• 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:
To increase the difficulty, you could also hide information from players like obfusCKate - Hidden Information mod. This would make the game more challenging without giving bonuses to the AI or penalties to the player, while also increasing realism :)
 
  • 10Like
  • 3
  • 2
  • 1Love
Reactions:
To increase the difficulty, you could also hide information from players like obfusCKate - Hidden Information mod. This would make the game more challenging without giving bonuses to the AI or penalties to the player, while also increasing realism :)

PDX actually responded to a poster about that on Reddit. The crux was that the mod metrics they use don't show it being played much / enough.

I think there's an argument to be made that this can be undercut by mod compatibility issues- obfusCKate is often outdated and not compatible with some other popular mods, and does some not-fun things.

At the very least, I imagine that aspects of obfusCKate could be relativley easily adopted- things like the skill letters instead of skill numbers, hiding eugenics traits until adulthood, and using probability language instead of exact statistics.
 
  • 9Like
Reactions:
In my opinion, the stacking of positive opinion modifiers is the biggest balance concern outside of MAA being dramatically OP.

Right now, as the King of Burgundy, literally every single subject and courtier of mine has an opinion on me of 100, the exact same as my Soulmate best friend wife of 40 years. It means nobody ever takes any hostile action whatsoever, and everything becomes a ball of undifferentiated slop. There needs to be an across the board slashing of all positive opinion modifiers, and certain negative ones need to be dramatically worsened, like tyranny, murdering high profile figures, murdering or harming family and friends. Like, why does my nemesis have a positive opinion of me? Give him a -1000 opinion malus. Let dishonourable characters completely ignore opinion when evaluating their course of action. Just let people hate you and fuck with you!

There needs to be a lower opinion cap if nothing else, which gets raised by special relations. Say, default is +25, a basic relation like marriage or being a courtier is +50, a special relation like a friend or lover is +75, and a unique relation like soulmate is +100. People should not love you like your devoted wife of decades because you throw great parties sometimes.

It's so frustrating watching the game just kneecap any and all difficulty that exists for seemingly no reason. And I know it's for no reason, because I use mods and made edits myself to do something similar to what I asked for above (minus the relation cap) and the game is so much more enjoyable.
 
  • 11
  • 4Like
Reactions:
In my opinion, the stacking of positive opinion modifiers is the biggest balance concern outside of MAA being dramatically OP.

Right now, as the King of Burgundy, literally every single subject and courtier of mine has an opinion on me of 100, the exact same as my Soulmate best friend wife of 40 years. It means nobody ever takes any hostile action whatsoever, and everything becomes a ball of undifferentiated slop. There needs to be an across the board slashing of all positive opinion modifiers, and certain negative ones need to be dramatically worsened, like tyranny, murdering high profile figures, murdering or harming family and friends. Like, why does my nemesis have a positive opinion of me? Give him a -1000 opinion malus. Let dishonourable characters completely ignore opinion when evaluating their course of action. Just let people hate you and fuck with you!

There needs to be a lower opinion cap if nothing else, which gets raised by special relations. Say, default is +25, a basic relation like marriage or being a courtier is +50, a special relation like a friend or lover is +75, and a unique relation like soulmate is +100. People should not love you like your devoted wife of decades because you throw great parties sometimes.

It's so frustrating watching the game just kneecap any and all difficulty that exists for seemingly no reason. And I know it's for no reason, because I use mods and made edits myself to do something similar to what I asked for above (minus the relation cap) and the game is so much more enjoyable.
It was always weird to see how you can execute character's entire family and still have +100 opinion. For unlawful execution of loved ones there should be -1000 opinion and -1000000 for massacre so that we can't make it positive with gifts and lands. Just characters should not have such huge modifiers for lawful executions though. And removing someone's rival should make them happy.
 
  • 3Like
Reactions:
I'm going to shoot my shot and say how I hate that diplomatic range does not impact conveyed info. An Irish count should not be able to know what some courtier in Pagan's Stewardship is. There really should be a "fog of war" that prevents you from knowing what's going on far away. At the very least, their numeric values (Opinion, stats etc) should use Obfusckate's letter-tiers for faraway characters.
 
  • 10
  • 2Like
Reactions:
Strongly agree with other posters that the Hard/Very Hard stuff should take more into account what players in need of challenge abuse, and that some buffs/nerfs are unnecessary annoyances that don't really add to challenge because they address . Simply adding in a harsh diplomatic range and a stationed penalty would have done probably more than all of these combined by cutting down on strats where the player can effectively trivialize most problems through untouchable firepower and accessing suitable breeding partners from a solid third of the map even as the middling Count of Buck Nowhere.
And please, reconsider ObfusCKate - of course a Mod that deals in difficulty will have lower numbers; only a fraction of the players that 'graduate', so to speak, move on to it when there's so many alternatives such as different runs, total conversions that also cater to most other players, or simple annoyance that one must seek challenge elsewhere because the Devs apparently struggle with providing it. Simply porting it over as 'true hard mode' would be harder than the modes outlined in the comments, but also more flavorful and force the game to engage with more game systems, which has always been stated as an objective.
 
  • 4Like
  • 3
Reactions:
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 PPRS.
What's your opinion of those suggestions?
 
A compromise between the current game and full obfuscate could be hidden stats, but just for wanderers and (unimportant) foreign courtiers - the king of England will probably have a good sense of the personality and skills of the king of France and his heir, but not of a random lowborn wandering about in Ukraine that he has never met before.

(This would also limit the player's advantage of being able to google search talented underlings/marriage options)
 
  • 4Like
  • 1
Reactions:
glad to see that this feedback has been heard and that it's recognized that this upcoming change may help but does not address the core issues.

something that keeps coming to mind as i read comments on the "difficulty issue" lately is the perk system (and the legacy system). they add too many bonuses the player can optimize towards his goals that the AI can't. if you wanted to design something specifically to empower the player over AI, you could hardly do better. and even worse, they break my immersion. i've thought they were wrong for CK since they were announced, and none of my 1k hours in CK3 have changed that judgment. removing them from the game entirely would improve it.

i'm here for the kind of historical simulation gameplay that EU5 is focusing on and I hate that it's like the company has decided that Crusader Kings will leave that side to EU and instead focus on being an RPG and Sims game. I would just switch to EU, except that I much prefer CK's time period and relative lack of game design assuming "progress" through history.

[...]
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.
[...]
Can we just admit that a focus on systemic difficulty isn't happening?
well said & seconded. it seems like "as high a % of players as possible should get to feel a power fantasy because otherwise we think they'll quit" which is inherently opposed to trying to create systemic difficulty.

also, many people are talking about alliances - i think modifier and stat stacking is way more impactful than alliances. the one part of the harder difficulties i don't like is the marriage acceptance - i agree with this reply:
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.
 
Last edited:
  • 4
  • 3Like
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.
Having a hard and very hard difficulty levels would be terrific, for me this is sth far more exciting to look for than an extended map or new OP governments. Would be great if it could be done by making AI more competent (no just buffed, but buffed as well), AI rulers trying to build a coalition/alliance against the human player and removing all the advances for a human player, like not being affected by the AI ruler dread.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
You've talked a lot about the herd decay, and I don't feel the need to discuss that whole thing again, however something I have seen people discussing that I don't think has been brought up is Yurt balancing issues. Is there any intention at tweaking any of those numbers?
 
  • 3
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.

I'm pleased that will be an option: actually, even upon release and not being familiar with the new mechanics I still found Ck3 too easy. That being said, what are the ways that AI needs to be tougher? Personally the thing which I would enjoy most is a competently aggressive AI. A very vicious mode where you can expect to be attacked, revoked, assassinated at every corner. Basically where I can feel the AI is as ruthless as I am, since for the most part, at the moment they are mainly chumps waiting to be exploited for My New Empire™.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Perhaps you could also remove the limitation of capping the amount of AI plots targeting the player. I cannot remember the last time I was assassinated - would be interesting if that occurred more often.
Please do this for the hard/very hard mode. There are mods that do this and I always have them turned on.
 
  • 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 agree with this... adding a "hard mode" so that you need to adjust difficulty depending on what faction you wish to play should be a non-starter. The point is that all "normal" difficulty settings should be roughly equal in difficulty to play regardless what style you select. People who GENERALLY found the game too easy or hard will adjust this slider. This is not a fix.

If playing the Khans is far too easy to get ahead and dominate, there should be adjustments that make the Khans equally difficult to play as other factions in the same relative difficulty level. I can't really speak to how easy or hard the Khans are... as (due to the significant difference in playing style) I haven't figured out how to effectively play them yet. My comments are purely targeting the idea of adding things to the difficulty level to have players adjust them to balance. Feels like a cop out.
 
My favorite part of my Nomad DLC is the part where the Devs threw their hands up in the air, gave up and just let Herds stay as mana since the main mechanics of nomads are literally broken from the conceptual level.
Every Chapter needs a LotD I guess.
 
  • 8
  • 4
  • 3Haha
  • 1Like
Reactions:
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.
Praise to the Endless Sky, praise to Trinex

I personally don't care who gets upset with the new difficulty, normal and easy are still completely playable and these revocation changes mean we can turn down domain limit without crippling the AI

Seconding all the ObfusCKate, diplo range cap, and opinion cap suggestions, the lack of these is the biggest reason you never learn the names of your fellow vassals/realm peers in the vast majority of games
 
Last edited:
  • 4
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions: