my own little comment on legacies

[Kadmus]

So I've seen many posts fairly criticizing legacies for being to gamey, and to be completely honest, I agree but don't know how they could make it seem more organic (post suggestions below), but I think the legacy concept is amazing and could be amazing for something like a asoiaf mod, where they could implement the Baratheons mostly having black hair and high combat ability / martial.

 

[RagingJaws]

Until we actually see what the numbers are behind each tier of legacy unlocked, it's a bit premature to say they are gamey. I'm going with the assumption the numbers aren't going to be wildly imbalanced.

Though if legacies are gamey, bloodlines in CK2 are gamey as all hell.

 

[tilly]

im mostly not a fan of how they appear to work like imperators miltech system. in eu4 you at least get to pick from ideagroups, and you dont have enough slots to get every ideagroup so you gotta make them count and pick the right ones. just being able to get all of it and balancing that by making it expensive is kind of a boring gameplay experience

also, honestly, having a bunch of linear paths restricts developers as well. you gotta make everything fit a theme and you cant put in a neat inventive perk just all on its own because it doesnt synch up with everything else. im absolutely certain some of the end perks will not be worth it, or therell be whole lines that have a single good perk and the rest is trash so you generally dont touch it, just because of how limiting the system is to work around. i think a better system would be to have, like, a limited number of perk slots to choose from, and perks of varying price depending on how good they are. you could replace them at any time by spending a mixture of cash, renown and prestige, justified in-universe as a sort of propaganda campaign to get people thinking about your family differently. therell still be some duds, of course, but its less egregious when you dont HAVE to pick them just to get at the good ones that you actually want

in an ideal world youd also have to perform actions ingame to unlock them, since how are you supposed to be a family known for something no member has ever done, but im not holding my breath on that one. even though itd be really cool to also have something like negative "perks" that unlock and apply automatically by doing evil tyranny shit all the time or constantly engaging in incest or whatever that youd then have to work at undoing (think the targaryens if you want to put it in asoiaf terms). i mean the ai could really fuck you over on that one though so maybe thats a bad idea actually

anyway my point is i agree its a neat concept with a lot of potential, i just think the implementation needs another look. games not out yet though so who knows, maybe itll be fine and im worried about nothing

 

[gekj]

New It depend how it will be implemented and the value behind. for exemple in the blood legacy, if the full unlock that make everyone genious or other, yes it will be too much and bad. It needs to be balanced.

 

[Lordy's]

im mostly not a fan of how they appear to work like imperators miltech system. in eu4 you at least get to pick from ideagroups, and you dont have enough slots to get every ideagroup so you gotta make them count and pick the right ones. just being able to get all of it and balancing that by making it expensive is kind of a boring gameplay experience

also, honestly, having a bunch of linear paths restricts developers as well. you gotta make everything fit a theme and you cant put in a neat inventive perk just all on its own because it doesnt synch up with everything else. im absolutely certain some of the end perks will not be worth it, or therell be whole lines that have a single good perk and the rest is trash so you generally dont touch it, just because of how limiting the system is to work around. i think a better system would be to have, like, a limited number of perk slots to choose from, and perks of varying price depending on how good they are. you could replace them at any time by spending a mixture of cash, renown and prestige, justified in-universe as a sort of propaganda campaign to get people thinking about your family differently. therell still be some duds, of course, but its less egregious when you dont HAVE to pick them just to get at the good ones that you actually want

in an ideal world youd also have to perform actions ingame to unlock them, since how are you supposed to be a family known for something no member has ever done, but im not holding my breath on that one. even though itd be really cool to also have something like negative "perks" that unlock and apply automatically by doing evil tyranny shit all the time or constantly engaging in incest or whatever that youd then have to work at undoing (think the targaryens if you want to put it in asoiaf terms). i mean the ai could really fuck you over on that one though so maybe thats a bad idea actually

anyway my point is i agree its a neat concept with a lot of potential, i just think the implementation needs another look. games not out yet though so who knows, maybe itll be fine and im worried about nothing

I agree (especially action restricted unlocks) except for negative perks. There should be none of those (also since the AI might be the reason why you get them). But while I think there should be no strictly bad perks, there should be "different" perks. You mentioned evil tyranny - is that a bad reputation? In some sense yes, but it might also be helpful. So everything needs an advantage.

 

[Despotism]

Posted my idea here: https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/dynasty-legacies-shouldnt-be-trees.1270577/


My proposal is a system where you have a list of perks that you can select in a non-linear fashion, with restrictions based on the traits and accomplishments of your Dynast. I think it accomplishes the goal of having a progression system that follows your dynasty, allowing for more personalization and tailoring your family to the way you want to play, while also allowing for a greater variety of perks.
You would be able to have negative legacies, and you wouldn't need to get something you don't want to get something that you do.
I think it is less gamey because it isn't a tech tree, you are selecting what you want your dynasty to be known for in a manner more precise than the linear tracks.

 

[tilly]

I agree (especially action restricted unlocks) except for negative perks. There should be none of those (also since the AI might be the reason why you get them). But while I think there should be no strictly bad perks, there should be "different" perks. You mentioned evil tyranny - is that a bad reputation? In some sense yes, but it might also be helpful. So everything needs an advantage.

yeah i kinda figured that out halfway through saying it but i figured itd be a concept worth positing specifically for bouncing off purposes. theres no reality where the ai isnt going to annoy the shit out of you with that

youre super right though, a tyrannical perk that only seems bad at first glance is much more interesting. like a bathory perk where nobody likes you on account of all the abducting women and bathing in their blood stuff which would, as a trade off, make controlling through fear much easier. thats way better than just "heres bad effect, fuck you"