• 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:
-The AI doesn’t build based on its economic archetype. If it’s militaristic, then it should focus on fortifications and military buildings.
The problem is that AI just generally doesnt build enough. Builder is the only archetype that really builds stuff (and even then, not enough imo) and it obviously specs into economy. The problem with that is, since other archetypes generally build less, most of buildings AI builds are economy and they just run out of space to put any military buildings down. Forts are fine due to insane weighting on them (x5 if capital with <3 free buildings slots, another x5 if there's < 3 free buildings slots, another x5 if there's < 2 free building slots).
 
That said, our community has made it clear that we’re not meeting our objective
Probably because you are still trying to balance a single game mode, normal difficulty, around both new and experienced players - which you cannot do. A level of challenge that is satisfying for experienced players is probably going to be incredibly frustrating for new players. The game is going to need a "hard" mode, no matter how you want to go about it, because you can't properly balance the game effectively for both new and experienced players on a single difficulty. It why pretty much every game has different mode for players at different skill levels.

Also, any chance of actually doing anything about modifier stacking, which was mentioned as an issue needing to be addressed all the way back in the floor plan almost three years ago(!), or is that never going to be fixed?
 
  • 6Like
  • 4
  • 1
Reactions:
As mod maker that has been maintaining over 50 mods and still making new ones since the game released i would love beta access so i dont have to spend 24 hours straight updating my mods on release day. been asking for beta testing position for the past years so far no luck. If only someone from the beta team would invite me in. Check my workshop https://steamcommunity.com/id/FunGaming44/myworkshopfiles/?appid=1158310 so you can see for yourselfs
 
  • 6Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Also, any chance of actually doing anything about modifier stacking, which was mentioned as an issue needing to be addressed all the way back in the floor plan almost three years ago(!), or is that never going to be fixed?
This, this, this. We've been complaining about modifier stacking and snowballing for years, but each DLC we get more and more and it seems like we're continually moving further away from where we were told it was going. Modifiers are a problem because they're an easy, universal non-mechanical way for the game to do "something" to the player, but IMO that's led to an over-reliance on them instead of focusing on improving systems: diplomacy, character traits being impactful, vassal/faction management (I'm still amazed all these years in we don't have a basic "change realm law" faction functionality).

The next realm maintenance pass absolutely needs to look at paring and consolidating modifiers, or at least introducing some form of cap on effectiveness/addition, otherwise I feel like each new expansion is just going to make the problem even more unweildly and unsolvable if modifiers are continued to use as a substitute for actual mechanics.
 
  • 8
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Very excited for the new difficulties. I think for hard/very hard it should definitely lean on nerfing player cheese rather than giving AI cheats. After all it's not the AI going from count to emperor of mankind in a single lifetime.

Honestly I think the biggest culprit is alliances. While the changes limiting the numbers are a start, I would also recommend limiting them to equal ranks. It's too powerful and cheesy to be able to make an alliance one tier above you and then wield them like a hammer to upjump yourself with little to no planning required.

Still overall good progress!
 
  • 5Like
Reactions:
This was a really interesting read, especially for someone on the team of a major mod. We also try to gather player feedback and have to balance with post-release changes & further polishing vs our own desire to work on new content.

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.
But also I'm in this picture, and I don't like it.
 
  • 1Love
Reactions:
As mod maker that has been maintaining over 50 mods and still making new ones since the game released i would love beta access so i dont have to spend 24 hours straight updating my mods on release day. been asking for beta testing position for the past years so far no luck. If only someone from the beta team would invite me in. Check my workshop https://steamcommunity.com/id/FunGaming44/myworkshopfiles/?appid=1158310 so you can see for yourselfs
Ideally all Modders should be given beta access. I've seen some Mods take almost two weeks to update after major updates. And, on occasion, when multiple update occur over the span of one month, they have been known to take over a month to completely update.

Beta Access would make things easier for both Modders, and the players who use those Mods...
 
  • 2Like
  • 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.

Have you all considered integrating a system similar to ObfusCKate mod into the main game or into the game settings? Having the stats of different characters obscured depending on your realm knowledge and spycraft could add an immense amount of difficulty and immersion into the game. It also prevents players from wife shopping too much and makes running a eugenics breeding operation much more difficult.
 
  • 8Like
  • 1Love
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
I want to push a cheeky question, since its a small yet relatively sizable minority of concern will you actually address the turkic content portion?
 
  • 3Like
  • 1
Reactions:
In the upcoming update I hope the following things are also fixed that i been telling you guys for the past weeks now

AI not starting legends


eunuch court position you can still hire anyone no matter if they are a eunuch or not, you guys need to put back

OR = {
has_trait = eunuch_1
has_trait = beardless_eunuch
}

in the 00_court_positions.txt file as a requirement

same file needs a fix for the lady in waiting why can we hire men for the position, put back in

is_shown_character = {
scope:employee = {
is_imprisoned = no
is_female = yes
}
}
 
  • 4Like
  • 3
  • 1
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 dificulty 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)

also need to reduce diplomatic radius.
 
  • 8Like
  • 2
  • 1Love
Reactions:
I would also recommend limiting them to equal ranks. It's too powerful and cheesy to be able to make an alliance one tier above you
  • Unless a ruler of the rank above is your liege. Isn't it normal for powerful duke to expect a marriage of his child and king's child?
  • Unless you are powerful enough for a ruler of the rank above to consider you a powerful ally.

Probably there were even cases of counts marrying king's children.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
>wake up
>no Herd Decay
>day ruined

Hard Mode might be an interesting bandaid for the game, at least. Thank you for being open to suggestions.

...but I still have a question about Herd Decay: did you think about it during development but dropped it due to how the game would go "off the rails", or did you not even think of it at first and only now realized you can't change course without dedicating massive resources to solve the related issues?
 
Last edited:
  • 6Like
  • 2
Reactions:
Thank goodness you put your foot down on the herd decay mechanic. Now maybe the armchair devs will move onto something else.
I think the difficulty can be solved simply with some sort of aggressive expansion or infamy mechanic.
Because everyone loved defensive pacts in CK2. Nothing like the Pope and the Abbasids joining together in their hatred of Ireland.
Probably because you are still trying to balance a single game mode, normal difficulty, around both new and experienced players - which you cannot do. A level of challenge that is satisfying for experienced players is probably going to be incredibly frustrating for new players. The game is going to need a "hard" mode, no matter how you want to go about it, because you can't properly balance the game effectively for both new and experienced players on a single difficulty. It why pretty much every game has different mode for players at different skill levels.

Also, any chance of actually doing anything about modifier stacking, which was mentioned as an issue needing to be addressed all the way back in the floor plan almost three years ago(!), or is that never going to be fixed?
The way I see it, giving the AI a bunch of mathematical bonuses can be seen as a direct counter to modifier stacking. It's not perfect by any means, nor will it address all issues, but if one major problem is that the player is better at the AI at stacking various modifiers which give them bigger numbers, then making sure the AI has bigger numbers by default at least keeps them more competitive.

I say "more competitive" because, really, the AI never going to be able to plan and strategize and squeeze the game mechanics like the player can. I don't think there's a good solution here that satisfies everyone. But I can appreciate the attempt, at least, and I think it will have an overall positive impact for those who actually bother to change their difficulty to hard/very hard.
 
  • 6
  • 4
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Thank goodness you put your foot down on the herd decay mechanic. Now maybe the armchair devs will move onto something else.
"Armchair devs"? Idk about others, i modded it as soon as i heard the idea and i and didnt see any major issues arise from that. Granted, i can only playtest it so much as one person, but there're plenty of AIs in the steppe and they weren't dead by any means...
 
  • 4
  • 2
  • 1Like
Reactions:
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.
Just now I saw Louis 'The Younger's daughter Ermengarde being in patrilineal marriage and doing nothing to prevent another dynasty inheriting her duchy of Provence. She already has two kids of another dynasty and is pregnant with a third child. Apparently, Louis thought that her little brother will live long enough to make more Karlings but he died from measles at age 4. Louis himself died from measles three months later.
 
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.

At some point- maybe before the next Coronations DLC- would you consider a dev diary that 'walks through' how a feedback gets incorporated into the game?

And possible includes you providing recommendations to the readers on how to make (format and frame) a good/actionable feedback that can lead to a fix from a (hypothetical) ungood/unactionable feedback that can't really be acted upon?

Part of this is inviting you to encourage common format style, so that your team can receive the feedback style better for capture / organization, and explaining *why* the feedback style is good.

For example-

Issue: [Description]

being less good than

Issue:
[Description]

...because [Description] is easier to copy, paste, and organize in a compilation if it doesn't include the line header (and thus effort to remove "Issue:" from every iteration).



The other part is tracing how a good example is able to work through the system, particularly in why the reasons it is good- clear, discrete, reasonable in scope, potential mitigation identified- helps it goes through.


On one hand, I imagine it'd be interesting for the community to see how the sausage is made, so to speak. Take a good news story of someone's success story, and walk it through the process.

On the other hand, you could help the community help you by helping provide better-structured feedback. Totally useless, I'm sure.

On the meta-mutant third hand, it'd give you all an excuse dev diary anywhere you want to farm that sweet, sweet engagement without bugging the coders too much.

Cheers, and enjoyed the post.
 
Last edited:
  • 3Like
  • 1
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.

For a longer term suggestion / recommendation for future consideration- what about having higher-threat (intrigue + wealth) schemers 'co-opt' / takeover hostile schemes someone else is pursuing?

One of the reasons that the current cap on AI scheming against the player creates is that the AI that *does* start the scheme is too low, and so they are both slow and unlikely to succeed, 'occupying' the slot of who could act.

Rather than simply expanding the number of plots the player, making the current plot-holder 'give up' their slot would be another option. Say run some sort of comparison of 'how long would it take / how effective would it be' comparison between the two parties, and give AI with substantial advantages in intrigue / accomplices the slot.

This could even be signaled to the player in a way to build tension. Since the early release, the 'someone is trying to murder you' events (here is a rug) just let you know there is someone out to get you, letting the player prepare otherwise. A 'some nebulous threat has been displaced' event could do something similar- either implying that a plot has stopped, or that it's been replaced by something more dangerous.

Kind of like the ominous foreshadowing events in the harm system, which may or may not lead to anything. Except here, it implies either the threat is gone... or getting worse.
 
  • 3Like
  • 1
Reactions:
@PDX-Trinexx , bummed to hear about no change to the Herd mechanic but thank you for being up front. I would hope that, even if the dev team doesn't have the resources to change it now, they realize why we're unhappy with it and keep it in mind when designing future mechanics. For me at least, the Herd mechanic and theme don't match well enough. It feels like a mana bar with a Herd label on it. I understand needing to deviate from a faithful simulation a little bit to find the fun, but... for Paradox games, a faithful simulation is a huge part of the fun and appeal.
 
  • 5Like
Reactions: