I don't understand why Gestalts can't get Paragons

[Dr Pippy]

I've now had the plot hooks for two of the Paragon leaders show up for my Assimilators (the bird admiral and the scion dude). As a gestalt, the only option I'm allowed to take is the one that stops the plotline, and it generally feels pretty awful from an RP perspective—I think the one for the scion was something like "It's not our responsibility to care for the child," which is not really how I play my assimilators, and it's nearly always completely wrong for Rogue Servitors.

It makes a lot of sense why the gestalts don't get the renowned leaders, since those contact empires with similar ethics, and would presumably not be interested in serving some new robot overlords. It also makes sense why neither renowned leaders nor paragons would be interested in working with a genocidal empire. But I really don't understand why I don't at least have the option to pick them up as a regular gestalt, and I wish that I could.

 

[verybad]

Then make all non-gestalt leaders immortal and have no negative traits also.

Why have all options for all types of playstyles? Just seems like it might be a boring way to make the game.

 

[StellarXe]

Because it doesn't profit the whole developer teams for doing that.

 

[Dr Pippy]

Then make all non-gestalt leaders immortal and have no negative traits also.

Why have all options for all types of playstyles? Just seems like it might be a boring way to make the game.

I don't think this responds to what I posted.

Clearly there should be some limits, as demanded by thematic considerations—e.g., it doesn't make sense to have Azaryn the Astrocreator blithely offering her services to the nearest Determined Exterminators. I'm pretty sure I said something along those lines. What I don't understand is the rationale for a blanket restriction on all Gestalts, regardless of any other considerations. If you've played through the stories for the paragons and can offer some insight as to why those stories don't work for gestalts, I'd be happy to hear it.

But it doesn't seem unreasonable to ask why a significant chunk of the DLC content is unavailable for gestalts.

 

[verybad]

But it doesn't seem unreasonable to ask why a significant chunk of the DLC content is unavailable for gestalts.

They mentioned why for this in one of the Dev Diaries. Gestalts are from a DLC also (Utopia or the Synthetic Dawn), so making DLC that required other DLC isn't their favored method of doing things. I agree with this, though obviously not everyone does so. In the end, they have to make DLC mainly fit the base game because it reduces their sales otherwise. and increases their complexity. Reasonable or not, this is what someone in sales determined, and they're probably correct from a moneymaking perspective.

 

[Sherry Fox]

It’s not even mechanically unsound. Sure, they won’t be on the council, because there is no council, but nothing is barring them from taking positions that help the hive mind within the hive mind area of influence. And roleplay wise, I think it would be awesome if certain hive minds could coexist with non hive mind pops and leaders. Say, progenitor hive - they can release vassals as independent entities, they surely have a concept of “other” and “cooperation” and offapring. I don’t see why a progenitor hive would be unable to, say, take pity on some creatures and basically adopt them. Honestly, now that I think about it, playing as a benevolent hive mind, nurturing other sentient life and protecting small critters would be a fun way to play.

 

[SirBlackAxe]

They mentioned why for this in one of the Dev Diaries. Gestalts are from a DLC also (Utopia or the Synthetic Dawn), so making DLC that required other DLC isn't their favored method of doing things. I agree with this, though obviously not everyone does so. In the end, they have to make DLC mainly fit the base game because it reduces their sales otherwise. and increases their complexity. Reasonable or not, this is what someone in sales determined, and they're probably correct from a moneymaking perspective.

That doesn't apply to this situation - it's about making DLC specifically for gestalts, not preventing them from accessing DLC content available to regular empires.

 

[Incompetent]

I feel like assimilating the Paragon should be an option at least, if your empire is normally capable of assimilating pops of that kind. Let us have our Kerrigan or Locutus of Borg.

 

[verybad]

That doesn't apply to this situation - it's about making DLC specifically for gestalts, not preventing them from accessing DLC content available to regular empires.

Making new DLC that require old DLC not everyone playing the game owns don't apply to this situation? I might not understand that or something, but I was under the impression that you had to have either Utopia or the Synthetic Dawn DLC in order to play a Gestalt. So a DLC that came with new content that affected other DLC immediately reduces Paradox's sale window because fewer overall players would buy it. Seems like an understandable decision regardless of the choices made,

They made that position clear enough in a dev diary. It's a simpler way to release new content to the widest band of players. I agree that it probably wouldn't be that much more difficult to do the specific method, but that's not an objective choice but one based on how various people want to play the game. Having a base view of how they (the people at Paradox) release new content is what they think will perform best. It doesn't make them necessarily right just as how I might be completely incorrect in my view.

I think their general choices however are based on method rather than subject. If enough people do argue for the Gestalt choice of paragons, I'm sure they might revamp their decision. I still won't cry over either way in the end though I prefer the current one. Wanting Individuality in Gestalt seems like a very odd goal to me. I'm not saying that anyone that wants to do so is wrong, perhaps I just haven't read the right book or seen the right movie to want that choice available.

 

[SirBlackAxe]

So a DLC that came with new content that affected other DLC immediately reduces Paradox's sale window because fewer overall players would buy it.

Suppose Paradox releases a DLC containing a bunch of new origins. Compare the following scenarios:

1. All of the origins are for regular empires, and none of them are for gestalts.
2. All of the origins are for gestalts, and none of them can be used by regular empires.
3. All of the origins are for both regular empires and gestalts, and can be used by either.

The statement you're talking about was referring to scenario 2, where the DLC does nothing for players who don't also have another DLC.

You're claiming that more people would buy the DLC in scenario 1 than in scenario 3, because having content also available to gestalts would make people who don't have them refuse to buy the DLC even though the content available to regular empires is exactly the same either way.

People without a gestalt DLC already get paragons. Allowing gestalt empires to also get some paragons does not reduce the value of the DLC for people who don't play gestalts.

 

[Zagreb 887]

I don't think this responds to what I posted.

Clearly there should be some limits, as demanded by thematic considerations—e.g., it doesn't make sense to have Azaryn the Astrocreator blithely offering her services to the nearest Determined Exterminators. I'm pretty sure I said something along those lines. What I don't understand is the rationale for a blanket restriction on all Gestalts, regardless of any other considerations. If you've played through the stories for the paragons and can offer some insight as to why those stories don't work for gestalts, I'd be happy to hear it.

But it doesn't seem unreasonable to ask why a significant chunk of the DLC content is unavailable for gestalts.

It's an odd habit of PDX to implement a new feature and restrict it for Gestalt.

 

[verybad]

1. All of the origins are for regular empires, and none of them are for gestalts.
2. All of the origins are for gestalts, and none of them can be used by regular empires.
3. All of the origins are for both regular empires and gestalts, and can be used by either.

The statement you're talking about was referring to scenario 2, where the DLC does nothing for players who don't also have another DLC.

Ok, I can see your argument in 3 though subjectively I still just don't like the taste of Gestalts accepting or even understanding individuals in their empire. I could see future Paragons that only affected nodes (e.g. The Infection being some future node that allowed you to make better bioships. New programming for the one mind has no pushback from me)

I do think Paradox's strategy for development is basically because they don't want to make more programming over different DLCs, because each release then makes the game more complex, and they're limited by arguments from both we the players and executives and stockowners on the other side telling them to release
quicker-better-faster-cheaper. Each release gaining complexity would be difficult. These choices that they did make were made many months ago if the DLC has been in progress over a year.

They made the choice to give nodes for gestalt instead because they felt that would give them some distance and make them feel alien. If you have a gestalt consciousness but individuals within at what point do you make that decision to limit gestalt (or regular empires from the other side) giving all empires all choices would be the logical conclusion. This might be what some people want, but I doubt it would help the game last as long as it has. The same argument could be made for countless methods of playing the game. There are people out there that want Democratic Gestalts after all. As I mentioned, if this request is popular enough then it probably will get put in down the line.

 

[Dr Pippy]

I still just don't like the taste of Gestalts accepting or even understanding individuals in their empire

So it would make sense that you would choose the dialog option that doesn't lead to recruiting those leaders. But I would like the option to RP my machine empires differently than you choose to RP yours.

I do think Paradox's strategy for development is basically because they don't want to make more programming over different DLCs

As I understand it, it takes extra condition checks in the event scripts to prevent a particular ethic from choosing a particular dialog option. So they literally have to do (a little) extra programming to keep gesalts from following the story hooks for paragons.

If you have a gestalt consciousness but individuals...

Gestalts have been able to have specific individual leaders since their inception: e.g., Reth Undol (the Space Captain Ahab guy), Tuborek, and Gray. And individualist empires have been able to have Gestalt-ish leaders like Warform, the Caretaker bot, and whatever that robot governor is that you get from the Rackets. Even in 3.8, presumably both Gestalt and individual empires can take advantage of the Oracle's services. It's never been a clear line, nor should it be.

...giving all empires all choices would be the logical conclusion.

Nobody's suggested that as a desirable outcome. We're talking about whether this specific restriction makes sense, which is independent of the virtues or demerits of other specific restrictions that have not been brought up in this thread.

 

[Strangedane]

It gets even weirder when we get the human looking scientist from the event and gestalts are completely ok with that.

 

[Rafss]

You could always get several cool leaders from events as Gestalts, all of which are now either Renowed or Legendary (Gray); yet the 4 Legendaries in the DLC which lack Ethics constraints are unavailable.
It is 100% arbitrary and we as community must pressure the devs into flipping the switch.

 

[verybad]

So it would make sense that you would choose the dialog option that doesn't lead to recruiting those leaders. But I would like the option to RP my machine empires differently than you choose to RP yours.

Nobody's suggested that as a desirable outcome. We're talking about whether this specific restriction makes sense, which is independent of the virtues or demerits of other specific restrictions that have not been brought up in this thread.

My argument isn't that it might fit in this particular restriction (not making DLCs work with each other very much), just that this is probably their normal method to not do so, and this is why it is the way it is. "I don't understand why Gestalts can't get Paragons"

I simply don't care enough the specific situation for it to matter much to me. You are correct when you say I could probably set my settings to affect that in the game, and I don't want to stop other people from playing the game the way they want as well. I've just been stating my reasoning for the overall way Paradox works the way they do. Perhaps my initial post was a bit smug and I do apologize for that, but I think they're operating that way for the reasons I stated. They also make exceptions, though less often, so if your argument regarding the specific change is made well, maybe they will agree to so. Good luck regarding your fight, see you across the galaxy.

 

[SirBlackAxe]

You could always get several cool leaders from events as Gestalts, all of which are now either Renowed or Legendary (Gray); yet the 4 Legendaries in the DLC which lack Ethics constraints are unavailable.
It is 100% arbitrary and we as community must pressure the devs into flipping the switch.

I wouldn't say it's arbitrary, it's likely more related to time constraints - making story events gestalt permissible would involve at least some rewriting and additional translation, plus some extra testing to make sure nothing breaks for them.

I expect the Custodian team has a list of "content we'd like to make available to gestalts", and posting that you want it on the forums is probably a good way to get things on it and change their prioritization. Possibly a dedicated suggestion thread would help?

 

[Dr Pippy]

Perhaps my initial post was a bit smug and I do apologize for that

Naw, seemed like a cordial and productive exchange of views to me! (Any snippiness on my part was unintentional; the internet can be a rather unforgiving medium).

 

[Sanvone]

Regarding DLC policy it is also weird when you consider:
1. Megacorps require certain DLC but get new megacorps specific toys quite regularly (which is really nice)
2. There is also Crusader Kings 2 way of implementing same playables by more than 1 DLC. Don't have both? You just missing on some DLC specific features. CK2 had it with The Old Gods + Holy Fury for pagans, Rajas of India + Jade Dragon for Eastern religions to give some examples.