conquering everything and painting the map. But first some mechanics really needs to get more deep seriously.

• Use the lack of knowledge or hability of the player against them, like for example : if you are landless and you don’t know the language of other culture or you don’t have something like a “translator” when you accept contracts of another part of the world, make the contract be in that different cultures language so that the player has to learn the language in real life or in the game, or hire a “translator” in game…

• Tie gold/prestige/army/herd/influence and etc together and make it so losing one affects the other. Make it so losing your soldiers/army really hurts the player, not just hire or wait the numbers recover like nothing happened.

For now i can think of only that. But i think the game is going to the right way.

My honest opinion is that it is better when you use the players individual limit of information or hability against them then just buffing or nerfing the AI, tho i don’t dislike that, i think people adapt more easily to external challenges then internal ones specially through repetitive action it is only a matter of time until players find the weaknesses in “hard” or “very hard” mode.

Anyway, good work.
 
Last edited:
  • 3Like
  • 3
  • 1
Reactions: