网友：It's a good thing that pdx will remove this mechanic and I am glad they didn't chicken out before those few players who prefer to play with obsolete and vastly overpowered mechanics. New dev diary looks very promising and I am glad the devs are not held back.
P社删了直接控制投资池，这是好的。他们没有向少数追求强度的玩家屈服，我很看好这次的更新日志。

网友：I predict this will end in disaster as the ai is not able to build in places the stuff that makes sense.
新版本biss，AI什么智力水平大家都有数吧。

网友：For what it's worth, given that you can construct buildings, and then privatize them, and the funds used to purchase those privatized buildings comes from the investment pool, then I think if you aggressively build buildings and then privatize you'll be able to roughly approximate Directly Controlled Investment Pool to a degree you cannot with current mechanics
If you build buildings faster then the investment pool accumulates you should be able to outstrip the investment pool and have almost all of it's money end up being used to purchase the buildings you've constructed and choose to privatize.
没什么大不了，国有化功能允许玩家仍然向上版本一样把建造完全掌握在自己手中。尤其是如果你盖得比私人投资池还快的话。

网友：Once it's released I'm probably going to see if I can make a mod where the private construction queue doesn't have any points so they can't actually build anything
On the whole I was excited about the patch until I read the part about removing direct investment, which basically is an "I don't want to play at all" level of change for me. I don't necessarily care about the investment pool funds per se but I really don't want the ai controlling construction in any way.
布响丸辣！要么整个复兴直接控制投资池的mod，要么我滚

网友：Just stick to laws that give you control over construction.
开计划经济呗。
lz评：什么云玩家，你以为计划经济是1836年能开的吗？想让lz坐牢60年再玩游戏

支持搬运热度话题贴

网友：Paradox: removes most OP way to play in a game where the AI is already mostly braindead and you can rise to #2 great power as Kraków by 1880
Forumites: now I can't stack 51 levels of factories in my well catered to central industrial states with edict as laissez-faire nation?? Literally unplayable!
P社：我要去掉让能玩家强大到过于不合理的功能。
逆天坛友：密麻麻滴这下没法用自由放任在我最喜欢的西里西亚精准砸51个工厂吃吞吐率buff了

活跃网友：100% agree. It had to go. You cannot try and represent public and private construction and ownership if you're letting the player be God. It upsets some players? So what. Player autocracy is boring, having fleshed out mechanics is far preferable.
I do not understand the mindframe of wanting to play these games like a painter. This is not a game about painting a pretty picture, or building up your perfect little country. This is a game about dynamic economics and geopolitics. It needs to be dynamic.
Everyone cries about the game being a construction queue simulator. Well, here you go. Now we're entering some real strategy territory where you need to manage on a more macro scale. Use supply and demand to incentivize private investment. Far more exciting than queuing up all your perfect little buildings. Why are you playing a game about simulating markets, when you don't want any autonomous actors doing stuff in the market? It's unoptimized and a bit ugly? Good. That's what markets are.
"Braindead" AI? Look, it has some problems, but not building all your favorite buildings is not one of them. They should be doing what they think will be profitable for them, not what's best for your geopolitics. Awww, did you lose out on your construction capacity for what you wanted because of private enterprise building something else? Welcome to the free market.
I love it. This kind of decision gives me huge confidence in the future of the game.
好似！（指去除直接控制投资池）玩家就是不该也代表不了大众，都当上帝了还想咋的？什么都让玩家来只会让人觉得无聊。
我无法理解某些人的脑回路。V3又不是关于画一幅美妙的图画或造一个理想国（lz评：很抱歉，我觉得是的）这是一个政经模拟器，需要有一些动态的东西（lz评：所以是什么动态的东西？）
当年V3是一个和面模拟器的时候所有人都不满意（lz评：我满意还会特地上官方社区来吗？）现在好了，玩家格局打开了，可以关心更宏观的东西了。你要是觉得市场的逻辑不完美，不好意思，这就是市场（lz评：AI要是能模拟市场逻辑我也不会在这开喷呐）
你说逆天AI？现在AI确实有毛病，但不会在西里西亚精准盖51座工厂绝对不算毛病，投资池逻辑应该利好投资者，而不是玩家的“宏图伟业”。
我已经膏潮了，这游戏简直越来越有意思了。

欢迎8u们在这里留下自己的见解，如果能直接去官方论坛更好。但考虑到语言问题，我可以为8u代劳（才不是lz词穷写不出小作文呢）

网友：It's really sad to read how people feel about it. I loved the initial implementation of Investment Pool on launch, but also used the game option to bring it back only on one playthrough after it got changed. I don't cry, that it's gone, and agree with the DevDiary, that it really wasn't easy to support anymore, and that it would only get worse over time - it's good that they don't try to keep it an option now, arguably maybe it shouldn't have been a game option after the Private one was introduced, as it was always going to end being quite hard to have both systems possible.
But I also really respect that system. Coming from Vic2 where Capitalists would toss money at random buildings, that had no way of ever being profitable, and State Capitalism was so nice (at least for smaller countries), because you actually could decide to build something reasonable... Directly Controlled Investment pool was the best of both worlds. It let the player make the smart choices, but also you would build stuff that makes pops the most money, as it would mean more investment pool in the future. It had you build what you wanted, but also that aligned with what pops could have built on their own.
It's okay that the system ended up being changed, it's okay that it gets retired and won't be in the game anymore... but it's also good to remember, that it was a pretty damn well designed system. It saddens me quite a lot to see the OP treat it as obsolete or bad, or how people who preferred it are not seen as playing "the right way".
It reminds me of the FTL change for Stellaris, which on launch had you choose which of three differently working FTL systems you wanted to start with. It's not that it was bad, but rather for the future development of the game it needed to be reverted and changed.
我挺喜欢投资池一开始的设定的，现在没了我也挺伤感。但这是改革阵痛，如果留着以后只会因为兼容问题成为更大的史山。
man, what can i say?致敬传奇游戏机制——直接控制投资池
我联想到了群星的FTL机制改动。玩家可以在开局选择自己的文明是如何达到FTL的（lz评：lz也没玩过群星，机制不了解翻译地可能不准）

网友：Button pressing micro doesn't have anything to do with microeconomics.
But I get what you are trying to conceive here, the game should have more continuous flows and situations unfolding instead of "this huge sector of iron mines in state X uses railways starting tomorrow because spirit of the nation clicked a button". Yes.
微操决不是宏观经济学。
但我明白你的意思（原帖表达了现有底层机制无法支持玩家作为宏观调控而只能被迫微操的观点），游戏进程应该有更多机制和事件驱动而不是玩家按按钮。

活跃网友：This is exactly my point. Some people are going like clicking on building and babysitting your construction sector preventing people from opening their eye to some cool marco stuff going around they totally should get into. But there is none. it's either babysiting your construction, or babysiting your IGs to get better laws in RNG game of their acceptance. Sure, you also need to watch for diplomacy that is currently not so fun, because in a game game about Victorian Era we have no actual control over countries in our sphere of influence (where it is, btw?). And war, that's OK when it works, and rage when it doesn't. The only marco currently in is shift from Landowners\Devout toward Industrialists and toward Unions. And even that is done by babysitting buildings basically.
Just to clarify, i'm OK with current gameplay loop. And i'm OK with direct usage removed (i didn't even knew it existed for first 100 hours). I just don't understand how it make game more interesting, just by itself.
But, IRL "private entities" were more than willing to help State to build stuff whatever it pays for. Government contracts and such. In game it goes backwards. We provide them with means to build stuff and they do whatever they want with it. It's not how it works. I understand that it's a game with own rules, but if you twist logic like this, people would looks for a way to get things in their favor. Not to mention that, IRL, "private entities" vary in size greatly. here it's either cottage industry or level of Henry Ford factories. They abstracted too much of it into buildings...
12楼说的对！有些玩家只知道微操到了不关心其他游戏机制的地步，毕竟1.7之前说实话也没什么有意思的机制。不过工业化和GM还是需要微操才行的。
先叠个甲，我对现在的游戏还是满意的，但这个新机制真的符合现实吗？现实里工厂主可是国家指哪我打哪，V3就成了玩家跪舔老爷们赏自己一点投资池盖建筑，这底层机制就一言难尽。

活跃网友：It's not that there's cool macro stuff in game right now. It's that there can't be while the game loop is revolved around babysitting the construction queue. If the devs are moving away from a "babysit the construction queue" design, it means there is design space for macro stuff going forth.
I don't think anybody is excited about dropping direct control of construction in a vacuum, but more as a bellwether of where the game is going. I quite like Victoria 3, despite it's flaws right now, but there's no denying it's had a somewhat confused vision behind it for a while. IGs, government and military all take a (fairly shallow) macro approach, while the core loop currently revolves around construction queue micro - it's a clashing design philosophy, that has left us guessing as to what the game wants to be.
By taking a clear stance, we now know where the priorities are. Arguably the game should have shipped with a lot of these core decisions made, and I'm not thrilled that it's taken this long, but we're here now. The devs are intending to build out the macro game, and are committing to it by reimagining the current core construction loop. Thus, those of us who have been hoping the game would commit to this direction are pretty damn happy.
The immediate effect won't be earth-shattering, it'll just be a reshaping of the current game in a slightly different image, but an image that we can believe will develop in a direction we want.
回13楼：不是说V3就搞不出其他宏观玩法了，而是如果继续放任玩家沉迷微操，新宏观机制就没法搞。
直接控制投资池又不是白似了，一刻也没有为直接控制投资池而哀伤，立刻赶到战场的是：自主控制投资池！V3是在成长的，砍掉经济微操还是那句话：改革阵痛罢了，玩家终究能找到其他有意思的机制的。

老外是这样的，游戏玩不明白就喜欢骂