Yikes
>vicky 3 casually dogwalking eu5so much for the ultimate gsg that's supposed to end all gsgs
Johan was right. People want mana and simple economy.
>>2497916LOLbodied those shit games
Dont let the paracuck shills bury this
Eu5 is which was supposed to paradox magnum opus is getting dabbed on by Chinese slop games and a train conductor simulator
>>2497985Yep. The paracucks are freaking out in the other threads. Keep the pressure up
>>2497916lol. where's Civ 4?also i prefer GOG
>>2498097anyhow... shill me on Revolution Idle.
>>2497948Or you know a playable game on release that doesn't have a year of vastly game changing patches (another year on top planned by the way) zero good mods on the back of this and the most incompetent media relations team since Forespoken
>>2497916the fact that anyone plays civ 7 at all is depressing
>>2497916Kess players than Civ VII is a new low.
>>2497916Not a single good game in that list. Impressive.
>>2497985The transport game is being published by paradox. A lot of fans of the previous games were unhappy and saw it as selling out when it was announced that Paradox will be the publisher. I'm guessing Paradrones are hopping onto it now since they'll buy anything with the Paradox label slapped on it
>>2497926Both games suck. Eu5 has more potential but vicky 3 is so easy you can walk away from the game and you'll be fine. It attracts a certain group of people who are too retarded for these even these "strategy" games, but want to think they are smart.
Stop forcing tribalism, you Epstein cuck
>>2497916Lmao. Paracucks btfo
>>2498109>most incompetent media relations teamQRD?
>>2497916tww3 got a lot of shit for absolutely nothing, its a vastly better game than anything paradox ever released, an actual game instead of an autistic spreadsheet simulator
>>2497916>15 games of pure slop/vst/bros, I dont feel so good
>>2499703>Victoria 2 is better than all of these games yet it's not at the top of the listNo shit it came out nearly 20 years ago and anyone who still plays it likely dosen't do it on steam
>>2499745My point still stands, since I doubt there's more than 3000 people playing Victoria 2 at any one time even though, as I said, it's obviously a better and more rounded product than everything else on that list.Popularity =/= a good product, but in eu5 and vicky3's case they are neither popular nor good.
Why did eu5 bomb?
>>2500293Because 90% of EU UV players can't run it. The fact that it is a shitty game doesn't help.
>>2500296It's got a good foundation, it's just that the game is about 100 years
>>2500293Wrong place wrong advertisement, trying to be a sequel to EU fucked it over.
>>2497916what blew up now?
>>2500293it's just not an interesting gamethe amount of information dumped on you and the amount of minutiae simulated and recorded is fascinating at first but once you play it a bit you realize it boils down to build RGOs build profitable buildings maximize control economically snowball until the AI can't oppose you at alland while you do this nothing interesting happens in the rest of the world
>>2500293It lacks the elements that made EU4 so successful. The same kinds of things that /gsg/ seethed about for years.
>>2500435>mana made eu4 successfullmaoeu4 was successful in spite of mana, not because of it
>>2500293hohol mania gradually undermined the whole project
>>2500440this
so when are we expecting support to go into "life support" mode? once the pre-order promises are finished is what i guess
>>2497916Fucking grim. So many faggots on here in denial. It bombed. You lost.
>>2500437it was successful in spite of tying mana to tech being such a drain on the quality of the mana system, not in spite of mana itself
>>2500839>when has a billion dollar for-profit company ever started removing whole swathes of their game while still maintaining live service?Destiny 2
>>2500853/thread
I was in high school when Steam came outI don’t think I’ve ever once given a shit about player counts for any game, whether I liked the game or notIs this some weird zoomer thing? Why do you care how many people are playing some game you don’t like? You want other people to be mad because they like something that isn’t popular?
>>2500853>Johan kneelers got exactly what they wanted>lostWhat did they lose?
>>2501173RIP in pepperonis, dollaridoos.
>>2501173That was me. Never again.
>>2501028Nu-Paradox games are basically live services. They initially release something akin to shovelware and spend a decade "reworking" mechanics and adding new "flavour".If a game makes has no active playerbase it means they get revenue and they drop it like a hot potato. Hell, if the currrent DLC makes no money they just stop working on it, not even patching it to a better state.So if you like a decent product you better hope paypiggies keep shelling out.
>>2501363>Nu-Paradox games are basically live services. They initially release something akin to shovelware and spend a decade "reworking" mechanics and adding new "flavour".>So if you like a decent product you better hope paypiggies keep shelling out.Partly agree, partly disagree. One, if the games were 'shovelware' at launch, then no one would stick around to keep playing it. When it came out, EU4 (the herald of the nu-Paradox era) was perfectly playable and fine, and was a marked improvement over EU3, which is why it became popular and widely-played.Two, the tendency of games like EU4 and HOI4 was to initially improve the game for a short while, then hit an inflection point where maximum quality was reached, before dQ/dT turns negative, and subsequent DLC simply bloats and shits up what used to be a good game, and then ran that shit straight into the ground, where it ends up worse than it was in its early vanilla pre-DLC state.I can't speak to CK3 or Vicky 3, since they were both so shitty I dropped them and didn't bother to keep playing, or to Stellaris, where I only played its later iterations and not its early versions. But one of the reasons why Imperator is one of my favorites of the nu-era was that it got polished up and then dropped, as-is, without getting fagged up.These are single player games you will fuck around in for hundreds or thousands of hours. Being constantly tweaked and fuck with is not desirable. I have no interest in "live service" or multiplayer. I simply want a good game that's left alone.
>>2501028t. Bagholder mad that johan and paracuck rugpulled him
>>2501397>But one of the reasons why Imperator is one of my favorites of the nu-era was that it got polished up and then dropped, as-is, without getting fagged up.PARADOXICALLY Imperator is their best game at the moment, you can easily buy it with all DLC on sale, install Invictus from the workshop and play a decently complex gsg never worrying about bullshit mechanics and overhauls
>>2501028>I'm a newfag look at me!We know
>>2501028Nah, you're not wrong.It's an odd dynamic, half of the people criticizing EU5 have legitimate grievances (historical inaccuracies such as megakyiv, lack of AI agency, etc), and the other half are seething EU4 players mad that it's not EU4 2 and want the game to be more about epic ulm WCs.The problem is you never know which you're dealing with, so you could waste hours of your time trying to argue in good faith with a brainless EU4 NPC who just wants their blobber back.
>>2497985EU5 has potential but they genuinely went a couple of steps forward and then reversed straight back. I was actually wanting to play it, the release bugs and the fact there's fuck all happening in the game have made me wait until 2028 or something.
>>2501397A similar effect also plays out on a smaller scale, when the game is only ever playable really 2 patches after a DLC, but just before the next major update.Re: Stellaris I have experience playing it on release, though I haven't in a while and stopped following what is going on with it. The game has gone beyond just bloat, while this is true to an extent with other current nuPDX games, it changed so much it can hardly be considered the same game in terms of both mechanics and creative direction in general. It went though several cycles of rework->patch most glaring issues->developers painting themselves into a corner->rework and start from scratch.
>>2501397>When it came out, EU4 (the herald of the nu-Paradox era) was perfectly playable and fine, and was a marked improvement over EU3, which is why it became popular and widely-played.I have never seen someone manage to be so wrong in so many different ways in so few words.
>>2501463Yes, this would be the ideal for EU5, I've said it since before launch.If it became abandonware you could pick up the literal magnum opus of grand strategy games for cheap, all the mechanics, and mods would have a strong base to work with without having to worry about their sweeping vibecoded balance changes.
>>2501546can mods actually fix EU5 though? I fear it may be too much of a mess
>>2501550There are already some good mods like the gathering of the Rus, Ottoman mod, and Hussite mods. They could be collated into one mega railroad mod, like invictus, or HPM for Victoria 2.The game is pretty much fully there mechanically, it just needs to simulate history now.
>>2501544everybody hated mana but EU4's QoL changes, new trade system, nice UI, expanded national ideas and what not all made it very appealing during launch and the first few DLCs
>>2501554I will grant you the UI, it legitimately is one of the nicest in any paradox game, second only to Victoria 2 (seriously, having the top bar show you all pertinent information compactly AND function as buttons to get to a panel about that was a masterstroke in my opinion, you can see pertinent information at a glance and it links very intuitively to further interactions), but as far as I remember the real QoL stuff came later, such as fleshing out the macro-builder.As far as trade I always felt it was extremely under-utilized and pointless. For one there was the obvious issue that all trade was routed to end nodes, so if you were playing in say, Russia, you needed to control essentially two ending nodes, one where you collected the money, and the other one downstream of it that you had to FULLY control so you could stop other nations pulling your wealth forward. The next problem with trade was that despite adding trading companies ultimately the only way to optimize it was simply to blob. Controlling all trade nodes with fully upgraded trade company buildings there would never be as effective as simply blobbing epic style, which seemed to defeat the entire purpose of them.I always hated national ideas. Reduced meaningful historical flavor to simple modifiers. I want to know about the historical background to these things, not just see it gives me a green +10% stability efficiency.For me EU5 addresses 90% of the problems with EU4 and greatly improves on the game. I don't know why people seem to hate it.
>>2501569>but as far as I remember the real QoL stuff came later, such as fleshing out the macro-builder>As far as trade I always felt it was extremely under-utilized and pointless. For one there was the obvious issue that all trade was routed to end nodes, so if you were playing in say, Russia, you needed to control essentially two ending nodes, one where you collected the money, and the other one downstream of it that you had to FULLY control so you could stop other nations pulling your wealth forwardyour criticisms are valid but you have to remember we're comparing this to EU3, not VickyEU3's trade system is extremely simplistic (and also benefits from min maxing into a mercantilist blob or free trade OPM) and the UI is functional but not as pretty or refined as EU4The ability to integrate vassals or make cores by a definite process compared to EU3's systems also feels a lot less jank, even if in the end it just makes blobbing easierYou also gotta remember how tired people were of cascading alliances and EU3's agent system by the time DW had been out for a few years
>>2501583I see what you mean, EU4 had many improvements over EU3, but I never got over how arbitrary and immersion breaking mana was.I also never liked, and do not currently like the arguments used against EU5 that "money mana" shouldn't be as powerful as it is.Money absolutely should be the most powerful currency in the game. The richest states in history were the most powerful. I see nothing wrong with EU3's system of technology being pay to win, and most of EU5 being pay to win. If there are problems with every state having (or having the potential to have) too much money then that's a balancing issue, not a flaw in design. My issues with monarch points are twofold.1. It gives far too much agency and relevance to a single RNG variable. Both from a roleplay/realism point of view and from a gameplay point of view this is bad design, kings were not this detrimental, even at the high point of absolutism, and 50+ years of your run shouldn't be determined on whether the dice says 6 or 1.2. The scope of actions operated by mana is ridiculous. I don't like religious influence mana in EU5, but at least it solely pertains to religious issues. Diplo points in EU4 was the most pervasive and broad-spectrum of any mana point in paradox games, even more than fuhrer mana in HoI4. The same points should not control culture converting, recruiting admirals, increasing mercantilism, converting culture, increasing some arbitrary "development" number in provinces, just absolutely ridiculous and completely takes you out of the game. Mana killed EU4, any hopes of a good game being under that were ruined by this shit for me. Essentially made it feel like risk, not a grand strategy game.Reintroducing mana to EU5, albeit in a limited form, was my 9/11. It's such a lazy "mechanic" that takes you out of the game and is solely done because developers are either too lazy or stupid to focus on actual mechanics, which EU5 has, so they should have just merged all mana costs into those.
>>2501588>Essentially made it feel like risk, not a grand strategy game.Friendly reminder that EU was literally a board game.
>>2501609And Amazon was a book store, you fucking retard.
>>2501646>And Amazon was a book store, you fucking retard.I know you thought this was a witty retort, but... Amazon is still a book store, and EU is still, at its core, a board game. You're talking about a game that still divides its armies into infantry, cavalry, and artillery, while complaining that it "feels like Risk", because you are incredibly stupid. Hope this helps.
>>2501749>You're talking about a game that still divides its armies into infantry, cavalry, and artilleryThat's how every military in history divided its armies from the invention of the cannon to WW2.EU5 is a mechanically complex video game. You lost, arcadetroon.
>>2501784>EU5 is a mechanically complex video game. You lost, arcadetroon.It must be exhausting being this mad all the time at imaginary people in your head about things that no one said.
>>2501784Player count status?
Love warhammer
>>2498322Vic2 is exactly the same. When I was like 10 I’d play Prussia and never even have to build a building because the capitalist just do it for you and I would just declare war and win against everyone and be the best in everything
>>2497986No one hates paradox more then paradox fans retard.
>>2501491>4cuck unc bragging about being an oldtroon LOCKED!
