I remember free stuff being unheard of ten or fifteen years ago, before DLC. There were expansions, and you paid for them.
-
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.
I remember free stuff being unheard of ten or fifteen years ago, before DLC. There were expansions, and you paid for them.
I tolerate the fact that Paradox games launch with poor UI experiences because I understand that Paradox is a relatively niche developer that lacks the expertise and resources to consistently deliver a quality, modern user interface, but I trust that they'll make improvements as they are able via patches. It's the same reason why I tolerate bug-filled launches - I trust that Paradox will do their best to patch the bugs, even though they don't have the resources to do so before launch. I'm willing to put up with important information about diplomatic relations being hidden piecemeal behind endless clicks because I understand it as an interface design bug and I expect it to be fixed as a bug would be fixed. If it turns out that Paradox views the situation differently than I do, then I need to re-evaluate future purchases. Am I buying a poor interface that will be updated as the company is able, or am I buying a poor interface with the expectation that I'll have to pay again for a better one? I don't think many people would be willing to buy into that cycle for programming bugs, and I don't think we should be willing to buy into it for UI design bugs.
On the other hand, I'm absolutely willing to continue buying expansions and DLC that add new content. But I expect to buy them based on the quality of that new content - not on the extent to which the base game is poorly designed. If the most exciting feature of the DLC is that it fixes shoddy development in the base game, then that's a pretty worrying sign for the Paradox business model.
Depends on what you mean by 'free stuff' really. In the late 90s there were patches which while focused on bugfixes did end up adding things to the game.
At the same time it is also true that barring a few exceptions such patches only continued until an expansion came up and then you either buy it or hope the last one left things playable.
The new UI developments are paid for by the DLCs. If you don't buy them, then you're essentially getting free content, and other players are subsidizing your gaming experience. Is this really fair? Packaging it into the DLCs only assures Paradox that they're getting paid for the work they put into the game. As for players that do buy the DLCs they get what they're paying for. Instead of going in roundabout ways like other developers, I like how Paradox lays out what you're getting and what you're not getting. The other solution is to simply to implement a mandatory subscription, but imo that's even worse.
The other solution is for Paradox to deliver a clean UI at launch. If I'm expected buy $20 DLC after $20 DLC just to get a modern interface, that drastically changes the value proposition of a new Paradox title for me. I'm no longer paying $40 for a game with problems that will be fixed later, I'm paying $40 for game that is provided as-is. Paradox games have a lot to offer, but they also have a lot of problems at launch. I'm not sure I would buy a new Paradox game if I weren't confident those problems would be fixed in free patches. If Paradox wants to move to a model in which I shouldn't expect free fixes, that's fine. But the flip side of that proposition is that I expect a clean, polished experience day one, or I'll spend my gaming dollars elsewhere. And right now I'm not seeing clean, polished releases.
The entitlement of players never surprises me. You expect a "modern" UI, yet the game is already years old. What do you mean by a modern UI. What other grand strategy game has a better UI than paradox? What do you mean by a modern UI? What examples are there? The UI has been continually improved over its development history. Please give a game similar to eu4 that has a better interface.
Grand strategy games as a genre tend to feature abysmal UI design, and Paradox is no exception. By "modern UI", I mean an interface that cleanly and conveniently presents information to the player. Instead we have an interface in which information is hidden in hover-text, unicode input is broken, simple tasks take many clicks, and objectives/conditions are expressed in incomprehensible lists of indented "one of the following must be true:" clauses. That wasn't "modern" in 2013, and it's not "modern" today. You might be right that other companies in the niche don't do better - but that's pretty faint praise of Paradox.
I'm not saying I'm entitled to a perfect UI - I understand Paradox is a small company with limited resources, and they can't afford the effort to produce a sleek UI on day one. But my understanding of the Paradox model in the past has been that the customers accept a flawed product with the knowledge that patches will come to fix the problems. If the model is instead that customers accept a flawed product and also pay for fixes, that's Paradox's prerogative. But it's also my choice to reconsider whether $40 + $100 worth of DLC is amount I'm willing to pay to get a game whose UI isn't a hindrance.
I think most people would be unhappy to pay $40 for a bug-filled game and then be asked to purchase bug-fix patches for $10 or $20, but we're willing to pay $40 for a bug-filled game and the promise of free patches subsidized by content DLC. I don't think it's unreasonable to apply that same standard to interface fixes.
Cheers for the diplomatically delivered DD DDR Jake 
. Thought after all the teasing it might have been more exciting......not! My word, those changes are wonderful - comfortably the best quality of life improvement in a single DD in any Paradox game that I can remember. This'll remove (at best guess) around 80-90% of the 'tedious clicking' my EU4 games (as well as provide an interface that will allow for much better decision-making), many thanks .
Keep in mind that GSGs have a lot of information to manage - usually more than other games. Be careful you're not confusing 'not modern UI' with 'modern complex UI'. I'm not suggesting the UIs are perfect (obviously, EU4's is going to be improved a heap by these changes, and I still find CK2s fairly unwieldy, although it has also improved) but it's actually pretty tricky to manage all the information involved. If no-one in the 'niche' (ie, no-one dealing with these particular UI challenges) is doing any better (which is the case, as far as I'm aware), and Paradox (and other GSG devs) have continued to improve their UIs over time (absolutely the case), then Paradox UIs are modern GSG UIs.
Of course, they're not modern FPS or racing game UIs (or transport sims - something similar but still more narrow), but those types of games have different UI challenges, and a modern FPS UI wouldn't look anything like a modern GSG UI (or at least, a good modern one wouldn't).
. Thought after all the teasing it might have been more exciting......not! My word, those changes are wonderful - comfortably the best quality of life improvement in a single DD in any Paradox game that I can remember. This'll remove (at best guess) around 80-90% of the 'tedious clicking' my EU4 games (as well as provide an interface that will allow for much better decision-making), many thanks .Keep in mind that GSGs have a lot of information to manage - usually more than other games. Be careful you're not confusing 'not modern UI' with 'modern complex UI'. I'm not suggesting the UIs are perfect (obviously, EU4's is going to be improved a heap by these changes, and I still find CK2s fairly unwieldy, although it has also improved) but it's actually pretty tricky to manage all the information involved. If no-one in the 'niche' (ie, no-one dealing with these particular UI challenges) is doing any better (which is the case, as far as I'm aware), and Paradox (and other GSG devs) have continued to improve their UIs over time (absolutely the case), then Paradox UIs are modern GSG UIs.
Of course, they're not modern FPS or racing game UIs (or transport sims - something similar but still more narrow), but those types of games have different UI challenges, and a modern FPS UI wouldn't look anything like a modern GSG UI (or at least, a good modern one wouldn't
).
The interface, right now, is totally fine. The base game is easily worth the money it costs and is perfectly playable.
This new feature is a bell and whistle that would have taken significant person-hours to put together. This ongoing development simply would not happen if it wasn't paid for by us the end users. I'm happy to pay. If you aren't, then don't. If you bought the game on release based on the promise of ongoing work then you've more than gotten your money's worth - that promise has been fulfilled and then some. Someone who buys the game right now is getting a quality product that doesn't require any further work.
If you want more stuff, then you have to pay for it.
Normally I like to answer questions pretty swiftly but meetings and Dev Streams made short work of that yesterday, let's see...
Selling ships is one of the actions not included in this macro due to it not working like other actions since a country's acceptance is based on the amount you charge, which is not set until you actually open up the action.
Omitted actions from the macro builder are:
Offer loans
Sell Ships
Sell Provinces
Enforce Peace
Threaten War
Offer condottieri
Great Power Break Alliance
Great Power Intervene in war.
I'm curious what changes you have in mind, are there suggestion threads about them?
All I can say is you should definitely check out next week's Dev diary.
While there are minor changes to spies in 1.20 in not being insta-sent home to sit in the naughty corner for a few months before being re-clicked to be sent back, they are not part of Diplomat Automation. Depending on how well received this Diplo Macro feature is, we may explore what can be done with spying.
Selling ships is one of the actions not included in this macro due to it not working like other actions since a country's acceptance is based on the amount you charge, which is not set until you actually open up the action.
Omitted actions from the macro builder are:
Offer loans
Sell Ships
Sell Provinces
Enforce Peace
Threaten War
Offer condottieri
Great Power Break Alliance
Great Power Intervene in war.
I'm curious what changes you have in mind, are there suggestion threads about them?
All I can say is you should definitely check out next week's Dev diary.
While there are minor changes to spies in 1.20 in not being insta-sent home to sit in the naughty corner for a few months before being re-clicked to be sent back, they are not part of Diplomat Automation. Depending on how well received this Diplo Macro feature is, we may explore what can be done with spying.
Last edited:
he says diplo macro builder is free feature in first sentence then he says only MOH owners can access it.
I'm fine with the diplomatic "macro-builder" being part of the expansion, but I can understand the frustration some have with it.
To me, this is what turns this expansion into an insta-buy. I see the need for them to monetize further improvements to the UI and, as this is clearly not a core part of the game, it can be monetized as the troop macro-builder is.
However, I'm sensible to what new or returning players might think : this is a QoL improvement which should be in the base game because it simplifies the game for them. Not having to bother that much with diplomacy, the diplomacy screen being easily accessible, is a little revolution for a paradox game, and it's a bit sad that they chose to make it optional.
Note that "simplify" the game doesn't mean it dumbs it down. All the options are still there, they are just better represented. And automation is possible, but the player might still want to give specific missions to his diplomat, unless he wants to play suboptimaly on that front.
To me, this is what turns this expansion into an insta-buy. I see the need for them to monetize further improvements to the UI and, as this is clearly not a core part of the game, it can be monetized as the troop macro-builder is.
However, I'm sensible to what new or returning players might think : this is a QoL improvement which should be in the base game because it simplifies the game for them. Not having to bother that much with diplomacy, the diplomacy screen being easily accessible, is a little revolution for a paradox game, and it's a bit sad that they chose to make it optional.
Note that "simplify" the game doesn't mean it dumbs it down. All the options are still there, they are just better represented. And automation is possible, but the player might still want to give specific missions to his diplomat, unless he wants to play suboptimaly on that front.
I'm confused here. You repeatedly talk about a bugged Ui that we have to pay to get the bug fix for, but I don't see a single bug fix for diplomacy Ui in the macro builder? And why are you so upset about this but not about art of war's army macro builder?
You misread. He says no such thing. The word "free" never comes up in the line you quoted.
first sentence:
"Good day all, the time has come at last to talk in depth about the much-teased feature that has our players not wanting to go back to 1.19 for fear of playing without it. Today the spotlight is on Mandate of Heaven's new Diplomatic Macro Builder."
so if the diplo macro builder is not coming with the 1.20 patch, then why would he says "the much-teased feature that has our players not wanting to go back to 1.19 for fear of playing without it."
you don't need to turn back to 1.19 for playing the game without the new diplo macro builder. playing 1.20 without buying Mandate of Heaven is enough for keeping away from the diplo macro builder.
he would have been said, "players not wanting to go back before Mandate of Heaven for fear of playing without it."
whatever.... it was just a small anecdote no need to discuss more.
"Good day all, the time has come at last to talk in depth about the much-teased feature that has our players not wanting to go back to 1.19 for fear of playing without it. Today the spotlight is on Mandate of Heaven's new Diplomatic Macro Builder."
so if the diplo macro builder is not coming with the 1.20 patch, then why would he says "the much-teased feature that has our players not wanting to go back to 1.19 for fear of playing without it."
you don't need to turn back to 1.19 for playing the game without the new diplo macro builder. playing 1.20 without buying Mandate of Heaven is enough for keeping away from the diplo macro builder.
he would have been said, "players not wanting to go back before Mandate of Heaven for fear of playing without it."
whatever.... it was just a small anecdote no need to discuss more.
When he says players he means the play testers. So to them, going back to this patch means they don't get it.
Newest topic about this is my - http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/other-stabilization.1000044/
Exactly this. Not just QA, but the programmers, betas, myself, we all play. To quote one of the programmers "I haven't manually assigned a diplomat in over a month, it's amazing"
That's where we disagree. I can certainly understand that if you're satisfied with the state of the interface, it would seem entitled for people to be complaining about this as a paid feature. But I have a really hard time seeing how you can objectively evaluate the current interface as "totally fine". It seems like a mess to me.