• 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:
We have a variety of changes that weren't shown in the DD image for these difficulties, but I do want to temper expectations: This is not a silver bullet for the difficulty complaints players are posting, and we don't consider it a long-term solution to that problem. We'll need to iterate and refine this over time, and we're still looking for ways to increase the fundamental challenge of the game without leaning on AI "cheats" like these.
Im pretty sure you saw me posting this a lot of times already, but messing with building and MAA scores could yeild a lot of results without fundamentally changing the AI. Right now AI fails to even build military buildings, and in the miraculous situations where it has some they have no impact at all on how they choose MAAs.

and also AI should really stop trying to hire every MAA type in the game and focus on one or two "core" types, countering works against the first case and unless you are planning to revamp it soon-ish it would be better to just make AI build more monolithic armies.
 
  • 14Like
  • 8
Reactions:
Difficulties based on AI cheat is really the worst idea ever, I know it's really popular because it's the easiest way to do it.

Already posted it elsewhere, but here some ideas to increase dificulties without AI cheats :

- increase odds for death/injuries, don't let almost all events with a good/safe option. The main issue is that currently all bad events have a safe option. Sometime you have to accept your fate
- reduce powercreep features almost only used by player, or teach the AI to use it properly
- Limit alliances from mariage : It's way to easy to have strong alliance with mariage. Mariage needs a rework. The AI should seek for strong alliance mariage instead of almost totaly based on prestige gain
- Set threshold for opinion ( exemple : a rival can't go above 0 opinion ) It has always trigger me that you can have rivals with 100 opinion of you. Currently we can't mod the max opinion, it's a flat global value. Opinion max (or min) should not be the same for everyone, but should be conditioned on diferent factors (traits/relation/culture/etc...)





The main problem with the herd mechanic, is that it's designed as gold as it should be designed as levies

Here my solution to the problem :

Each county shoud be able to substaint a max amount of herd (depending on fertility/season/etc...) meaning if you have only 1 county you could only have that maximum herd.

Herd comming from your vassal/tributary are taken as % of they own herd (coming from their max county possibility)

you still need to grow your herd to the maximum of the county can handle with the fertility (max is the equilibirum in fertility)

currently everything is calculted arround the herd gain, while it should be calculated on the current/max herd (like levies)
every time i play with more options to randomly die i dont enjoy my experience in this game tho, so while its true that more death = harder game, it also is just so unfun to me that it makes me not want to play with those options at all.
 
  • 10Like
  • 6
  • 1
Reactions:
We have a variety of changes that weren't shown in the DD image for these difficulties, but I do want to temper expectations: This is not a silver bullet for the difficulty complaints players are posting, and we don't consider it a long-term solution to that problem. We'll need to iterate and refine this over time, and we're still looking for ways to increase the fundamental challenge of the game without leaning on AI "cheats" like these.

Trinexx, Master of Expectation Management.
 
  • 4Like
Reactions:
I really don't understand the approach to difficulty in this game.
On the one hand, the standing philosophy has been to not want one-off solutions and instead work with emerging - assumedly systemic - difficulty. but then whenever new content comes out, there never is any systemic difficulty present.
Landless and Nomads basically have no stakes, landless moreso of course as they literally have no stakes that could lead to loss barring your entire line simply dying).

And, as a consequence, we get non-systemic difficulty as bandaids. This was true for the random death events, it's effectively true for great conquerors and it's true for this rule as well.

Can we just admit that a focus on sytemic difficulty isn't happening?

I think there are a number of deeper problems affecting this:



1. All modifiers and systems scale linearly, and most systems affect gold and opinion.
This means that each new system that is introduced allows us to 'solve' opinion and gold problems, and the more systems are added the easier it becomes. Systems that harm opinion / gold income can be mitigated. ("Yes I killed your brother, but my court is fancy and look at my Yurt upgrades - you now love me non-the-less)

This can be solved by having things scale on a logistic graph. (Aka, diminishing returns the higher you go) - but this may be an engine issue. Its such a large rewrite that its probably more for CK4


2. Many systems are designed to be 'solved' and can be ignored once this is done.
The ease of solving them becomes easier the more systems are added, as per point 1. What do I mean?

- Negative opinion? Take the actions to increase it, its now no longer an issue.
- Court fancyness too low? Move the sliders. Its now solved.
- Lack of gold? After 40 years of estate/domain upgrades its now solved.
- Low legitimacy? Trigger a few activities. Issue resolved.

I understand how you arrive here from a game design perspective, but things would be much more interesting if they would linger and be things you'd have to deal with for the course of the live of that character. It gives the characters personality (emphasizing the role-play of ck3, which I think is its strength)


3. The game is not interested in international diplomacy.
The fact that a bug where the AI did not use many CB's existed for so long points to this. It used to be very rare for the AI to declare war on you. Its extremely easy to secure alliances by marriages. Thus solving any thread. The AI also does not respond to rising powers. Confederations were added in the last expansion, but not for feudal realms, which I do not understand.
 
  • 17
  • 13Like
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
Making the game harder isn’t the issue. Making the game engaging is. The issue isn’t that the AI needs buffs, the issue is the AI doesn’t do anything meaningful in the first place.

It’s very discouraging to see the solution appears to be “hard mode” after all the extensive discussions that are had outlining the problem on this forum.

All this accomplishes is making a game with little in the way of emergent storytelling harder (read: more micro-intensive) without making it any more interesting.

The problem isn’t that the game is easy. The problem is all the characters are cardboard cutouts who don’t have any agency - they are acted upon, they do not act.

Between the Conquerer system and now these “hard mode” buffs it really comes off as you not understanding the core issue with the game. It’s not that it’s easy - it’s that it’s boring. All you accomplish by making it “harder” in this way is make it more micro-intense in addition to being boring.
To follow up on this, let me give an example in Victoria 3. I’m playing Mexico, and the USA wants to seize California from me, and since they are stronger I really don’t want war with them. I get the backing of a European power so that if they do attack I’ll have backup, and so things settle into a stable tension. But after several years I get a little too aggressive in expanding influence in Central America, and suddenly the US is joining El Salvador to defend them from me. Because I’m not being attacked, my defensive pact with France won’t hold. Oh, and the USA will demand California as war reparations if they win.

In this moment, I have been outplayed by the USA. They had a plan, they waited for the right time, and they responded to my mistake. It’s clear why and how we ended up here. I understand my enemy. I understand what they want, and how they intend to get it. I know who they are.

What I can’t understand is why CK3, a game entirely about characters, never gives me anything that feels like this. I never feel like I’m witnessing one of their plans come together. I never even feel like they’re planning. They just…exist. How is it that countries in Vic 3 are able to have more character than the actual characters with extensive personality traits, skills, and relationships in CK3? Why do have to play Vic 3 tiptoeing around Great Britain making sure not to do anything they could make them my enemy, but I don’t have to think twice about seducing the wife of the leader of the HRE in CK3, or killing off my brothers kids?
 
Last edited:
  • 40Like
  • 7
  • 2
Reactions:
Between the Conquerer system and now these “hard mode” buffs it really comes off as you not understanding the core issue with the game. It’s not that it’s easy - it’s that it’s boring. All you accomplish by making it “harder” in this way is make it more micro-intense in addition to being boring.

I agree but at the same this is literally what big chuncks of the community have directly asked. It is also not a solustion that the designers seem best pleased with based on this wording: "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."

- increase odds for death/injuries, don't let almost all events with a good/safe option. The main issue is that currently all bad events have a safe option. Sometime you shoudl ahve to accept tour fate
I think this sounds good in theory but would suck in game we already had the updated that introduced more random death and it was so hated they basically patched it out. DIseases are also the least popular feature according to the community and are very consistently talked about as annoying and not fun. For my money though this is the thing keeping someone alive for a long time is too easy currently but I think that is more of a question of subtle balance than large scale changes.
 
  • 7Like
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
Here are some potential buffs for hard/very hard AI:
- Small court grandeur bonus
- Slightly improved results from councilor tasks and their efficiency
- Slightly increased chance to fabricate claim on entire duchy instead of a county
- Slight discount on man at arms recruitment but dont give them a maintenance or power bonus there
- Remove the gamerule for AI ship embarkment cost and make that part of the difficulty since you just did that anyway
- Increase the amount of murder plots from or against claimants
- Find a way to make admin realms less hilariously easy, maybe feudal/tribal vassals under an admin realm should be far more hostile.
- Remove the huge penalty to count AI's chances of declearing war, I don't even know why this exists in the game files
 
  • 11Like
  • 2
Reactions:
I will continue on the slight momentum regarding AI. The fact that being able to automate our army is quite nice, but it still suffers from a few issues.


I think more options to choose whether the army can take boats or not would be good because I've too often seen my army take a boat to land a few counties away, thus draining our treasury for nothing since they could cross by land without any problems, especially when enemy territories were already occupied.


Next, being able to choose if we prefer an offensive or defensive army would be good because I've lost wars when enemies took my capital while my army was besieging a castle a few counties away and wasn't prioritizing saving my domain.


And the last point, in case of multiple wars, being able to focus the AI on one war at a time could also be beneficial. Because when you have a war against a land neighbor and another declares war but is on an island, it's annoying to have the army take a castle from one, then take a boat to go to the islands to take a castle, and come back to the continent to resume the fight with the first one. The treasury doesn't really like that.
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:
Making the game harder isn’t the issue. Making the game engaging is. The issue isn’t that the AI needs buffs, the issue is the AI doesn’t do anything meaningful in the first place.

It’s very discouraging to see the solution appears to be “hard mode” after all the extensive discussions that are had outlining the problem on this forum.

All this accomplishes is making a game with little in the way of emergent storytelling harder (read: more micro-intensive) without making it any more interesting.

The problem isn’t that the game is easy. The problem is all the characters are cardboard cutouts who don’t have any agency - they are acted upon, they do not act.

Between the Conquerer system and now these “hard mode” buffs it really comes off as you not understanding the core issue with the game. It’s not that it’s easy - it’s that it’s boring. All you accomplish by making it “harder” in this way is make it more micro-intense in addition to being boring.
i think these are separate conversations, the game could use more engagement but also more difficulty


having to use more than one brain cell to play this game is always welcome, no anymore do you have to just shut off your brain and dominate the world after snowballing to godhood in a few decades
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Heavier penalties to arranging marriages based on number of existing alliances

Im worried about this part.
It's already quite annoying when Im for example an Emperor and have to marry my children to low nobility because of this "number of alliances" penalty.

I usually can't roleplay a policy of marrying my children only to royal families or other imperial families beouse of alliance penalty.


The best solution to this problem would be if marriages worked like in Ck2. They should give no effect on their own other than unlocking a diplomatic action to sign non agression pact and alliance.

This way a penalty could be applied not to marrying but to turning marriage ties into alliances.

For me it's a big problem because it severely breaks immersion when I as a prestigious ruler have to basically marry morganatically because of existing alliances penalty.
 
  • 23
  • 7Like
  • 1
Reactions:
I beg of you to remove the feudalization block from tribes of the north, it is neither fun nor historical, and it has inconsistent implementation since nomads can still feudalize through other decisions while tribals cannot.
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:
I'm going to copy and paste what I posted few minutes ago in a different thread because it seems we're discussing these things here

The announced hard/very hard settings don't tackle what makes the game easy and some of the changes don't affect competent players at all:

1) AI vassals are much more likely to raise up in tyranny wars
2) Player has a harder time retracting vassals
3) Player has a harder time revoking titles
4) Factions

1 and 3 - don't change much of anything for competent players, vast majority of the time I revoke a title I want a rebellion to get rid of vassals or fix border gore. Only possible scenario that would make it harder is for players that are not that competent and use cbs that give them vassals instead of land. They might want the land or get rid of vassals from wrong culture/faith then again, a competent player won't have them in the first place using a different cb. So in short it tackles a situation that it's not a problem of the target audience for very hard.

2 - it's more an annoy OCD people that anything else, it doesnt make the game harder to not have clean borders internally. Duke A has 3 counties that he shouldn't have? Game won't be harder, it will annoy me at the most.

4 - factions won't be a problem for competent players ever, opinion modifiers and temporary opinion from activities are far too easy to get and on top of that AI it's weak and can be crushed even if they fire. worst part of a civil war is go vassal by vassal in jail revoking their titles not crush them.

Things that can be good:

1) Penalties for knights (I hope this is an effectiveness cap and not something silly like your knights have -400% effectiveness)
2) AI pays less for activities
3) AI has easier time revoking/retracting

Things that are core part of "the game it's too easy" that are not tackled:

1) AI build poorly and not frequent enough - which causes an income gap compared to players as the game goes by. not enough money and they can't recruit enough MaA to be a threat.

2) Drain gold events make AI poor - they're a terrible design and should not exist but as it's at the very least they shouldn't fire to AI.

3) Buffs from MaA stationing - no cap/nerf here? so my 2k heavy cav still gonna murder 50k armies?

4) AI struggle super hard to have claims - have you seen 1066 HRE declaring war on France for 1 county? They do it almost every run, makes any sense to you? So idk, a duchy conquest cb for neighboors or something that allows them to declare wars would be nice.

5) overall balances that should be applied to the game independently of difficulty? like seafarer nerf? buildings balance or just remove all the crap ones? landless, admin, steppe balances? because you can add all very hard settings but if something it's beyond broken hard/very hard mode it's a waste of development time and worth only to flex.

I conquered the world in very hard mode! I played Temujin or I started as a landless character then swore fealty to Byzantines. Yeah boy, very hard indeed my imaginary cat friend can do that.
 
  • 7Like
  • 3
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
Remedying the lack of herd decay
  • Increase the success chance of stealing herd from characters over their herd limit
  • Plague events that kill off herd when not already low (so above 20% of limit)
  • Random migrations taking away your herd and leaving for better pastures if you have low legitimacy and you are either experiencing a plague, over your herd limit or low on fertility
  • Urge the AI to spend their herd when close to limit or when low on fertility
  • Reduce gold gained from herd when above herd limit
 
  • 14Like
  • 2
Reactions:
I believe that's set as a define and not something we can selectively edit based on game rules, buuuut I can see about bullying someone into changing that. Maybe. No promises.
Yes, please do it. Some players would really enjoy this game rule.

Losing is fun if this situation is accompanied by a good story that is generated organically. Being able to be killed by the AI (BTW, this has never happened to me) would be incredibly fun and would generate a desire for revenge and to continue the campaign. Precisely, the lack of difficulty (or rather depth) is what makes it boring to roleplay a CK3 campaign, which is a shame because the game is great and has a lot of potential.
 
  • 10Like
  • 3
Reactions:
My biggest thing with AI is their aggression. I’d like them to be more aggressive with both their conquests and their schemes.

If they think they can beat me in war they should try and if they think they can’t they should try and murder me.