|
Sometimes I fool myself into thinking I'm kind of grognardy but then I see videos/videogames like this; I'm so loving far from being a grognard I might as well be playing call of duty. e: DStecks posted:But how do you even define "nuclear war"? I mean, it seems like a stupid question, but think about it. MacArthur getting to use nukes in Korea would be a gameover, yeah. That's not all that absurd, why is it absurd? You're dropping a nuke on Korea, the country situated right next to arguably the most powerful East Asian nation in the game. Also Russia's right there and probably wouldn't be all that happy with nukes being dropped so close to them all willy nilly. A cold war game should be a no-nuke game (it's called the Cold War for a reason), I mean maybe allow the player to drop them and see the population deaths for shits and giggles, but then lock them out Shadow President style. What I'd really like is for the players to feel like they need to nuke the USSR or USA, depending on their chosen nation, but know that they cannot because, well, you'd be nuking the USSR or USA. It's right there, you want to do it, but there are ways to 'win' that don't leave the whole world (relatively speaking) crippled for decades. Those ways are just harder. MLKQUOTEMACHINE fucked around with this message at 23:35 on Mar 6, 2014 |
#
?
Mar 6, 2014 23:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 07:40 |
|
|
Pakled posted:I hope the message Paradox takes from this fiasco is that people really, really want a Cold War game that focuses on politics, diplomacy, and brinksmanship, and not that Cold War games aren't worth the time and money. I was never going to buy EvW anyway since I don't care for the gameplay in HoI series and EvW was shaping up to be HoI: 1946-1991, but I'd buy a proper Paradox Cold War game in a heartbeat. Oddly enough, the hastily slapped-together slideshow for that indiegogo scam spent a fair bit of time talking about thing I'd wanted to hear from EvW. Mostly the superpowers being focused on fighting indirectly through support of other countries in their own local conflicts, and a steady shift in focus from conventional to guerrilla combat in those conflicts as the campaign progresses. Building in that direction off of mechanics like Victoria's influence/sphere system and the Civil wars possible in CK and Rome sounds like a good foundation for a Paradox cold war game.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2014 23:31
|
|
|
V for Vegas posted:Where's the next HOI4 DD Podcat? Johan was pumping out EU4 DD's every week. Yeah but Johan is incredible with that stuff. Takes me way too long to write diaries to keep that pace early in the project  New diary should be out tomorrow, although we are also changing ISPs then so as long as the Gods grant me Holy Internet... @Bel Monte you probably shouldnt post stuff like that while under NDA even if its an emotional day, especially calling paradox incompetent etc. Random internet forums isnt a good place for it. Sorry it didnt work out, there are a lot of cool and passionate people in the dev team and I'm sad for their sake podcat fucked around with this message at 23:38 on Mar 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2014 23:33
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:The thread is slipping - I found out the other day that Rajahs of India is up to its fourth dev diary now with nary a word. Let's not pretend anyone's actually excited about that though. Dibujante posted:While I agree that people want to play a Cold War game, I would also play a Hot War game. Me too. I know Goons like to make some fun sounding anecdotes about how they would fund third world dictatorships into provoking a hot war with india and pakistan so they could increase their soviet sphere of interest before playing a QTE game of brinkmanship over the phone with Kennedy before the Game Over screen occurs at the USA declares war screen, but honestly, A Cold War game doesn't have to be that complicated. There's no reason why a Grand Strategy game can't be made from 1945 to 1991 which is actually in the vein of HoI, with a more rational attention to detail on the politics over straits. I wasn't really looking forward to EvW but any game with a Cold War focus is great at a time when it's not been given a huge amount of interest in gaming, hell Wargame and World in Conflict are slightly cheesy hot war scenarios and they're pretty much the best examples you can get.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2014 23:34
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:The thread is slipping - I found out the other day that Rajahs of India is up to its fourth dev diary now with nary a word. They have been discussed in the CK2 thread.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2014 23:41
|
|
|
I was wondering why there were suddenly more than a hundred new posts. I'm kind of surprised EvW was canceled, I thought it would actually see the light of day.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2014 23:44
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Provinces.bmp and defines.txt aren't the only place where you need to combine changes though, I think you would need to do that for most of the files in the map folder. Then there's stuff like overlapping changes to events, if more than one map mod has added a province ID to the same event file. Yeah, changes to shared resources like that would still require manual work, but the GUID change would cause those conflicts to simply do nothing, rather than breaking the game, the way it currently is. For example, Paradox added some provinces in CoP and this conflicted with Europa Gooniversalis' province names to, among other things, put Taiwan in Vietnam. With a GUID system, even though there were a bunch of new GUIDs around, existing GUIDs wouldn't find themselves suddenly referencing something else. The new provinces might have no name in the worst case scenario, but existing provinces would be untouched.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2014 23:44
|
|
|
Well, actually, nuclear war doesn't have to be game-over for human existence, not initially at any rate. The world would've survived a nuclear war if it had been fought in the late 40s-early 50's, because we didn't have very many bombs, and they weren't that destructive. As time progressed, our Nuclear weaponry got more and more deadly as arsenals got to truly apocalyptic proportions. So, a nuclear war in 1951, fought with a few dozen atomic bombs dropped out of airplanes, would be vastly different in its effects than a nuclear war fought in 1985 with thousands of ICBMs. If you wanted to avoid making up new mechanics for simulating nuclear winter, you could just throw in a bunch of province modifiers and global modifiers for each nuclear bomb detonated. Something like a "Nuclear Winter" global modifier would probably do it. Or some kind of "Severity" bar that would go up every time you dropped a nuke, leading to economic effects, negative pop growth, and unrest. The higher your Nuclear Tech, the more the Severity bar would move up for each nuke.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2014 23:45
|
|
|
podcat posted:@Bel Monte you probably shouldnt post stuff like that while under NDA even if its an emotional day, especially calling paradox incompetent etc. Random internet forums isnt a good place for it. Sorry it didnt work out, there are a lot of cool and passionate people in the dev team and I'm sad for their sake You're right, sorry about that outburst too. I should say paradox isn't a bad company and I still think they make amazing games. I'm just mad now, but I'll get over it eventually. Unlike EA and other companies that do outright anti-consumer behavior and other highly reprehensible things, paradox is good to it's fans. I also don't harbor any ill will against specific members of paradox. Y'all are good people, even if I disagree with decisions made.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2014 23:47
|
|
|
Dibujante posted:Yeah, changes to shared resources like that would still require manual work, but the GUID change would cause those conflicts to simply do nothing, rather than breaking the game, the way it currently is. We have actually been developing things in this direction for HoI4 (although we arent using GUIDs) to avoid id's changing around so I think the problem will be greatly reduced. At least so far we have had little problems with map work compared to before.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2014 23:47
|
|
|
podcat posted:@Bel Monte you probably shouldnt post stuff like that while under NDA even if its an emotional day, especially calling paradox incompetent etc. Random internet forums isnt a good place for it. Sorry it didnt work out, there are a lot of cool and passionate people in the dev team and I'm sad for their sake Meh, at the end of the day your reputation isn't effected in the slightest and he and the rest of the devs gone on for the next three years bearing the rep of being the fools that made a game so lovely the parent company cancelled it. And who the gently caress is even going to care in three years anyways? It looked like poo poo from the start, there's no way you were cancelling a masterpiece.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2014 23:52
|
|
|
podcat posted:We have actually been developing things in this direction for HoI4 (although we arent using GUIDs) to avoid id's changing around so I think the problem will be greatly reduced. At least so far we have had little problems with map work compared to before. Neat! I look forward to it. I assume you guys have good tools for making sweeping changes like mass-changing province IDs, etc. to make things like adding provinces to the middle of the list less tedious, but the rest of us only have notepad++ (for now  )
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2014 23:57
|
|
|
Docudramas hardly constitute proof.DStecks posted:But how do you even define "nuclear war"? I mean, it seems like a stupid question, but think about it. Then, in the case of nuclear war, those meters could take huge hits, depending on the severity of the bombing. (And severe enough bombing would spread the pain worldwide to some degree.) Like, if Administration reaches 0%, you literally wouldn't be able to control the province, and perhaps even at higher Administration percentages, you would need units stationed in the province for it to function as part of your country. A low Food Supply on the other hand would see the Health meter drop eventually, as well as refugees, which could then spread the pain over a larger area. I'm sure effects such as that could be fit in perfectly for standard gameplay in the more hosed-up parts of the world, and then nuclear war just becomes a ton of people dying plus Third World humanitarian disasters being applied to rich countries x 100. Dibujante posted:Yeah, changes to shared resources like that would still require manual work, but the GUID change would cause those conflicts to simply do nothing, rather than breaking the game, the way it currently is.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2014 23:58
|
|
|
This is a slap to the face, and a real disappointment that paradox cancelled EvW days before the supposed open beta release. If they wanted to cancel it, they should have done it months ago when no information was being released, at least then they wouldn't have strung all those fans and devs at bl-logic along.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2014 00:06
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Docudramas hardly constitute proof. It's the closest thing I can offer to proof because we've thankfully avoided all out nuclear war. I mean, it's a docudrama, but it's not like it's Fallout 1/2/3 or something. If you want to argue that us throwing nukes at each other isn't a game over for everyone involved in the exchange then I dunno what to tell you. We're clearly coming from two vastly different viewpoints that are irreconcilable.  evvv: I've also stated earlier that a Cold War game should prolly have the US/USSR be the focus to the exclusion of others (except secondary powers like China and some Euro-nations). MLKQUOTEMACHINE fucked around with this message at 00:27 on Mar 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2014 00:09
|
|
|
nutranurse posted:It's the closest thing I can offer to proof because we've thankfully avoided all out nuclear war. I mean, it's a docudrama, but it's not like it's Fallout 1/2/3 or something. If you want to argue that us throwing nukes at each other isn't a game over for everyone involved in the exchange then I dunno what to tell you. We're clearly coming from two vastly different viewpoints that are irreconcilable. Now tell the places not involved in the exchange that you don't get to play anymore because of events completely outside your control.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2014 00:24
|
|
|
It's also a sizeable chunk of a period where there simply weren't enough Nuclear Weapons, or reliable enough delivery methods (not even including being intercepted, or including hitting the right target, or including your nuke actually exploding) for at least a decade or two. There's plenty of alternate history discussions out there that have the US beaten up badly although the USSR comes out much worse - US Nuclear Production and ability to deliver outstripped Soviet Capacity for a while - with places we associate with being completely obliterated in the late 70's/80's that would of been minor tactical and strategic attacks but maintained some form of central government, so as people are saying, you can't just say the moment a nuclear weapon explodes its game over for everyone. There has to be scope for limited exchanges before it escalates - as there's always a chance it does not, as well as non Warsaw-NATO conflicts and what have you. Not to mention, there's plenty of people who would find a unique appeal in rebuilding from the ground up, if the game systems would allow them to. It certainly shouldn't be easy and the Game would at least have some limited scope to deal with that, but its certainly a valid form of play that I wouldn't want to take out of someones hands.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2014 00:25
|
|
|
nutranurse posted:It's the closest thing I can offer to proof because we've thankfully avoided all out nuclear war. I mean, it's a docudrama, but it's not like it's Fallout 1/2/3 or something. If you want to argue that us throwing nukes at each other isn't a game over for everyone involved in the exchange then I dunno what to tell you. We're clearly coming from two vastly different viewpoints that are irreconcilable. Well, you could certainly cite some recent studies that seem to indicate that even a limited nuclear war would result in extreme, rapid climate change. Now, whether that's necessarily a proof of the end of the world as we know it is a bit up for discussion. However, it's a certainly good argument in favor of the position that it would lead to a time of great hardship.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2014 00:27
|
|
|
DrSunshine posted:Well, you could certainly cite some recent studies that seem to indicate that even a limited nuclear war would result in extreme, rapid climate change. Now, whether that's necessarily a proof of the end of the world as we know it is a bit up for discussion. However, it's a certainly good argument in favor of the position that it would lead to a time of great hardship. Lol, I posted Threads because it's a fun movie (everyone watch it!) and this isn't DnD so I didn't really feel the need to have serious citations. I'd love to see paradox tackle the cold-war-gone-hot, though, if they were willing to punish the player afterwards with decades and decades of catastrophic climate change ruining most things! Or maybe lead to fun situations where you're playing New Zealand or some equally inconsequential, remote nation, the AI-controlled USA and USSR go apeshit and nuke everything, and you slowly make your relatively unaffected nation into the head of the New World Order. That'd be fun and pretty paradoxy. Also, if it's a cold war game where you can just nuke your opponent in the first decade or so when nukes were not as awfully destructive with 0 repercussions then, well, it's not much of a cold war game. It's probably more like what EvW was and we saw how that turned out, right? evvv: Well, no I agree that would be pretty cool, but it's just not a cold war game (to me) if you're allowed to transition into WW3. Then it's HOI: Modern Warfare. MLKQUOTEMACHINE fucked around with this message at 00:34 on Mar 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2014 00:31
|
|
|
nutranurse posted:It's the closest thing I can offer to proof because we've thankfully avoided all out nuclear war. I mean, it's a docudrama, but it's not like it's Fallout 1/2/3 or something.  nutranurse posted:If you want to argue that us throwing nukes at each other isn't a game over for everyone involved in the exchange then I dunno what to tell you. We're clearly coming from two vastly different viewpoints that are irreconcilable. E: As long as the things I outlined before, as well as things like industrial development are modeled, you wouldn't need to put a whole lot of effort into it. (Which seems to be the major argument against non-Game Over nuclear war, since it would encourage game balance that actually uses the nuclear war/post-nuclear war mechanics.) A Buttery Pastry fucked around with this message at 00:35 on Mar 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2014 00:31
|
|
|
nutranurse posted:Lol, I posted Threads because it's a fun movie (everyone watch it!) and this isn't DnD so I didn't really feel the need to have serious citations. I'd love to see paradox tackle the cold-war-gone-hot, though, if they were willing to punish the player afterwards with decades and decades of catastrophic climate change ruining most things! I think it'd be a good idea for a Cold War grand strategy game to make the AI as averse to nuclear war as possible. Maybe even prohibiting it entirely if the player isn't playing one of the advanced, nuclear-armed states. It just wouldn't be fun at all to be Micronesia and be hosed because the American/Russian AI threw a shitfit and dragged the world into nuclear war. Still, from my link. According to the 2011 study... quote:A large nuclear war would produce enough smoke and soot to quickly block sunlight from reaching the surface of the entire Northern and Southern Hemispheres. In many areas sunlight would be reduced so much that at mid-day it would appear as dark as a moonlit night before the war 
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2014 00:33
|
|
|
They're not going to do a pre-apocalyptic and post-apocalyptic game at the same time. If that was the case, it would be the entire marketing hook of the game, and it's not.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2014 00:36
|
|
|
Thumbs Up Dude posted:This is a slap to the face, and a real disappointment that paradox cancelled EvW days before the supposed open beta release. I've increasingly seen people say stuff like this and I find it kind of worrying. Are 'fans' of videogames so emotionally invested in them that it's a "slap to the face" when a company cancels one? I don't think its incumbent on game publishers to help people through those kind of issues. I do understand why the people actually making EvW would be bummed out about this, but I find it difficult to feel sorry for them considering how bad the game sounded. I agree that Paradox should have shut the game down before now, but mostly because it looked like it was going to be hot garbage.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2014 00:37
|
|
|
Earth is capable of such feats on it's own though. poo poo can go down at any moment and humans wouldn't be able to do anything about it. Just read what Procopius wrote about what we believe to be the aftermath of a volcanic eruption over in Indonesia. And it came about during this year that a most dread portent took place. For the sun gave forth its light without brightness, like the moon, during this whole year, and it seemed exceedingly like the sun in eclipse, for the beams it shed were not clear nor such as it is accustomed to shed. And from the time when this thing happened men were free neither from war nor pestilence nor any other thing leading to death. And it was the time when Justinian was in the tenth year of his reign (536-537 A.D.) No need to get worried about Humans blowing the Earth up when Nature can do it all on it's own.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2014 00:41
|
|
|
nutranurse posted:Nuclear war should be a gameover tho, can't budge on that opinion, because nuclear war is straight up gently caress this gay earth levels of stupid/destruction. True but this is a game; if there is a game over button, the player will never press it and so building up the whole game about tensions between two nations who could at any time nuke each other into oblivion doesn't work if one side knows for a fact they will never nuke the other because the only outcome of nuking the other side is the worst case outcome of not using the nukes, while the other is preprogramed to simulate caring about losing, but if push comes to shove will gladly press the button. Plus, if the player plays a non-nuclear power, or worse a nation that is not aligned with either NATO or WP then there's the risk of the player getting a game over because of something two nations they have no control over doing something. You could argue that it might be unrealistic for the world to continue after a nuclear war, but it's runs into so many problems of game design that it really can't work. E: You mention in another post that the game should probably just focus on the major players anyway, which is a fair point but that's a toss up between letting the player play a smaller nation or adding in instant game over mechanics, and I think it's the better choice would be to have more playable nations and resolve nuclear war some other way. gradenko_2000 posted:Wiz made an application that can automatically generate a bunch of random leaders for a country (that I can't find right now unfortunately), which was honestly my biggest issue with MOTE, but apart from that it's a pretty solid game on its own. Ooh, if anyone has a link to that handy that would be wonderful; I played the game once as Egypt on a friend's account and it was fun but it felt so stupid I couldn't get more than like 3 generals the whole game. The game is pretty solid on it's own; I was looking for mods that add stuff like nations that have unique cultures but no cores into the game, unification decisions, and just in general more decisions and events. Then again, that stuff is simple enough that I could probably mod it all in pretty easily. I think I'll keep an eye out for a MOTE sale during the next round of sales .
burnishedfume fucked around with this message at 00:46 on Mar 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2014 00:42
|
|
|
Gort posted:They're not going to do a pre-apocalyptic and post-apocalyptic game at the same time. If that was the case, it would be the entire marketing hook of the game, and it's not.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2014 00:45
|
|
|
Sorry about what happened to you, but I have to tell you that thisBel Monte posted:No pay. But I did it anyway because I felt it had promise and would be a great game (and would look amazing on a resume) I do wish you well on whatever you try next, but please remember your skill is valuable and if you work for a company that takes in money you deserve some as well.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2014 00:46
|
|
|
A_Raving_Loon posted:Now tell the places not involved in the exchange that you don't get to play anymore because of events completely outside your control. I'm ambivalent about whether nuclear war should be an automatic game over but this doesn't seem like it has to be a problem - the AI's nuclear decision making can be designed to prevent AIs getting into nuclear confrontations with each other without player intervention. This doesn't help in multiplayer, but then again if you're playing Guyana while a human is playing the US there's precious little to stop them game overing you at will anyway.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2014 00:46
|
|
|
logger posted:Sorry about what happened to you, but I have to tell you that this As long as his NDA doesn't forbid him from portfolio pieces, etc., this experience will still actually stand for something. It won't trump someone with a shipped game, but it will definitely trump someone with aspirations but no experience.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2014 00:53
|
|
|
YouTuber posted:No need to get worried about Humans blowing the Earth up when Nature can do it all on it's own. Besides, comparing some volcano going off to a bunch of metropolitan areas in half a dozen countries suddenly turning into soot and shooting into the atmosphere seems a bit of a stretch.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2014 00:54
|
|
|
DrProsek posted:True but this is a game; if there is a game over button, the player will never press it and so building up the whole game about tensions between two nations who could at any time nuke each other into oblivion doesn't work if one side knows for a fact they will never nuke the other because the only outcome of nuking the other side is the worst case outcome of not using the nukes, while the other is preprogramed to simulate caring about losing, but if push comes to shove will gladly press the button. I'd just like to re-iterate that we had precisely this discussion about a month ago, and I'll say the same thing I said then: if you're really simulating brinkmanship, than the actors involved never consciously make the decision to "press the button", it's something that just happens, because a situation has gotten out of control. It's a psychological phenomenon called the Hobbesian Trap. The player wouldn't be given a big red button to push, nuclear war would be the result of pushing a crisis too hard.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2014 01:03
|
|
|
All this talk of 'uh, cold war gone hot in MY Realistic Game?' Is pretty dumb. It's good to have basis in historical fact but lets be serious most of the poo poo that happens in Grand Strategy games stretches realism, to put it lightly, as soon as the whistle blows and the game starts. I assume people would want to play a Cold War game to be involved in the period which incidentally doesn't involve Fallout 3 empires, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be an option. If it isn't practical making 'two different game modes' on release then just add it as a DLC or something. Why is multiplayer a problem either? Brinkmanship in a mp game can be just as game ending in EU4 if my mate playing the Ottoman Empire decides to invade me as Poland in 1460 once 'negotiations' break down as nukes flying about causing nuclear winter and strange post Armageddon scenarios are.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2014 01:03
|
|
|
DStecks posted:I'd just like to re-iterate that we had precisely this discussion about a month ago, and I'll say the same thing I said then: if you're really simulating brinkmanship, than the actors involved never consciously make the decision to "press the button", it's something that just happens, because a situation has gotten out of control. It's a psychological phenomenon called the Hobbesian Trap. This is more interesting when it exists as the Crisis feature in Vicky 2 where you have a reason to enter a crisis but if you push too far you have to deal with the terrible consequences rather than get an end-game screen.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2014 01:07
|
|
|
Dibujante posted:As long as his NDA doesn't forbid him from portfolio pieces, etc., this experience will still actually stand for something. It won't trump someone with a shipped game, but it will definitely trump someone with aspirations but no experience. I didn't say his experience won't mean anything, what he basically had was an internship with the company so of course people would see that on the resume. I am saying that what he gained working without pay is less than what he could have worked for as an actual paid employee, both for his resume and his wallet. I am not chastising him or criticizing his decision. I just want to let him(although I think he figured it out already) and others know that you should be paid for work you do.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2014 01:11
|
|
|
maev posted:All this talk of 'uh, cold war gone hot in MY Realistic Game?' Is pretty dumb. It's good to have basis in historical fact but lets be serious most of the poo poo that happens in Grand Strategy games stretches realism, to put it lightly, as soon as the whistle blows and the game starts. I assume people would want to play a Cold War game to be involved in the period which incidentally doesn't involve Fallout 3 empires, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be an option. If it isn't practical making 'two different game modes' on release then just add it as a DLC or something.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2014 01:14
|
|
|
maev posted:All this talk of 'uh, cold war gone hot in MY Realistic Game?' Is pretty dumb. Well, the only problem I have with it is from a paradox-made-game standpoint we'd either only get a game about the cold war or a game about the cold war gone hot, not both, not one transitioning into the other. For all their awesomeness, I wouldn't want paradox to tackle making a vicky-ish style game where the focus is population and politicking as well as a HoI-ish style wargame. We can have one or the other, both is pretty doubtful and I'd be leery of how well put together something with such a huge scope be. As you said, they'd have to release it in a DLC or something, but the underlying mechanics for making a good war game set from 1940's to 1990's and for making a good game about the world from the 1940's to the 1990's are so different that they're really different games. MLKQUOTEMACHINE fucked around with this message at 01:19 on Mar 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2014 01:16
|
|
|
On the GUID thing: Paradox should take a page from Bethesda. Instead of text files overwriting each other, release a mod tool that packs them into ".esp" (the file format for a mod) files that just contain the values changed. Then let users order the mods so that later mods overwrite earlier ones. The mod creator tool for paradox files would be a glorified text editor, but it would put to rest having to merge multiple mods' changes in defines, for example. Defines.txt would become a database with ids, variable names, and values (variable names converted to a GUID, like the ref ids in Bethesda games). .esps would be a smaller database that just contains those variables changed. Game would load the standard game files, then the .esps in the load order given.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2014 01:26
|
|
|
Padre Groggo... nooooo! Even with seeing this coming from the very first Dev Diaries, it still sucks knowing I'll never be able to experience the joy of EvW's bizarre WW3 simulator for myself. Edit: Also I've updated the OP accordingly. Let me know if anyone has any other ideas for the new Scrap Book of Fond Memories! Gorgo Primus fucked around with this message at 01:39 on Mar 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2014 01:28
|
|
|
Cantorsdust posted:On the GUID thing: Paradox should take a page from Bethesda. Instead of text files overwriting each other, release a mod tool that packs them into ".esp" (the file format for a mod) files that just contain the values changed. Then let users order the mods so that later mods overwrite earlier ones. The mod creator tool for paradox files would be a glorified text editor, but it would put to rest having to merge multiple mods' changes in defines, for example. Please god no. There were few things worse than wondering if your game was crashing because your didn't have your load order set right.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2014 01:28
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 07:40 |
|
|
PittTheElder posted:Please god no. There were few things worse than wondering if your game was crashing because your didn't have your load order set right. Paradox games mods on Nexus 
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2014 01:40
|
|
