Europa Universalis IV: Domination Announced

[ObnoxiousMushroom]

Exactly. The post says "in an add-on with true global reach and multiple new alternate histories." I suppose those "alternate histories" refer to the mission trees, as if a game about the early modern age could only be a series of scripted possibilities.

Those who play EU now are fortunate that mission trees weren't introduced earlier. Who knows how many established mechanics would have instead been done as standalone, country unique mechanics?

I completely agree, it's like the studio is looking at the worst bits of Hearts of Iron IV and deciding that rather than making a sandbox game, they should make a story book in focus tree form. Your line about the early modern period only being a series of scripted possibilities is dead on, this doesn't do justice to the time period, or to the basic premise of the game which is to shape history, not to have the devs shape it for you in some teleological narrative. Sad.

 

[Cpt.Cross]

It makes sense to make content for the most played nations. Buuuuut these nations are the most played because they had a lot of content to begin with. Just saying.

 

[biggienpac]

If I'm not mistaken this is my first post on EU4 in the entire history of this account, but I needed to break my silence.

I'm more than certain that the devs at Paradox read the comments on these official threads and what baffles me is the fact that this expansion is themed on (yet another) remake of the Great Powers, but after like a million years there's been zero changes to Mamluks #2GP, Persia, and Timurids #8GP.

Do we really need another revamp of France and Ottomans after like 3 updates each n the last 4-5 expansions?

I get that it's titled 'Europa' Universalis, but it shouldn't come across as so dismissive to the others regions by coming across as 'Eurocentrism Universalis'.

If you want to remake France 4 times go for it, but at least have the decency of making he Mamluks up to par and give the other nations proper mission trees.

I honestly thought that this was some kind of lead up to an April Fool's joke with how Mamluks weren't even mentioned yet France and Ottomans were mentioned for the millionth time and there doesn't seem to be any entertainment regarding some sort of confession being made about this in actuality.

Tl;dr Acknowledge your customers and please stop remaking the same GP like Ottomans and France 50 times over when others like Mamluks haven't been touched in ages.

P.S. if there's a dev humble enough to reply to this I'd sincerely appreciate it. Thank you.

 

[Berberin]

I hope it'll have at least 3 more patchs to solve 3 areas/mechanics that i think should be improved:
- Middle East: Regilious/Atheist/Old faiths
- New world: Colonization
- Rome: End-game tags: First Rome, Second Rome, Third Rome, Forth Rome (USA/Former colonial empire), Not Rome (HRE), Rum (Islamic), Finished Rome (Horde/Pagan)

 

[MrSnert]

Absolutely bonkers: reselling us shit once again! All of this should be free for people who own Rule Britannia, Golden Century, Third Rome, Mandate of Heaven and Cradle of Civilization. Stop selling us mission trees you greedy buggers, we’ve already paid for that feature once as well, you know, after you took the old missions away from us and have paid for them since many times over!!!

This overhaul of these nations is good and necessary, but only because PDX raised the OP’ness of every region they’ve touched over the last years and, predictably, made the game more unbalanced with every update. Now, instead of rectifying past mistakes… well, they’re not even mistakes are they? Its policiy: pay us to make the game unbalanced in this DLC so you can play OP regional powers, then pay us again to restore balance!

 

[vaLor-]

No release date?

Will buy though, content looks good enough. Hoping for a Middle East/North Africa update not too long in the future!

 

[Johan]

I completely agree, it's like the studio is looking at the worst bits of Hearts of Iron IV and deciding that rather than making a sandbox game, they should make a story book in focus tree form. Your line about the early modern period only being a series of scripted possibilities is dead on, this doesn't do justice to the time period, or to the basic premise of the game which is to shape history, not to have the devs shape it for you in some teleological narrative. Sad.

I personally tend to look a little bit too much to comments on this forums and reddit, as probably you guys do as well. Me personally, I am not a huge fan of our current mission system, and I tend to prefer more open-ended systems.

However, not every player is the same, and feedback from the forum is not the only source we look at. From the data we have, it is clear that mission trees are the most popular things we can create right now.

 

[ObnoxiousMushroom]

I personally tend to look a little bit too much to comments on this forums and reddit, as probably you guys do as well. Me personally, I am not a huge fan of our current mission system, and I tend to prefer more open-ended systems.

However, not every player is the same, and feedback from the forum is not the only source we look at. From the data we have, it is clear that mission trees are the most popular things we can create right now.

Thanks for the reply, that's really interesting. Do you mind if I ask what kind of data this is based on? Do you have any ideas as to why more people are excited by more particularist content than by more general mechanical changes?

 

[Pyoro]

That is why I hate focus groups (or wherever that data is coming from).

Of course it's going to be more popular to press a button and then get instantly rewarded, preferably with an Achievement pop up on top; and ideally every 5 minutes or so so the player keeps sitting in a constant stream of "you did this thing! Now feel good about it!"

It's the equivalent of wondering whether chocolate is more popular than a carrot. Yeah, obviously.

But it becomes a problem because the player becomes conditioned towards it. Then what starts out as a small bonus on top, as seen in EU, is one day the only thing worthwhile doing. Why bother with complex mechanics? There's no clicky-make-me-feel-good button so the player doesn't care anymore; they've been taught not to care (and even worse if you can't get an achievement for it; why would anyone bother with anything if there's some vague virtual pat on your back at the end of it?!).

Eh, maybe I'm in too negative a mood, but this feel very much like a self-created gaming hell that we're now stuck with ^^

 

[Franconian]

That is why I hate focus groups (or wherever that data is coming from).

Of course it's going to be more popular to press a button and then get instantly rewarded, preferably with an Achievement pop up on top; and ideally every 5 minutes or so so the player keeps sitting in a constant stream of "you did this thing! Now feel good about it!"

It's the equivalent of wondering whether chocolate is more popular than a carrot. Yeah, obviously.

But it becomes a problem because the player becomes conditioned towards it. Then what starts out as a small bonus on top, as seen in EU, is one day the only thing worthwhile doing. Why bother with complex mechanics? There's no clicky-make-me-feel-good button so the player doesn't care anymore; they've been taught not to care (and even worse if you can't get an achievement for it; why would anyone bother with anything if there's some vague virtual pat on your back at the end of it?!).

Eh, maybe I'm in too negative a mood, but this feel very much like a self-created gaming hell that we're now stuck with ^^

It is not just the condition itself, the "I did the achievement for my nation and get a reward for it". But also that the rewards are so freaking good. PUs, permanent claims, permanent bonuses...

The game would need to go away from missions in its entirety and restructure the game to be adjusted for that. And then it really is the question where you get the flavor from...

 

[Testeria]

No Persia

 

[blallo]

I personally tend to look a little bit too much to comments on this forums and reddit, as probably you guys do as well. Me personally, I am not a huge fan of our current mission system, and I tend to prefer more open-ended systems.

However, not every player is the same, and feedback from the forum is not the only source we look at. From the data we have, it is clear that mission trees are the most popular things we can create right now.

out of curiosity, can you disclose how do you measure that the mission trees are the most popular things? Is it because nations that receive a tree get a bump in players playing them at release? From a theoretical point of view nothing that is missions tree could not have been implemented in events, indeed before there already were many chains of events that provided particular bonuses under particular conditions, the only thing that changed is that now those events are bundles in a single interface, giving some the feel of having a more defined objective, and others the feeling that the game is less sandboxy because of it.

It is quite obscure to me how would the studio know that there is not a opportunity cost in investing studio money in missions trees, rather than expanding the sandbox.

 

[ero_sk]

Disclaimer: this is not a rant against EUIV. I love the game and it is the title that I've sank most hours in out of any other games out there.

It really feels to me like the game should reach its well-deserved retirement, maybe with some occasional bug-fixing patches, and instead allocate resources to the new title (EUV ofc!). It feels like the mission tree system has been turned into an easy money making machine, realistically bringing very little to the table for the sake of delivering something. So while I love the game and keep playing it (albeit not as often as I used to), I'm certainly not going to buy this expansion as I stopped doing so I while back.

 

[Skyfus]

Oh, the mission tree rework is paid? Explains why suggestions on multiple threads about fixing Inca were ignored. Can't wait for release so I can pay to make Novgorod viable

 

[Ixal]

I completely agree, it's like the studio is looking at the worst bits of Hearts of Iron IV and deciding that rather than making a sandbox game, they should make a story book in focus tree form. Your line about the early modern period only being a series of scripted possibilities is dead on, this doesn't do justice to the time period, or to the basic premise of the game which is to shape history, not to have the devs shape it for you in some teleological narrative. Sad.

They do that because it sells.
Missions are easy to make and map painters who hate strategy anyway buy them in droves so that the game can guide them on how to play and all the new green numbers through mission let them one tag world conquest even more easy so they can feel accomplished and farm reddit karma. And because EU4 is so old it doesn't matter if the game gets destroyed that way.

 

[cumaethor]

I personally tend to look a little bit too much to comments on this forums and reddit, as probably you guys do as well. Me personally, I am not a huge fan of our current mission system, and I tend to prefer more open-ended systems.

However, not every player is the same, and feedback from the forum is not the only source we look at. From the data we have, it is clear that mission trees are the most popular things we can create right now.

It's me, hi, I'm the problem, it's me I like missions and achievement's.

 

[bokorthedust]

It's me, hi, I'm the problem, it's me I like missions and achievement's.

I have this thing where I get older but just never wiser.

I see a new DLC, I fall for it.

 

[hasbat]

Austria wasn't a major power in the time period?

 

[delusonalism_]

It is not just the condition itself, the "I did the achievement for my nation and get a reward for it". But also that the rewards are so freaking good. PUs, permanent claims, permanent bonuses...

The game would need to go away from missions in its entirety and restructure the game to be adjusted for that. And then it really is the question where you get the flavor from...

i think the current estates system has a lot of capacity to be expanded upon further and provide significant flavour that can be contingent on your gamestate. the current diet events are neat, but theres a lot being left on the table there

 

[Franconian]

i think the current estates system has a lot of capacity to be expanded upon further and provide significant flavour that can be contingent on your gamestate. the current diet events are neat, but theres a lot being left on the table there

I was thinking of something similar. The missions are not just rewards and dopamine injectors, but they also show players where to go. If you take missions away, new ways to push players to either historic or profitable actions should be implemented.

Estates would be a great way to give direction. For example you could border a stronger, threatening nation. The aristocracy may want you to build castles on the border. While they feel the need, castles are cheaper to build and maintain. If they have very high influence, they may however expect this from you - or else.

You could also let the overall loyalty of the estates build a new stability, to show the internal cohesion of the country.