Basic features first, fancier ones and balancing later

Currently viewing this thread:

daxiapi777

Veteran
This is mainly to some of my brethren in the community, especially those defending the recent criticism after beta 1.2. (TW, on the other hand, may not need such a reminder) I am sorry if I offend you in any way, that is certainly not my intention, we all want the game to be better. However, the logic behind the criticism is that this is an EA product (as frequently reminded by some), the first priority is not making the game BETTER but to make it WORK.

What we are facing now is that most of the perks not working, kingdom management and diplomacy almost non-existent. These are the issues we have to settle before worrying about fancy features like feasts (which I personally like a lot, but that can wait). Marriage is a good example, it is barebone, to say the least, but it is there. Many of the basics are simply not there.

My humble opinion on balancing would be doing it along with or after implementing features. For example, now we have all the policies, some of them may be overpowered (looking at you Council of Commons) or underwhelmed. Do not balance them yet, implement all the kingdom management options first (giving players more ways to spend or earn influence), and see if those policies need to be tweaked because of these new features. And we have a perfect place to test these out - the beta or alpha branch.

Just my fifty cents and a friendly reminder, disregard this if you already realize it.
 

bestguy

Veteran
Can't agree. Balance was and still is an issue and devs should keep addressing it. Features are there, they just need polishing. Why do you assume devs will only be working on one thing at a time? I'm sure there are people working on different things.
 

Molay

Recruit
Tweaking and balancing current features doesn't necessarily take away from implementing new features. Different people work on different things in large teams. Adding too many people to a single task won't necessarily speed it up either in game development. I'm confident they didn't just drop all plans they and organization they had when launching EA and are still working away at new features as you'd expect. We'll see them when they're done. I wouldn't expect to see hourly patches with just one change at a time. They'll bundle the changes and release when they can.

In essence, it's erroneous to think that their little tweaks are delaying new features. I hear that argument repeated often, as though there's a single guy working at TW and anything that gets done prevents other things from getting done. This is not how big teams operate.

Just be patient people... return to the game in a few months if you get upset with early access.
 
While I'm sure there are plenty of people working on different things, it does seem somewhat counter productive to balance something before adding things that will change the balance once again. For example, it shouldn't matter that people are making gold too easy. That's a good thing in many cases because it lets people quickly do things like lead armies and kindgoms that stress the system and help test for bugs that need to be ironed out long before anybody worries about 'balance'. So while it's fine to tweak a little bit, grand sweeping changes to balance are pointless when they will need to happen once everything is in place once again. It's like adjusting the thermostat in the house you're building before you put the windows in.
 

Molay

Recruit
While I'm sure there are plenty of people working on different things, it does seem somewhat counter productive to balance something before adding things that will change the balance once again. For example, it shouldn't matter that people are making gold too easy. That's a good thing in many cases because it lets people quickly do things like lead armies and kindgoms that stress the system and help test for bugs that need to be ironed out long before anybody worries about 'balance'. So while it's fine to tweak a little bit, grand sweeping changes to balance are pointless when they will need to happen once everything is in place once again. It's like adjusting the thermostat in the house you're building before you put the windows in.

I'd rather think that the economy is more akin to the foundation of the game. Everything is impacted by the economy. Unless it's in a valid state, what's the point of adding things interacting with it? You want your foundation before you place things on top of it.

Now is the best time for major changes to it, before all other systems are implemented.
 

daxiapi777

Veteran
I'd rather think that the economy is more akin to the foundation of the game. Everything is impacted by the economy. Unless it's in a valid state, what's the point of adding things interacting with it? You want your foundation before you place things on top of it.

Now is the best time for major changes to it, before all other systems are implemented.
You might be wrong here. The economy, logically, should be the foundation. But realistically it is always changing with all the features, so balancing it before implementing features is arguably a waste of time. For example, feast could be a money sink which potentially will break the economy. So instead of balancing it now, why not do it after we implement features like feast? I know this is EA, but there is playable and there is finished. It could take a year to finish the game, but if we focus on implementing features first, the game would be playable much sooner.
 

Molay

Recruit
I don't see how money sinks like feasts would break the economy? It's about the economic model being reliable and working in a desirable manner first and foremost, which is what the changes so far seem to be targeting primarily. Smaller adjustments can be made over time if players end up too rich or poor. Big changes like caravan survivability and knock-on effects on trade prices, city wealth/prosperity etc are best done from the get go, as a stable foundation to work with. Unless you're referring the previously bugged workshops that produced thousands of gold? Those are minor tweaks that aren't time consuming, and it would be foolish to leave easy to fix issues in there wouldn't it?
 

Dabos37

Sergeant Knight
In the same way that we saw people claiming for balancing when It was impossible to level up skills, It is also important to balance the game when something is too easy to get and the game becomes bored due to lack challenging. Lack of content just makes the need for balancing and making the game harder even more important. Plus I am pretty sure that balancing the current game wont necessarily means that new content will come later. There are for sure different people un charge of work on different things at the same time.

Having said that, economy is pretty much the same than before, I am still getting +-500 denars daily with Tannery Workshops and my caravans have not been defeated in +250 days. Plus I have more than 400k, best battanian armor and pretty good armor for my companions too.
 

daxiapi777

Veteran
I don't see how money sinks like feasts would break the economy? It's about the economic model being reliable and working in a desirable manner first and foremost, which is what the changes so far seem to be targeting primarily. Smaller adjustments can be made over time if players end up too rich or poor. Big changes like caravan survivability and knock-on effects on trade prices, city wealth/prosperity etc are best done from the get go, as a stable foundation to work with. Unless you're referring the previously bugged workshops that produced thousands of gold? Those are minor tweaks that aren't time consuming, and it would be foolish to leave easy to fix issues in there wouldn't it?
Glad you mention the economy being a model. That is a good idea. But granted this is an EA product, this model is constantly facing new constraints and variables (new features) thus is in need of constant tweaks. Why bother tweak the model prematurely when you already know you got to do it with new variables? It's not like they are changing the fundamentals. They are just making minor changes which could be subject to further changes. The opportunity costs are real here.
 
Top Bottom