Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Ministers dying while developing castles/villages

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • 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.
Show only dev responses
Yeah, it's quite silly. I agree that it should be put on pause until a new one is decided on, although to reflect the problems his death brought to the project maybe it should lose 25% of it's progress or something. Just disappearing is very strange. We aren't the ancient Emperors that actually demanded that a new main palace be constructed for them individually as they ascend to the throne.

Sandam said:
and why the death of master of arms would remove all his work done till that? was he casting a spell to create new castle?
Click to expand...

acolyte.gif

Summoning is complete!
 
gsp_rooster said:
Someone made a really bad call then. And you've gone above and beyond in your response trying to justify it... and it's just making the situation worse. And nobody was complaining about successions, but you've pointed out that this irritating problem will rear it's head there too. Just to re-iterate.
Click to expand...

It does help if you read the thread before you chastise people:
oddible said:
Ugh, the same thing happens if your leader dies and you have succession.
Click to expand...

Also, you don't get to just redefine the word "bug". A feature you do not like is not a bug. This is a character based game, when one of them dies at the wrong time it is a setback you need to deal with.
 
Sigh. Looks like the Devs are going to keep this one :(
 
I haven't actually played the game yet, but this sounds both annoying and unnecessary. I hope the devs will rethink this particular piece of game design. I can't imagine very many people are happy with it. Hopefully (probably) it won't be too big a deal, though.
 
they will fix this only if johan will lose in house multiplayer session of sengoku just because his master of arms dies multiple times while building that important castle.. :p

lets bribe someone to keep assassinating his master of arms :p
 
Sandam said:
paradox has lost its way. you are doing historical games, which are reflection of reality, thats why players expect the game to act logically... but paradox now puts so many fairy tale abstractions into game, and usually without any real logical reason behind it... then players play, expect something to act logically, and dont get the opposite - something they can not logically understand. that frustrates player. and every game should avoid that, because the more you frustrate players, the less games you sell. "loosing is fun" is only fun when you logically understand why you lose.

and why the death of master of arms would remove all his work done till that? was he casting a spell to create new castle? if you put such a mechanic in fantasy game, you can easily bend the rules of the world to your favor.. but this is real world rules. that wont work. you can and must make abstractions, but such a fairy tale mechanics are sad...
Click to expand...
This! Well said Sandam. This is EXACTLY why I think this mechanic sucks.
 
I can sort of see the logic behind it.

One ruler would decide to build a building, and if it was finished and he died, the building would usually be kept. If the ruler died, however, the project was often cancelled due to the project being seen as a waste of resources or a glorification of previous leaders.

An immediate cancellation without influence on the situation may be a bit harsh, but I will deal with it for now. I'll wait and see how PI treats it... Maybe they find a more suitable solution that doesn't go the easy way of giving you a building without a rulers death influencing the progress of the project.
 
Your ruler survives - his Master of Arms dies. Same ruler, different building master, why would he destroy it?

I can see your logic if this would be the rulers death but it's not.

I don't know, maybe they think it's a bad omen to continue the building of a dead guy?
 
ChristianH71 said:
Your ruler survives - his Master of Arms dies. Same ruler, different building master, why would he destroy it?

I can see your logic if this would be the rulers death but it's not.

I don't know, maybe they think it's a bad omen to continue the building of a dead guy?
Click to expand...

Mmmh... I can see the problem there. Well, I'll need to play to see how much of a screw round it is.
Still waiting for the download to activate in NZ.

I can see where PI is coming from, but I'll need to play some to see if I agree....
At the moment I'm being won over by the opposition though.
 
Darkrenown said:
Also, you don't get to just redefine the word "bug". A feature you do not like is not a bug. This is a character based game, when one of them dies at the wrong time it is a setback you need to deal with.
Click to expand...

While a setback seems appropriate, right now it doesn't really make sense within the context of the game's setting, and more importantly, it's a fairly severe penalty associated with a randomized factor outside of direct player control -- that's not just unsatisfying, it's also a great way to encourage save scumming.

Instead of forcing the player to restart the construction from the beginning, I would consider implementing an actual delay (significant but not overly severe) in construction time -- not only does it make more sense contextually, it's the kind of setback that players will be more willing to accept and play on with.

Of course, the game is likely currently balanced with the current design of construction being reset with some frequency in mind, but that could be compensated for by adjusting construction times upwards as necessary.
 
I don't believe this is the best way to handle this. Fine, it's a character driven game, but that should also mean that there's assistants and workmen and whatnot involved. They didn't die along with the Master now, did they?

I could accept some sort of setback like losing some % of the process, or being forced to finish it at half the speed or having to pay for the adjustments the new guy makes, but resetting all the way to 0 is too much.
 
Nuril said:
I agree that it should be put on pause until a new one is decided on, although to reflect the problems his death brought to the project maybe it should lose 25% of it's progress or something. Just disappearing is very strange.
Click to expand...
+1 to that, it shouldn't disappear entirely, at least not most of the time (I.e. to simulate that the new character might not agree with the choice of location, or whatever, it could have a 10% chance of being abandoned). A delay seems very reasonable though, 25% loss in progress or something similar is also very plausible.
 
This really doesn't make any sense. Just try and imagine it happening in reality. A King instructs someone to build something for him, that person is nearly finished, all that's left is the decor inside, but he dies so a new guy comes along and wants to demolish it and start again? Sorry but no way would any person even want to do that, but even if some mad fool did try to knock it all down the King/Clan leader would say, "Hey! What hell do you think you're doing? Paint the damned main hall and be quick about it, otherwise i'll paint it myself with your blood, fool".
 
It's totally ridiculous, counter-intuitive and unrealistic. Building a castle, whether in Europe or Japan, was a MAJOR project with huge costs of both human labor and resources. Often, sufficient stone deposit were not present on a strategically advantageous site, and had to be transported. It's unthinkable any daimyo/knight would be willing to scrap this immense investment just becausethe appointed official died. I can't imagine anyone tries to defend this. What a disappointment.
 
Nice feature which distances me from this game, actually until time comes eu3 mp games can do
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back