• 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.

EU4 - Development Diary - 13th of October 2021

Hello everybody, and welcome! This week we will shift the focus from the upcoming African content, to the new Monuments that we will be introducing for Leviathan DLC owners, and that will come along with the 1.32 patch.

As this has been quite a popular feature of the last DLC, we felt that we could create a few more for the game. And when I say a few, I mean that we’ve almost doubled them, with 52 new monuments being added. So first let’s talk a bit about the creative process and the decisions that we made when choosing which ones we wanted, and then I will be showing some of them (although not all, as that would really be a long post, and we want to surprise you a bit when looking at them for the first time ingame!).

The creative process started a few months ago, just after releasing the new Monuments of 1.31.5 patch. As we pointed out back then, the thing that takes more time about this feature is the Art involved, and because of that you’ve not heard anything about them in a few months. So, we really wanted to choose some beautiful and meaningful buildings to be included.

Apart from that, we also wanted the regional distribution of the Monuments to be a bit fairer, as we felt that some regions were crowded with them, but others were a bit sparse. So here you have a sneak peak of that:

1.32 New Monuments.png



Now we have 18 monuments in America (11 new), 31 in Europe (16 new), 9 in Africa (5 new), 45 in Asia (19 new), and 2 in Oceania (1 new). That’s 52 new monuments in total. We would have preferred to have a few more monuments here and there, but overall we are mostly happy with the result, and we really hope you enjoy them.

So, where did our inspiration to pick the new ones come from? First we incorporated the ones that were voted for in the forum around May; so, Cahokia, Malbork Castle, Brandenburg Gate, Santa Maria del Fiore, Bran Castle, the Rock-Hewn Churches of Lalibela, the Great Living Chola Temples, Porcelain Tower of Nanjing and Nan Madoll are in.

Then, we had been gathering suggestions from the community here in the forums, in the Monuments-specific threads. We have to thank you all for the passion you showed, as we had a long-list of around 100 Monuments to pick from, and that was a great inspiration for us. Last, but not least, we checked a lot of different places from the UNESCO World Heritage list.

Now let’s go to the cool part of the DD, and let me show you some of the new Monuments.

[Disclaimer: modifiers are currently being tested by us and our QA, so expect changes on them when 1.32 patch is released.]

First one we want to show you is in the Americas: the Qhapaq Ñam, portraying the famous Incan Road System. Although we brainstormed a bit about how we could do this without being attached to only one province, we thought that it would be a bit difficult to do, and we wanted to be coherent with the other monuments, which are located in only one province. Anyway, we represented this as a buff for an united Andean Empire, and because of that it’s on the most northern tag of the region. If you notice the last modifier, it is a new one affecting Yearly Inti Authority (there's a word lacking there to be fixed, yes!), so we think it’s a nice buff for the main religion in the region:

Qhapac.png


Next one is Santa Maria del Fiore, one widely requested by the community, and one that we obviously think should be included, as being so Stendhal-esque! We took the opportunity to add a nice modifier to it, so here you have this Monthly Splendor modifier that we think fits perfectly with it:

Firenze.png


Now let’s move to Africa. It was obvious for us that some new Monuments had to be added to the region we’re focusing on for the next Immersion Pack, and make them useful with the new content we’ve been designing. So here you’ve got the famous Rock-Hewn Churches at Lalibela, that gives some extra flavour when playing as Ethiopia, as it’s our first Coptic-related Monument. And I’ll give you some extra info, not directly related with today’s DD, but with this area: yes, we will have some new mechanics for Judaism! But those will be revealed in a couple weeks.

Lalibela.png


Let’s go now to Asia. Here we’ve added a bunch of monuments to India, as we felt this subcontinent to be a bit empty of Monuments in comparison to other regions. One of those is Hampi, the renowned capital of Vijayanagar, that grew as a really princely city (until being razed by the Bahmani Empire, of course…). So, here we’ve got a couple of interesting things to show. First is the new ‘All Estates’ Loyalty Equilibrium’, that now will make our lives (and modders’ ones!) easier, as we can add this loyalty equilibrium modifier to all the existing estates in our country. The other thing is that we added a couple new requirements for Buddhist Monuments, so now they can be used also by Hindu countries with a ruler following the Buddha cult, or by Fetishist ones that follow Buddhadharma. [Obviously the Hindu Buddha cult is redundant in this Monument, as it can be used by Dharmic religion groups, but we wanted to show this fix we’ve done in this pic.]

Hampi.png


To end with the Oceania continent, we’ve added here its second monument, the settlement of Nan Madoll. We wanted this to work as a kind of race prize and reward for colonizing the Pacific islands, so because of that the nice modifiers for colonization, coupled with the Yearly Navy Tradition one.

Nan Madoll.png


That’s mostly all for today! Because I want to make a last announcement: Paradox Tinto will be joining the Grandest Lan event with a Dev (Dream) Team! Probably we will be beaten badly by everyone else in the game, but at least it will probably be fun.

Next week we will come back to the new African content, and my colleague @Ogele will be talking about Mutapa and Kilwa new missions, among other things. I’ll be reading your feedback along this week, see you!
 
  • 113Like
  • 36Love
  • 26
  • 8
  • 7
  • 3Haha
Reactions:
someone know why i dont have new monument in game ?
are you asking about the monuments from this dev diary? They have not been released yet. You have to wait for the next major version to see the things which are shown in a dev diary.
 
i dont have all new monument in game only this old
i wanna check malbork castle and monument in cracow probalby wawel and i dont have them
also i wanna tell sopmeting about one monument who i miss in PL
Jasna Góra Monastery
i think this monument should be in game also



edit
@

grotaclas

TY for answer i dont know this ty :)

edit2
why i cant give link here ?
 
why i cant give link here ?
You probably have not wrote enough comments to be allowed to post links. Or you are trying to post a link to a site which the forum doesn't allow(I don't know if such a filter exists)
 
i dont have all new monument in game only this old
i wanna check malbork castle and monument in cracow probalby wawel and i dont have them
also i wanna tell sopmeting about one monument who i miss in PL
Jasna Góra Monastery
i think this monument should be in game also



edit
@

grotaclas

TY for answer i dont know this ty :)

edit2
why i cant give link here ?

@Elmo666 This is a Devdiary about upcoming features. The new Monuments are not yet in the game, but will be with the next Patch/DLC. If you don't have any monuments in your current Game with 1.31, its because you don't have the DLC Leviathan. If you have it, you'll have monuments. You can check ingame with a "great project mapmode" or in the statistics. There is also a good page with an overview at the Eu4 wikipedia.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
While Kiev Pechersk Lavra is in Lithuania, it can only be used by Orthodox nations. As for Marienburg/Malbork castle, Poland is most likely to get there first, especially if you're playing with Livonia or Riga. Lithuania was the largest country in Europe at this time, just look at the map, the Baltic region is avoided like plague, while there's monuments all around it. Can't say that Sweden is in a better situation, though. I really hope that they'll add a few more monuments in some future patches.

Remember that Austria is basically guaranteed to get 5 monuments, if it PUs Hungary, Bohemia and takes Ulm. Let alone inherits Burgundy and expands into Italy.

Yes, Brazil and Congo are yet another blank spots. I think M'banza-Kongo would be the best candidate as a monument for Congo, but for Brazil, it should be a colonial monument like for the Spanish colonies. I would add Harar for Adal, as well, to balance it out with Ethiopia.


If there's more monuments added in future patches, my wishlist would be:

Riga's Cathedral in Riga.
Kauna's Castle in Kaunas, Lithuania.
Harar for Adal.
M'banza-Kongo for Congo.
Something for colonial Brazil.
Something for Sweden.
Something for Denmark or Northern Germany.
Something in the Balkans, like Walls of Dubrovnik in Ragusa or something in Serbia.
Lithuania starts with a monument that they could use by changing to Orthodox, which is a very viable option for them, but that’s not really the point: by the midgame you are able to own at least 5 monuments simply by naturally expanding into Russia, Poland and the Baltic. Similarly, both Riga and Livonia will have access to the Neva and Malbork one very quickly. This goes for Sweden and Denmark as well, on top of the Stave Church.
Likewise, any player on the Balkan will be able to own at least 5 monuments by the midgame, expanding in their home region and neighboring Hungary alone, nevermind that Italy is a very natural expansion route for them.
But, even if you somehow are unable to get these early on, is that really an argument to have every nation the size of Riga, Livonia, Ragusa or Serbia start out with their own monument? I think not.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
they should have sensible rewards .......... to become a realistic

Sensible, realistic meaning what? Every monument giving the same bonus only because of realism? What else? Scrapping idea groups completely because there're not realistic........... Scraping manpower and rolling generals because it's not realistic to click a button and have more manpower. Scrapping peace treaties EU4 has coz they are not realistic. Introducing food, water and horse grazing because it's realistic............ Is there a limit to not-realistic / realistic argument in a video game?

And remember mechanics have their own cycle after all. We will get some cap, upkeep or other way to not have 100 modifiers from monuments in the future. Why? Because there will be new mechanics that will give sth. And what's the point in giving you sth if you already have it?. But for 1.32 enjoy your 102 monuments.......... Or not. Whatever you wish.
 
Last edited:
  • 1Haha
Reactions:
@Pavía reason is simple. I remember that in 1.31 Alhambra had 15 administration efficiency. It was game breaking monument. It was changed after discussion with Community if I remeber. Sometimes better ask or provide some information after devs balance. Nobody is perfect.

I had the same concern, but he answered that in his post. I like what I saw up till now, so I'll reserve judgement until I see them.

I still think that most monuments are underpowered, rather than overpowered. And some that are genuinely powerful often have quite a few restrictions in getting them (Zoroastrian monument for example), which makes them not a problem.

I haven't heard of Zoroastrianism being the meta breaker in MP at least.
Well, this time things are different. After Leviathan was released, Monuments were heavily balanced in 1.31.1 (day 1 patch), and it was our fault that the balance was not already included in 1.31.0 (release version). Then we used your feedback to further improve them, until we reached the actual iteration of Monuments in 1.31.5 (in June).

Now we will deliver the new Monuments fully tested and balanced (from our POV) in 1.32 release version (as it should be), and then we will use your feedback in the next patches to continue polishing them, as it's not the same taking a look on them on a WIP list, than playing them already tested and balanced. All interesting balance and changes suggested by the community will be introduced in the first patches after the release; I'm taking care of that personally.
Thanks for the reply. This is one of the very few times I've seen a developer directly address the problem of power creep after Leviathan.

Even if the return on investment for monuments is "balanced" in the sense that monuments have the right cost/benefit ratio, they still don't seem to fit very well into the rest of the game's mechanics and simulation because they're often conflated with a nation's government or culture rather than local points of interest.

---

Take two of the monuments representing regional works: Andean roads and Great Wall. Why does the former give global bonuses to trade power and reinforce speed and the latter give a global bonus to enemy attrition? They were both regional infrastructure, not some kind of bureaucracy or cultural practice that made the Incas better at replacing casualties or the Ming dynasty better at defensive siege warfare. Both would probably feel better if their effects were limited to the Peru and North China regions, respectively. The Incas could have an increase to unit speed and trade value (trade efficiency wouldn't work well in a single region) and the Chinese could have their attrition bonuses against the Mongols without getting buffs against the Vietnamese or Tibetans.

The Santa Maria del Fiore is another good example. It's clearly meant to represent Florence's importance as a center of culture, trade and learning, not as an imperial bureaucratic center. It doesn't make much sense for Spain or Naples, both of which get claims on Florence, to be able to hire cheaper advisors of any culture just because they've conquered Tuscany and are using it as a tax farm. A more immersive version of the modifier, and one less prone to creating power creep, would be to make only advisors of the same culture (or culture group) as the province of Florence cheaper, not all advisors.

---

The other big issue I see with monuments is that, even if they're "balanced" on their own terms, they often disrupt the balance in the rest of the game. The Tower of London is the example I can best explain because of the many England/Great Britain games I've played. Both England and Great Britain get yearly naval tradition in their ideas, and England's provinces have proportionally more tax/production and proportionally less manpower than many continental European provinces. EU4 sets up England/Great Britain to be trade- and production-oriented naval powers by buffing their navies and making them less able to field a large, powerful army than their continental neighbors are. (England's lack of a nobility estate also contributes its lack of manpower.)

Between their idea bonuses and naval tradition gained passively from a modest fleet of light ships protecting trade, England/Great Britain can often maintain very high levels of naval tradition without even fighting naval battles. The Tower of London, together with the Admiralty event, are then free opportunities to boost yearly army tradition by 0.55-0.80, giving England/Great Britain top-tier passive gains in both army and navy tradition. In my opinion, this makes both England/Great Britain and EU4 less balanced and less interesting.

---

I'd say Cerro Rico del Potosí is a fairly well-modeled point of interest. It boosts local gold production and gives a global modifier that's at least semi-plausible. It isn't a magic building that makes its owner's global manpower pool refill faster. If most monuments were more like that - detailed representations of the great cities and natural resources of the world - then I might consider buying Leviathan.
This is a very interesting point of view, to be honest. For the moment we're not changing the scope of the monuments (because they use a mix of national, regional and local modifiers that would be hell to change at this point of the development), but if in the future we think it may be worth a rework of the feature, we will probably take into account this type of well-thought suggestions. ;)
I'm curious if you plan on updating the wiki or if you just assume that somebody will do it(e.g. me with the script which I used to generate the current version of the list).
Well, if you were the one updating the wiki, I want to thank you your effort, as I think it was very helpful for the entire community. As the wiki is usually fan made, we rely on people like you to keep it updated; obviously if you update it again when 1.32 is released, we will be thankful again. And if you don't want/aren't in the mood/whatever to update it, will try to do it ASAP (although bugfixing will be a more important priority for us at that point, to be honest again). ;)
 
  • 8Like
  • 2Love
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
Certainly the deepest criticism of the game in EU4’s history.
You would have rather me throw a tantrum wall text. There are too many in Italy and by only looking at Rome and Florence quite OP. Nothing more nothing less.
In an MP were you put a player per region is going to affect balance for sure
 
As for design of monuments itself, I'm thinking right now that limiting Monuments by culture and other requirments like religion is not the best idea. Why? Because it makes them useless if you play the game casually. Yeah I get some people play every possible nations but IMO for players who play casually giving these restrictions in this way is not optimal way to deal with the matter.

It'd be better to make something like this: -----------> You get flat bonuses if you own the thing, but some stronger one if you fullfill requirements. Maybe you wouldn't be able to upgrade them to 2rd or 3rd level. Don't know if that's the case right now. I think not. I didn't play with them enough. Wiki says sth about requirements. If that means you can't get anything if you don't fullfill requirements then like I said it's wrong direction IMO. Better do that old way by introducing some soft cap ---> like make an upkeep of ducats or monarch points when over some active treshold of monuments. And + get additional bonues only if those abovementioned requirements are met (2,3 level or sth similar.). Otherwise for casual players some of those monuments would never be a thing. Most of people don't play Eu4 every culture every religion. It's just not realistic time-wise. And it's a bummer if you expand in a direction where monuments have some strange requirments that you can't fullfil and you can't get anything. Really nothing? Zilch?

Soft cap is always better than hard cap. I would rather have soft cap with monuments as well. I'm not a fan of you can't possible use this or that monument att all because you are wrong thing. Yeah maybe some unique ones, but as a direction no.

That's my opinion. I probably missed sth and they are working this way already.............................. So enjoy laughing.............
 
Last edited:
This is a very interesting point of view, to be honest. For the moment we're not changing the scope of the monuments (because they use a mix of national, regional and local modifiers that would be hell to change at this point of the development), but if in the future we think it may be worth a rework of the feature, we will probably take into account this type of well-thought suggestions. ;)
That's about as much as I could reasonably ask for. Thanks again for the reply. :)
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Lithuania starts with a monument that they could use by changing to Orthodox, which is a very viable option for them, but that’s not really the point: by the midgame you are able to own at least 5 monuments simply by naturally expanding into Russia, Poland and the Baltic. Similarly, both Riga and Livonia will have access to the Neva and Malbork one very quickly. This goes for Sweden and Denmark as well, on top of the Stave Church.
Likewise, any player on the Balkan will be able to own at least 5 monuments by the midgame, expanding in their home region and neighboring Hungary alone, nevermind that Italy is a very natural expansion route for them.
But, even if you somehow are unable to get these early on, is that really an argument to have every nation the size of Riga, Livonia, Ragusa or Serbia start out with their own monument? I think not.
Well, everyone has their own ways how they play the game, Personally, I don't use gamey tactics such as unrealistically converting my religion or forming unrealistic TAGs (for example, Poland -> Prussia -> Russia) just to get better bonuses. Neither I have ever attempted, nor I'll ever attempt to do a WC. I like to expand to a certain extent and keep pretty borders.

We don't know the requirements for the Neva monument, it's likely to be the Winter palace, so it's likely be locked to the Eastern Slavic or Orthodox religions, just like Kremlin. The only monument Lithuania can reasonably get is Marienburg/Malbork castle. Since other regional powers like Bohemia, Hungary and Poland got their own monuments, it's only reasonable that one of the strongest and largest countries of Europe deserves a monument of its own, as well.

I'm not saying all of them should be getting monuments. A monument for Riga makes sense, because it was a very strategic city and was contested by Sweden, Poland-Lithuania and Russia. Having a monument there could be more encouraging to contest it. I think the game needs like 10 extra monuments and it would be perfect.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
(although bugfixing will be a more important priority for us at that point, to be honest again)
Am I the only one disheartened to see you, the devs, referencing bug fixing upon release more and more frequently (multiple times in this thread, and last week's DD also IIRC)?

Like I know that it's somewhat inevitable that some bugs will make it into the release, or the new stuff might not interact well with the older content, but this constant reiteration makes me feel that this release will be the yet another we, the players will find disappointing.

Confidence on our part is already greatly diminished, and I'm sure you, the devs don't wish to see every release not sit well with those that you are making this game for. I'm honestly rooting for you guys, but I won't lie, this repeated mentions to fixing bugs kinda makes me feel you are trying to manage expectations and get out in front of it to avoid the kind of less then nice welcome and review bombing Leviathan went through from the community. It's just a fleeting thought and might be the autumn blues on my part, and I wholeheartedly hope that I'm wrong and just reading stuff into something that I shouldn't.

On another, but somewhat related note, would it be possible to release those monument effects like two weeks before the release? Along with the patchnotes is probably too late for meaningful feedback to be received and implemented before release, I'm sure you already have your tasks set until that, and there's no time allotted for balancing based on the player's feedback. And even if the balancing can't happen until release, you'll have more time to consider our feedback and implement changes faster, avoiding any balance patch releasing in the middle of January because the holidays are coming up.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
Orkhon Valley as whole could be Tengri specific monument although there is possibly one inside Oirat with this patch?
Inscriptions are like a policy and contain various advices to a nation. It's like addressing a nation. I think it should be a cultural monument, not a religious one. Currently, the tengri religion is the weakest among the pagan religions. They can make up for it with a monument. In my opinion this is not true. By the way, I examined the map and the monument is seen in the city of Karakorum. It looks like erdene zuu, probably a buddhist temple. If I had added the Orkhon inscriptions, I would have added Discipline and Legitimacy/ Horde unity as a bonus. These seem to be appropriate with the contents of the monuments. Unrest can be added regionally.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
13 monuments in the Indian Subcontinent ?! Isn't that a bit ridiculous ? Also France still has no monument outside of the province of Paris, adding Le Mont-Saint-Michel or the Palace of the Popes would be nice, not to mention Scotland, Ireland, Denmark and Sweden got shafted and still have no monuments, the new distribution of monuments seems hardly better than the previous one.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
On another, but somewhat related note, would it be possible to release those monument effects like two weeks before the release? Along with the patchnotes is probably too late for meaningful feedback to be received and implemented before release, I'm sure you already have your tasks set until that, and there's no time allotted for balancing based on the player's feedback. And even if the balancing can't happen until release, you'll have more time to consider our feedback and implement changes faster, avoiding any balance patch releasing in the middle of January because the holidays are coming up.

But they'll release it and then we can still send a feedback. And it will be patched / changed in the future if there is a better way. Like sending it to some community members for opinion right before coming out is flawed. You always will have people who agree disagree and what then..... IF you want to build good game mechanics you need to have people who have experience in building good game mechanics not some popularity contest among players with mostly poeple without any right skills. It's completely backward because you always will have poeple on the forum who don't like what they're doing. And the forum is massively skewed representation of EU4 players anyway. So they'll end up making themselves a hostage to some guys with not-representative opinions. Doesn't seem like the best idea of all times when designing the game.

Mostly what you want to do by this channel of communication is to gather some ideas for future development not balancing production efficiency from one monument to the other.
 
Last edited:
First of all, thanks to everybody that commented, as this was a really warm reception for the new Monuments! 11 pages in a day, those were a lot to go through (so please, be kind for not answering all the comments and questions). And thanks for your feedback, it's really useful at this point of development cycle.


We toyed with the idea of buffing unit speed, but that would also be a bit weird, as long as it would buff it outside the Andean region. And if we just made it an area modifier, it'd a bit weak, so we decide to use instead the reinforce speed one, as it feels a bit more flavourful.

Celdur, to be honest, we also toyed with the idea of making it a multi-province Monument, but it would have been a bit problematic code-wise (you know, spaghetti code and all that stuff). So instead we decided to abstract it, and as we expect Inca Empire to be dominant, we put it on the northernmost part of it, and we made it Andean culture group-related. Off-topic, fortunately I could study Central and South American native cultures in university, and definitely they deserve a bit more love. We already introduced another monument in the Andean region related to them, actually. ;)

Oh, and we will correct the typo of the name. Thanks!
Appreciate the answer, here's the government site for the monument and its correct naming (In Spansih): https://qhapaqnan.cultura.pe/que-es

I think the bonuses are cool and appropriate, my only gripe is the location, and if it has to be on the north then i would suggest, at least, a province in northern Peru as a location, not multi-province, just altogether moving the monument, for example to Cajamarca. Keeping in mind that the northern region (today's Ecuador) was only very recently incorporated into the Inca Empire and not pacified by the time the Spanish arrived, so not much Inca infrastructure had been built over there.

To be honest, what today is "Perú" is jam packed with ruins and monuments all over the place, most are unknown to foreigners, Macchu Picchu is just way too famous (there are several "Macchu Picchus", for example like Choquequirao and bigger and older) but there is also the fortress of Kuélap in the northern andes on the eastern slopes facing the jungle, from the Chachapoyas culture, personally i like it even more.

In any case, just keep in mind my suggestion that the location of the Qhapaq Ñan (a branch of which called "Camino Real" is now a paved road a few blocks from where i live) if any once place, it would be better suited for the center-north region of the Andes, even though there aren't enough provinces to accurately define the region i believe, following the logic you want to implement for balance in the game, somwhere near Cajamarca would be best.

Cheers!
 
  • 1
Reactions:
You've raised an interesting question. On a first thought, I'd say that allowing Tengri syncretism to use monuments would work, as they're restricted to only one secondary religion at a time. But the Confucian harmonization it's a bit more troubling, because on the one hand it's a bit weak religion in its current state, but on the other, allowing them to access all religion-required monuments in the game by harmonizing religion groups seems a bit OP... We'll have a second thought about this, then.
In my opinion that I think the requirement for Confucian harmonization could be limited to only East Asia religions like Mahayana, Theravada, Vajrayana, Animist and Tengri with exception of Shinto. That way it may buff Confucian while not letting the religion being overpowered.
 
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
But they'll release it and then we can still send a feedback. And it will be patched / changed in the future if there is a better way. Like sending it to some community members for opinion right before coming out is flawed. You always will have people who agree disagree and what then..... IF you want to build good game mechanics you need to have people who have experience in building good game mechanics not some popularity contest among players with mostly poeple without any right skills. It's completely backward because you always will have poeple on the forum who don't like what they're doing. And the forum is massively skewed representation of EU4 players anyway. So they'll end up making themselves a hostage to some guys with not-representative opinions. Doesn't seem like the best idea of all times when designing the game.

Mostly what you want to do by this channel of communication is to gather some ideas for future development not balancing production efficiency from one monument to the other.
I disagree. Just look at the Leviathan monuments which were designed and balanced supposedly by people you described as having experience in good game design, and not by a popularity contest. No matter how they balance it internally until release, their real impact on gameplay won't come to light until the playerbase gets its hand on it and plays thousands of games with it simultaneously. Sure, people will either like it or hate it, and express their opinion accordingly here, on Steam and on Reddit. Feedback will be varied, but it's the wider debate that matters, and they'll sift through that and do a balance pass based on that feedback. It's still up to them which opinions they'll take into account, which suggestions to accept or which monument to overhaul, releasing the list sooner would just speed up the process by allowing the feedback to be received sooner, so they can start the balancing sooner and we don't end up with a DLC that gets patched in the middle of January because they went on vacation in the middle of December, leaving the community potentially riled up.