I feel like the devs have learned absolutely nothing from Legends of the Dead

[PDX-Trinexx]

I can link atleast 5 video-essays that are publicly available on YT that provide “constructive criticism”

Please do; I'm always looking for more feedback to scoop up into our weekly reports

 

[Knight of Lemonwood]

Please do; I'm always looking for more feedback to scoop up into our weekly reports

 

[PDX-Trinexx]

Thank you!

 

[Max Wax]

Besides, we are not asking for anything new or different, we’re literally begging for features that are already designed for CK2 to be ported over into CK3. This is exactly what the initial game director promised during the early development stage, to include every piece of content present in CK2 in to the new game. 5 years later we don’t even have conclave one of the most trivial DLCs to re-implement.

When you read the Dev Diary 0 - the Vision for CK3 - from 2019, it was actually the opposite. Ck3 was announced to be stripped from some of the Ck2 features without a guarantee they'll ever come back. The intent was to create "friendlier customer experience" and replace the abandoned mechanics with " the core gameplay far more fun and rewarding" than in Ck2. The DLCs from the last 4 years prove that the vision and direction for CK3 is very different. Ck3 is more of a power fantasy, than a grand strategy. There is more "cosmetic" and event dlcs than those adding strategy elements. Mechanics are simpler and less challenging,


"Now, you might say: “Cool, but I took the time to master CK2, bought all the expansions, and now it provides me an enormous breadth of options. Why should I buy CK3?”
That’s a fair question! As I mentioned earlier, we decided not to carry over all features from CK2, so if you play CK2 primarily for, say, the nomads or the merchant republics (the only faction types that were playable in CK2 but not in CK3), you might be disappointed. There are likely other features and content that will be missed by some players, but, in return, we believe that everyone will find the core gameplay far more fun and rewarding! To be clear, CK3 is a vastly bigger game than CK2 was on release."

 

[ENFP]

The argument that the player-base does not provide nuanced criticism is entirely untrue. I can link atleast 5 video-essays that are publicly available on YT that provide “constructive criticism” as well as solutions for the problems CK3 is facing. The problem was never with the playerbase but more to do with the vision of the game director not aligning with what we want which is unacceptable.

Besides, we are not asking for anything new or different, we’re literally begging for features that are already designed for CK2 to be ported over into CK3. This is exactly what the initial game director promised during the early development stage, to include every piece of content present in CK2 in to the new game. 5 years later we don’t even have conclave one of the most trivial DLCs to re-implement.

I miss conclave so much. While its features were pretty barebones, some of my best CK2 memories are of that pesky chancellor that wouldnt let me do anything but that I could not risk enraging. It was a great feature to replicate the transition from the power of the nobles to a more centralized, absolutist monarch.

 

[ENFP]

Hot take: The fact that Paradox is likely sticking to the same content cycle; one major expansion, a "core" expansion/flavor pack, and an event DLC, says a lot about their lack of interest in fixing CK3's fundamental flaws.

We don’t need new government systems, flavor packs, or cosmetic DLCs. What we need is for the devs to take an entire year to reassess the game’s core mechanics, the broken, bloated, and underdeveloped ones and rebuild them from the ground up. Schemes, diplomacy, warfare, religion, technology and eras, buildings, peace deals, events, the economy, and character interaction all need major overhauls to make them feel less shallow.

There’s no point in expanding the map or adding more flavor when the foundation is weak. If these core issues aren’t addressed, I don’t see CK3 lasting another two years especially with the release of Project Caesar, which, as you pointed out, already looks like a more compelling medieval simulator than Crusader Kings itself.

I think the devs have learned a lot, and Roads to Power proved that to me, personally. I think both RtP and Wandering Nobles were both great because they vastly expanded the mechanics of the game (landless play, administrative government), AND added more complexity and touched up what was already there (the new travel stuff, AI fixes like prestige debt, casus bellis, and the court event reworks). The need for both mechanical focused expansions and touching up of old content were common complaints we all saw a bunch before RtP. Saying the devs learned nothing is just inflammatory and false.

That being said, the game is still really struggling in a few crucial areas like modifier stacking, difficulty more generally, and a need more broadly for the reworking of events and relations to make them more impactful. The devs have already said these are two areas they are focused on, and that they want to rework content like legends that were generally negatively received or implemented.

 

[peteoj]

I think the devs have learned a lot, and Roads to Power proved that to me, personally. I think both RtP and Wandering Nobles were both great because they vastly expanded the mechanics of the game (landless play, administrative government), AND added more complexity and touched up what was already there (the new travel stuff, AI fixes like prestige debt, casus bellis, and the court event reworks). The need for both mechanical focused expansions and touching up of old content were common complaints we all saw a bunch before RtP. Saying the devs learned nothing is just inflammatory and false.

That being said, the game is still really struggling in a few crucial areas like modifier stacking, difficulty more generally, and a need more broadly for the reworking of events and relations to make them more impactful. The devs have already said these are two areas they are focused on, and that they want to rework content like legends that were generally negatively received or implemented.

Funny enough, RTP and Wandering Nobles are exactly why I believe overhauls should come before more large-scale content additions.

RTP is great, no doubt, but it suffers from fundamental flaws most notably the severe lack of diplomatic options, terrible balance, underwhelming warfare, and, most importantly, bad AI. I can’t play RTP without questioning why the AI is so inept, barely utilizing the mechanics that should be to its benefit. Similarly, Landless highlights how lackluster warfare is and how it fails to feel personal, like your input effects anything, alien from every other mechanic or like your actions truly matter, where the mercenary path is the only truly interactive playstyle.

Administrative Realms has the same issue. The AI refuses to spend influence on acclaiming its successors, leading to a constant rotation of non-dynastic emperors, even when fully capable male heirs exist. It completely breaks immersion.

Wandering Nobles suffers in a different way. I know the content is good, but I can’t help but feel that the development time could have been better spent fixing the game’s glaring flaws specifically when we're nearly half a decade into development. Are more travel activities and events really worth it when core mechanics, diplomacy, warfare, religion, crusades, AI behavior, and event balancing, are all still bare-bones?

You can pile great content onto a shaky foundation, but at some point, something’s got to give.

 

[ENFP]

Funny enough, RTP and Wandering Nobles are exactly why I believe overhauls should come before more large-scale content additions.

RTP is great, no doubt, but it suffers from fundamental flaws most notably the severe lack of diplomatic options, terrible balance, underwhelming warfare, and, most importantly, bad AI. I can’t play RTP without questioning why the AI is so inept, barely utilizing the mechanics that should be to its benefit. Similarly, Landless highlights how lackluster warfare is and how it fails to feel personal, like your input effects anything, alien from every other mechanic or like your actions truly matter, where the mercenary path is the only truly interactive playstyle.

Administrative Realms has the same issue. The AI refuses to spend influence on acclaiming its successors, leading to a constant rotation of non-dynastic emperors, even when fully capable male heirs exist. It completely breaks immersion.

Wandering Nobles suffers in a different way. I know the content is good, but I can’t help but feel that the development time could have been better spent fixing the game’s glaring flaws specifically when we're nearly half a decade into development. Are more travel activities and events really worth it when core mechanics, diplomacy, warfare, religion, crusades, AI behavior, and event balancing, are all still bare-bones?

You can pile great content onto a shaky foundation, but at some point, something’s got to give.

I will admit that I have noticed the same issue with Admin government that you have, and it concerns me too. I also agree with you that I wish the other landless purposes (like scholar) would interact more with the landed characters. Lets hope that is something that will get fleshed out later (I must admit I find myself thinking that far too often about CK3 content). I really hope the next few patches have a bigger set of AI fixes, difficulty tweaks, and tweaking of previous content that has issues.

 

[Blodhevn]

people who dont even like the game or what? now i quit ck3 cuz i played waay to much and there wasnt enough content to drastically change the gameplay for me. but why(did watch) would they listen to the people who seemingly dont like ck3 and not the players who actively play but also give feedback to what would make it even more attractive?

 

[Taritu]

I'll say two things:

1) Stellaris devs communicate a lot more.

2) Something like the Stellaris Custodian team, to go back over old stuff and fix it/re-work it might be a good idea. It's certainly made a huge difference to Stellaris.

Not sure what relative sales are. My impression is that Stellaris is making a ton of money. Don't know about CK3. Maybe a Custodian style team can't be justified financially, but it might make a huge difference to the game.

 

[okawfj]

I have one request as well.
If there is a need for future expansion of the map, please consider officially adopting the Miller cylindrical projection.
Compared to the current distorted map, we can reproduce a more accurate and beautifully large area.

 

[peteoj]

I have one request as well.
If there is a need for future expansion of the map, please consider officially adopting the Miller cylindrical projection.
Compared to the current distorted map, we can reproduce a more accurate and beautifully large area.

That mod is absolutely amazing it does scale perfectly just sucks it's not compatible with visual mods.

 

[Voidian]

I really wish paradox would just move away from this current model of delivering almost no DLCs yearly, the golden age of paradox was much, much better.

What were the goals? Reduce the number of DLCs on the store page? Well that didn't work, specially when they've decided to add content creator packs, besides, it's inevitable, if they plan on running on DLCs, which they are doing right now, the list will get big regardless and people will give negative reviews for a game having any DLC, at all, regardless, so what did that accomplish?


The quality of DLCs didn't increase either, in fact, most of them are getting record low reviews, having less done doesn't necesarily mean an increase in quality, interestingly enough the DLCs that ARE getting well received are the ones that look just like the good DLCs from CK2 and EU4, the ones adding actual content to the game instead of these light packs that add nothing and just bloat the store page (which was the main reason they changed everything in the first place).

I honestly don't see the point in doubling down on this failing strategy for yet another year, people want content, people want mechanics, people want to get challenged, people want the bad systems fixed, we've seen the great success from the Stellaris Custodian team, we've seen how much old paradox games have grown their audience over time, we've even seen how just how much better a meaty DLC like RTP was received compared to everything else, hell, it might be the first time CK3 has ever had a lasting increase in daily player numbers.

Can't we just stop delivering those bad DLCs and start focusing on the content players actually want? It has been half a decade and the game felt like it was in life support mode for most of it. I mean, why even bother announcing more of those tiny event DLCs that have NEVER been positivelly received and don't bump up player numbers? Who are these even for?!

sigh

 

[Torredebelem]

Only 2 out of 7 of these had positive reviews the rest were mixed or negative.

Then 3 dev diaries to culminate in a complete mess of a dlc who had MOSTLY NEGATIVE reviews for most of its existence.

Do not focus on reviews. Focus on sales. And for all we do know, CK3 is selling very well. Yes, it hurts the core fanbase of the game that bothers to write reviews, but the core fanbase doesn't account for the majority of sales.

The issue is that 2025 is not 2020. There are other games being developed to fill the niche of CK3.

Pray tell me their names...

Project Caesar itself has a lot of features that base CK3 should have had, and it’s release date is not too far away.

Once I see it, I'll judge it. If past provides any lesson, I would say it will be another empty canvas with some nice concepts ready to receive all sorts of DLCs.

With an extended timeline mod i expect PC to take take a lot of the hardcore GSG audience of CK3, and with it the audience that pays to maintain the development of the game.

The audience overlaps at some points, but is not necessarily the same nor close to that. Besides, calling CK3 a GSG is not very accurate. It is more an RPG with a thin layer of strategy and management. This way Paradox covers a broader slice of the market with two games, reaching a greater audience than if they overlapped the target public.

I don’t think asking for timely dev diaries, so that extrnsive feedback can be given and properly implemented is too much.

Dev Diaries are important when there are important things to share in the precise timing it should be released. I don't see why the increase in Dev Diaries would impact the quality of the product.

Bottom line: Trust Paradox more on making a very successful game than on designing it on how you feel is the right way... you are in the minority. Paradox is not here to present the greatest design of all time, just to sell as much as it can while keeping a minimum ethos of the brand.

 

[Voidian]

Do not focus on reviews. Focus on sales. And for all we do know, CK3 is selling very well. Yes, it hurts the core fanbase of the game that bothers to write reviews, but the core fanbase doesn't account for the majority of sales.



Pray tell me their names...


Once I see it, I'll judge it. If past provides any lesson, I would say it will be another empty canvas with some nice concepts ready to receive all sorts of DLCs.



The audience overlaps at some points, but is not necessarily the same nor close to that. Besides, calling CK3 a GSG is not very accurate. It is more an RPG with a thin layer of strategy and management. This way Paradox covers a broader slice of the market with two games, reaching a greater audience than if they overlapped the target public.



Dev Diaries are important when there are important things to share in the precise timing it should be released. I don't see why the increase in Dev Diaries would impact the quality of the product.

Bottom line: Trust Paradox more on making a very successful game than on designing it on how you feel is the right way... you are in the minority. Paradox is not here to present the greatest design of all time, just to sell as much as it can while keeping a minimum ethos of the brand.

I just find it interesting that this supposed minority grew all of the audience paradox has today, CK3 had to rely on it to have sales from CK2 with a very successful launch, all of the DLCs have fallen flat on their face failing to increase player numbers like every other DLC from every one of their other games, the one DLC that went into the direction this supposed "minority" have been asking for since the start, RTP, adding not one but 2 different "government" types and extra mechanical content is the first DLC that has actually shown a lasting increase in monthly player numbers, like all DLCs used to do in the other paradox games....

AAAAND their most successful game is HoI4 which is aa pure GSG.

It's also odd that this supposed "minority" is always outnumbering this supposed "majority" wherever you look, be it on forums, reddit or even right here, whenever someone criticizes CK3 and the things that needs to get fixed it gets massive upvotes by every community, everywhere, and the opposite doesn't happen, this is also reflected on the DLC reviews and monthly player numbers, but we should just believe there's a ghost majority out there even though it goes against the norm of this game in every community, and all of their other games too?

Also, I don't buy that this is even part RPG, it's just a GSG, as you're saying, a bad one, but it's a GSG, all of the game's interactions happen through a map, borders, and everything revolves around expansion and warfare, it just adds another layer for this (dynastic), but RPG? there's less roleplaying to see here than Stellaris.

But yeah, other than vic3 and Imperator, Stellaris, this was the only paradox game failing to grow it's audience, until RTP that is. (and a slight temporary bump from T&T and RC)

 

[Niall9]

So just to be the devil's advocate here it is possible that the negative feedback may have been a product of the actual content of the DLC rather than a reaction to the DDs.

On a personal level though I definitely prefer the info dump method, and unlike a lot of other people on this forum I really don't mind the longer periods of silence if it means better products.

I feel like I am the only one who liked Legends of the Dead? A lot of negative backlash was due to early bugs which were fixed quickly but I liked the Legends system, but feel a lot of people wanted it to be something else.

 

[Knight of Lemonwood]

How come Tinto is able to implement a comprehensive plague system before their game is even announced? Unique flavour for 60 nations, all with the base/vanilla game?

I’m starting to think that either CK3 is severely understaffed and underfunded or its something else…

 

[FortressofRain]

I feel like I am the only one who liked Legends of the Dead? A lot of negative backlash was due to early bugs which were fixed quickly but I liked the Legends system, but feel a lot of people wanted it to be something else.

I mean I thought it would be like a dynamic legend system where it would tie major events or outcomes my character did, like with the journal system, to a story I could promote in the future. The current system is so arbitrary or generic that the legends aren't memorable, flavorful, or relevant. Like at all. But that doesn't surprise me compared to how events handle picking characters at random and don't take into account character traits, relationships, or histories, at all for choices or outcomes.

 

[Alphonce]

I mean I thought it would be like a dynamic legend system where it would tie major events or outcomes my character did, like with the journal system, to a story I could promote in the future. The current system is so arbitrary or generic that the legends aren't memorable, flavorful, or relevant. Like at all. But that doesn't surprise me compared to how events handle picking characters at random and don't take into account character traits, relationships, or histories, at all for choices or outcomes.

Not to mention the same epidemic events repeating over and over, no matter how good your medical facilities are... After a few hours of gameplay, you quickly realize that nothing really matters.

 

[Azgabeth]

Not to mention the same epidemic events repeating over and over, no matter how good your medical facilities are... After a few hours of gameplay, you quickly realize that nothing really matters.

This is exactly how you feel in every ck3 game after the first 100years…