EU4 - Development Diary - 7th April 2016

[Atlantians]

1) effectiveness-the threat is real (so to speak) as RT penalties and the risk of government collapse are something anyone playing a MR will be aware of as it is a game-changing occurrence if not planned.

2) From a realism standpoint it makes sense. More and more territory means bigger problems getting everyone voting in a timely fashion thus leaving more and more effective power in the apparatus and less in the people (see current USA and that is with vastly better communications systems). Ideally it would be limited more by distance/travel time but there's no method in-game to apply effects that way.

Right, but how is any of that unique or specific to a Merchant republic?

Especially when Merchants would be far better at communicating over distances, since their entire livelihood is efficient use of boats and caravans to move goods?

There is nothing unique about Merchant republics to make this mechanic make sense for them alone.

 

[Duerli]

And another bug in the german version of the game.
At the idea "Exploration Ideas" the fully unlocked benefit only stands there " #NAME?" pls fix this

 

[Hoodwalker]

Speaking of localization, the inherit Burgundy (as Reichsnation), has the buttons "Leave it be." and "Missing Localizaton!" in the english version

 

[Jorlem]

Speaking of localization, the inherit Burgundy (as Reichsnation), has the buttons "Leave it be." and "Missing Localizaton!" in the english version

View attachment 168893

The exclamation mark there makes this far funnier than it should be.

 

[Clay Hawk]

I guess it is too much to ask for but will the patch be out today as estimated?

Really don't feel like starting a new game with how corruption works at the moment, rather wait for patch.

 

[szmik]

This DD says a lot about Paradox interest in product quality.

I would love to see DLC/patch not needing hotfix the day after.

 

[tapewormlondon]

It would be better if you removed the regency war block. It doesn't actually add anything to the game...

Honestly despise regencies. They serve no purpose whatsoever. No events, no malus, no nothing except being unable to declare war. Stack that on top of the lack of control you have in avoiding them and it is my most hated feature of the game.

I control/ Alt tab/ shutdown if I get one in an Ironman game.

 

[CoolSquid]

Honestly despise regencies. They serve no purpose whatsoever. No events, no malus, no nothing except being unable to declare war. Stack that on top of the lack of control you have in avoiding them and it is my most hated feature of the game.

I control/ Alt tab/ shutdown if I get one in an Ironman game.

I removed them from my game ages ago. They're stupid. You can't ban expansion when expansion is the only thing to do (unless you're making Watch Paint Dry v2).

 

[generalolaf]

This DD says a lot about Paradox interest in product quality.

I would love to see DLC/patch not needing hotfix the day after.

A lot of games wouldn't get one. It's not great (and I'm gutted about my Luck of the Irish run) but you're expecting a lot; there are always bugs.

 

[A Secret Friend]

This DD says a lot about Paradox interest in product quality.

I would love to see DLC/patch not needing hotfix the day after.

It would be ideal, sure. But getting a hotfix so quickly is a close second.

If the game works in the end, it doesn't really matter whether the working condition was achieved with a swift fix or not.

 

[Cymsdale]

Could you tell us what makes you take the non-negotiable stance when it comes to nerfing?

Arrogance?

 

[szmik]

A lot of games wouldn't get one.

That tells a lot about industry and customer treatment unfortunately. Sure, in comparison it's better to get hotfix asap. But that wasn't even my point.

there are always bugs.

My point was taken after browsing through list. As a(n) (ex)modder I know there're bugs, but I also know how/when they appear and know modder is capable within the modding possiblities to deliver bug free product. And what may be excusable for modder shouldn't be for a company.


edit: I am aware there's big difference between modding and programming.

 

[B9707C6887CD8B31AB6F6271]

No 'Restart button for Ironman' feature. Just do it Paradox!

 

[lolada]

This DD says a lot about Paradox interest in product quality.

I would love to see DLC/patch not needing hotfix the day after.

Not possible unfortunately - nature of the job. There were some posts with calculations after some prior patches. It goes something like this: Paradox QA have time to test game for (lets say) 1000 hours before patch release. After release, all EU4 players on first day after release play like 100000 hours.

Result : players will always catch a number of bugs that QA misses. We should be happy that hotfix takes only 1-2 days-

 

[szmik]

If it takes 1-2 days it probably means they didn't make it in main patch in time for release, but they were fixing already.

 

[bbqftw]

Not possible unfortunately - nature of the job. There were some posts with calculations after some prior patches. It goes something like this: Paradox QA have time to test game for (lets say) 1000 hours before patch release. After release, all EU4 players on first day after release play like 100000 hours.

Result : players will always catch a number of bugs that QA misses. We should be happy that hotfix takes only 1-2 days-

Changing corruption cost from total income based to dev-scaling represents a pretty big change in philosophy of how corruption is supposed to work, not a QA issue imo

 

[lolada]

Changing corruption cost from total income based to dev-scaling represents a pretty big change in philosophy of how corruption is supposed to work, not a QA issue imo

True, that was bigger oversight. I was thinking more on bugs like missed unrest after Horde razing, some decisions, events working unexpectedly, complicated piece deals mechanics gone wrong, missing localization and similar things. These things just can get through.

Looking at bug fixes it seems they didn't test Hordes and some ROTW nations enough. Or they introduced some late changes and didn't have time to notice how bad these changes are.

 

[guachi]

You added States that you have to pay maintenance for. You added corruption that you either have put money into to counteract or take it and receive penalties. Also, if I expand into a new territory, even with a claim. it starts at 75% autonomy. These are all nerfs to every country in the game. Of course you could say the states mechanic isn't a nerf as you can have overseas land with 0% autonomy. However, you still have to pay for the states at home. Then thrown in with corruption. It's a penalty to income. These are all penalties, and you haven't buffed the countries' income at all (excluding France). I think there needs to be a little something to counteract it. Not just a development increase, as the states maintenance scales with development. I'm talking about a flat bonus to income, or something along those lines.

Yes, it's a penalty to income. Which you get around by knowing how to effectively generate lots of money. Trade income is completely unaffected by autonomy. Focus on that (perhaps) and swim in cash and your state maintenance and corruption issues will go away (especially with corruption now keying off of development).

 

[melkor88]

It's a shame they didn't go the other way for regencies and allow wars in some cases like CK2, maybe against Rivals only

 

[rodrigovc]

I will say here upfront that I did not like the corruption system which I think did not add a lot to the game. That being said I will point here constructive arguments of the problems with it. Currently it is tied to the income so you may profit from manipulating your income so you are proposing to change it to tie it with development. Ok I get where you are going, but this will cause other issues. If you consider territorial cores as development that will make corruption more expensive as you run out of states to fit your cores as you get lot less from territories then from actual cores. Also it makes trade companies far less valuable since they do count towards you total development. If you only consider actual cores as development the opposite will become true and owning a lot of territories will increase your income without increasing the amount of money needed to buy corruption down.

Finally tying corruption to the development will make high developed provinces HIGHLY valuable since you gain more from them per development. Countries that do not have access to highly developed land (either starting it or having it nearby for conquest) will suffer more than big tall countries. All those 3 development provinces in the new world will be utter garbage (you may not even want them depending of how the balancing is done) since they may give you less then what they take from you. Also gold provinces will become KING for getting corruption out of your country.