Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Imic]

My only real complaint so far is the UI. I'm not entirely sure why, it just... rubs me up the wrong way? I'm not sure how to describe it.

[micelus]

I saw this and had to check to make sure it wasn't April 1st.

There was apparently a strong contingent of people on the dev team that wanted to announce the game on April 1st and then reveal utterly no details until Victoria Day.

Marketing being marketing, vetoed the idea .


EDIT: cautiously optimistic about the game based off dev responses and the initial dev diary. If anything, it looks more complex than Vic2 - they even seem to be dealing with the liquidity problem?

[Dorsidwarf]

Its looking pretty spicy so far!

However, too many past burned fingers at pdx have ensured that I am very firmly a post-release buy, once reviewers have had a chance to come to grips with the thing and give it a real shakedown.

[chaoticag]

Generally a pretty good attitude to have. Never pre-order a game you can't try or watch a trusted preview of.

[Knave]

I'm sort of hoping they'll go the xbox gamepass for PC route like they did for CK3. That way I can still play it at release for a bit to see how it shapes up before buying it at a bigger discount down the line once they've released a few DLC :p

[Tawa]

EDIT: cautiously optimistic about the game based off dev responses and the initial dev diary. If anything, it looks more complex than Vic2 - they even seem to be dealing with the liquidity problem?

This is the big thing IMO, if they can rework finances well enough that 98% of the world's money isn't rotting in government vaults and gold miners' savings accounts at the end of the game, it's an automatic win for me.

[Sime]

In my unpopular opinion, they should axe the POP system.   It added nothing  to the macro-simulation of the economy apart from serious bugs that paradox couldn't fix.   As Pride of Nations showed, all  that a  game  of this type needs is region based demographic statistics, and  price fluctuations and event triggers based on those statistics.

[Lidku]

Very unpopular opinion, lol. Pride of Nations doesn't even match-up to Victoria 2 at all. Killing off the POP system would basically in the same margin kill any interest for Victoria 3, in this theoretical scenario being posited here. The people who are even interested in Victoria 2 want more detail and more "micro" to begin with, "macro" should be the least of any concern for Victoria 3.

[Inarius]

In my unpopular opinion, they should axe the POP system.   It added nothing  to the macro-simulation of the economy apart from serious bugs that paradox couldn't fix.   As Pride of Nations showed, all  that a  game  of this type needs is region based demographic statistics, and  price fluctuations and event triggers based on those statistics.

If they axe the POP system, they will also axe my financial participation to the game.
Or they will have to be very very convincing for another system.

[chaoticag]

In my unpopular opinion, they should axe the POP system.   It added nothing  to the macro-simulation of the economy apart from serious bugs that paradox couldn't fix.   As Pride of Nations showed, all  that a  game  of this type needs is region based demographic statistics, and  price fluctuations and event triggers based on those statistics.

I mean, you can suggest this but I don't see how a move from one system to another would meaningfully change things to add features or make the game more stable.

Right now the POP system tracks:

• people units
• class
• demands
• production
• death
• affiliation

And so on. Turning these into region to region statistics instead is not something that will necessarily make the game run any better or any differently, and just because one method has buggy results it doesn't mean the other method will not cause them or be even worse to diagnose. I mean, you can probably ask for it to be simplified or work off a more simplified method but... that feels more in line with EUIV. Meanwhile this level of detail might be needed if you wanted to implement something like the Opium wars. At the very least you need separate world markets for it

[EuchreJack]

Gee, if the dev in charge of the game was the same as the beginning of Stellaris, I think we can speculate what is going to happen to Pops based upon that.

Which is also why to be very cautious.  That dev basically got lucky that Stellaris was such a hit, and they're probably all cocky now.  The studio thinks the dev will give them another win.  Recipe for disaster.  Also, I'm pretty sure Paradox doesn't own the systems that were used in Victoria 1 & 2, so they have to build this "from scratch".  Except they're probably going to port most of it from Stellaris.

What you should expect, at best, is a Victorian-era Stellaris.  But they're two very different games and settings, so who knows if this is going to work.

[micelus]

By all means be cautious - it's paradox after all - but Doomdark isn't in charge of Vic3; Wiz is.

 Stellaris I'd reckon suffers from the problem of being more or less three successive games built on the foundation of the first, and one that isn't at all suited to handle everything the other two games demand.  Not that base stellaris worked perfectly well mind you. Too many big ideas that didn't work out too well in execution in the initial game. I do honestly believe that the systems for 2.0 are superior to 1.0, just that the code mustn't be in too great a shape.

I'm not sure what you mean by owned systems?

[chaoticag]

No, they're not going to grab pops from Stellaris and just port them over. Stellaris pops are meant to be similar to MoO or Civilization style entities, but with political opinions. It's probably faster to start from scratch than port that system over from Stellaris. It's definitely not a method that scales to 1 billion entities.

[Criptfeind]

I'm watching this with interest for sure, although I do got a lot of fears for the game, I don't think Wiz did a particularly good job on stellaris, it had a lot of problems when he came in, to be sure, but I think he also caused a lot of problems to be added over time as well. In particular (not totally Wiz fault, but he at least has a hand in it) a LOT of stellaris problems probably come down to the fact that it's economic and internal political simulation is essentially nonexistent, so like, it's the opposite of what one would hope from Victoria, which really makes me worried for Victoria.

As for the pop system, I think there's a legitimate fear that they'll implement a system like they have in stellaris which is just sorta not great. Especially from a performance perspective, right now pops dragging down performance is ruining the game design of stellaris, which is why stellaris probably needs to simplify the pops down to some sort of statistical system so I can totally understand why people want Victoria to start with some sort of more reasonable system. Too be honest, a pop system or a statistical system, I think both would work fine, but it's important that the designers pick a system that they can make actually work without dragging the game down, and so far they've not shown the ability to do that. Luckily, I suppose victoria has a bit more of a limited scope so hopefully they can find a system that works...?

[Dorsidwarf]

Given that the politically and economically active Pop system is the signature element to Vic2, like Mana to EU4 and incest the Dynasty to Crusader Kings, the chance of vic 3 not having pops in some form was always a flat 0%, even before they confirmed that pops were returning.