Why legacy points are one of my biggest concerns?

Wielki Hegemon

Emperor
Joined
May 27, 2013
Messages
1,330
Location
Warsaw
Hi, It's been a while but I am back on civ fanatics :) And of course, I would like to talk about Civ VII and what makes me slightly concerned about the game, and its core design. I will try to avoid subjective issues like esthetics, immersion, civs, or leader selection. I want to focus on game design and mechanics. Here are some design problems I see and why I think legacy points are the biggest.

1. Halfway Civs and era design.
The most controversial decision was splitting the game into three eras and assigning one civilization to just one era. Let's leave my subjective opinion on that aside.
In a game with four important characteristics like this (leader and three different civilizations), a player has to find an optimal combination of these elements (the most effective 'build.') So why are we limited here? I don't know if this was intended from the beginning or if it was a reaction to the player base's dissatisfaction with ahistorical combinations (like: Axum into Majapahit into France), but this kind of design is just inconsistent. Either give us all the possibilities that are on the table or make the game more historical with one predefined set of civs for every era. Neither one nor the other has been achieved here. Example: The Maya, as an ancient scientific civilization, might be utterly useless in a scientific game if they don't have a proper follow-up in later eras (do they?). This leads us to the next problem: an illusion of many combinations and replayability.

2. Possible narrow number of efficient builds
The game still has four types of win conditions. Just like in every game, there will be one or two most efficient ways to archive them. The Internet will bring us best-build tier lists very fast. I am afraid that the number of possible builds will be low. In the beginning, only a few combinations of leaders and Civs will be strong. On top of that, there will be a leader attributes tree problem. Why? You cannot skip +1 science per Age in each Quarter. It's too good. Besides having a relatively small number of playable leader/civilization combinations, a few necessary leader attributes to pick will make the game even more repetitive and schematic. What's even worse, I don't think the snowball effect has been addressed at all.

3. A snowball effect will remain
So here we are at the source: the legacy points. Or to be more precise the final stage of the legacy path and the way how it works.
Ed Beach said here "It's your progress through all three ages that help you towards these victory paths (...) The victory is always through a great project you have to undertake. For Culture Victory it's a Worlds Fair's Project. How long does it take? Every legacy point you have earned towards culture in every age gonna speed that up." So here is how its gonna work in real life: To win Culture Victory you need to speed up World Fair's Project. To do it, you have to earn as many culture legacy points as you can. It forces you to know what kind of victory you are going for from turn 1 (nr 4 snowball effect), pick the best Civs/leader combination for this win (nr 1) and get a must-have leader attributes (nr 2). All the issues I have mentioned are on the menu.

How to avoid the problem in my opinion?
1. Give us the possibility to match every civ with every civ when changing the eras (as an option like a map type for human player or/and AI - the more customization options here the better)
2. Let every legacy point you have earned speed up your final great project. It will make the way more flexible and less punishing for certain Civilizations and leaders!
 
I agree that they should get rid of the historic paths, but that's mostly because the implications they suggest are awkward in a lot of cases. I'd rather they'd avoided them altogether.

You're talking about there being an optimal civ every time. I don't neccessarily know that there will always be the same "best" civ - so far it looks like the map will dictate your ideal next age civ. Too many of the exploration era civs are terrain dependant - something that is only influenced by your antiquity civ and leader. So if you see lots of mountains, does the exploration era dictate that you go for Inca every time? Is that you playing the game, or the game playing you? I think it would have been better to leave civs which are terrain dependant to the antiquity era where you can control the terrain... This has definitely turned me off the exploration era quite a lot.

This also interacts badly with historic paths. So the Maya turn into the Inca by default but don't have a mountain bias? The Coastal Axumites turn into River-dependant Songhai? Yet another strike against historic paths, especially when there aren't enough leaders to cover several terrain biases important for later wra civs without replaying the same leaders over and over...

And terrain requirements mean the legacy paths throw up a wrench in exploration, since they really push for you to be a coastal civ that wants to explore. Firaxis have already had to make 2 civs which can score their legacy paths without access to the distant lands. In exploration especially, the legacy paths (except the science one which is just yield ramping) look quite prescriptive in how you play.

It also doesn't look like this will be the civ that ends snowballing, regardless of legacy paths. If you cripple your opponents in the home lands... Thus far it doesn't look like they'll bounce back easily. I don't know if the legacy paths will be the worst cause of snowballing. It's more a question of does the settlement limit block early conquest sufficiently and doesn't look to me like it will. You'll maybe not have as many cities but if you cripple your opponents by taking theirs, you'll still snowball ahead of them.

All in all, I'm a little concerned that this civ will be the one where I play past antiquity the least... I guess I'll find out if I'm wrong soon enough...
 
Last edited:
I think the way Happiness and influence work could balance out science and culture. If Happiness can put the brakes on ICS, or infinite specialist spam, that will make for a higher variety of good builds.
 
1. I agree that we either need all civs unlocked or each civ should have a way to unlock through gameplay, matching this civ focus. But as usual, we need to see how it goes in actual play. Sometimes limited choice is much better, so you'll not have something like "always play Normans in exploration" strategy.

2. Civ always depends on map and starting position, that's the main source for replayability (except for TSL maps, I don't know what kind of replayability those players have). I think Civ7 has a lot of potential to make different paths viable depending on the map and course of the game (i.e. wonders built). Whether this potential will work, it's hard to say yet.

3. Snowball effect can't be avoided completely, of course, because otherwise early game would be meaningless. Your achievents need to be carried over somehow. What Civ7 tries to do is to reduce snowball effect instead of eliminating it. And it looks fine.
 
Last edited:
sometimes limited choice is much better, so you'll not have something like "always play Normans in exploration" strategy.
The problem is: there is always the best meta-pick" in such games (Civ tier lists for Civ 6, or best build in RPG-like games. Civilization VII will be more RPG-like. The rule "play as "x" in exploration for "y" win will remain. The limited choice just narrows the number of possible builds. It does not break this rule. RNG or skill level does.

Civ always depends on map and starting position
This is RNG factor and yes it might be an important variable. I think we shouldn't overrate it because Civs highly dependable on map RNG, in general, are not top-tier. That's why Korea was better for a science victory than Maya in Civ 6. But it doesn't make Korea so good. Versatility and just strong abilities do. It will not change. In Civ VII a) picking the victory type, b) a set of Civs you play (with legacy civics, and strong buffs towards certain victory type), c) leaders (for abilities, or to unlock certain Civs), and d) leader tree will be a crucial part (not the only one) of your strategy. That's why I focused on those four elements.
I think Civ7 has a lot of potential to make different paths viable depending on the map
I hope so, as you said we must play the game and check it :) Nevertheless, more options are always better than fewer options. The story I am telling is about fewer options.

Snowball effect can't be avoided completely, of course, because otherwise early game would be meaningless
This is true. Meta and snowball are inevitable. The problem is what you as a designer do with it. In my opinion, good design is about minimalizing those effects. The rule where only one type of legacy point speeds up crucial part of your game is just bad. It minimizes the number of possible builds and strategies, not giving you options. You should have the option to switch strategies in every era - In Antiquity play science, In Exploration play economics, and in modern go for Culture. This rule Ed Beach mentioned makes it more difficult not easier. And it's not hard to fix that's why I made a post about it.
 
The problem is: there is always the best meta-pick" in such games (Civ tier lists for Civ 6, or best build in RPG-like games. Civilization VII will be more RPG-like. The rule "play as "x" in exploration for "y" win will remain. The limited choice just narrows the number of possible builds. It does not break this rule. RNG or skill level does.


This is RNG factor and yes it might be an important variable. I think we shouldn't overrate it because Civs highly dependable on map RNG, in general, are not top-tier. That's why Korea was better for a science victory than Maya in Civ 6. But it doesn't make Korea so good. Versatility and just strong abilities do. It will not change. In Civ VII a) picking the victory type, b) a set of Civs you play (with legacy civics, and strong buffs towards certain victory type), c) leaders (for abilities, or to unlock certain Civs), and d) leader tree will be a crucial part (not the only one) of your strategy. That's why I focused on those four elements.

I hope so, as you said we must play the game and check it :) Nevertheless, more options are always better than fewer options. The story I am telling is about fewer options.


This is true. Meta and snowball are inevitable. The problem is what you as a designer do with it. In my opinion, good design is about minimalizing those effects. The rule where only one type of legacy point speeds up crucial part of your game is just bad. It minimizes the number of possible builds and strategies, not giving you options. You should have the option to switch strategies in every era - In Antiquity play science, In Exploration play economics, and in modern go for Culture. This rule Ed Beach mentioned makes it more difficult not easier. And it's not hard to fix that's why I made a post about it.
I think part of the idea is that in pre-victory ages you can go for more than one….

ie once you have finished the science legacy path in Antiquity
1. the age isn’t done, you can continue to get more in different areas
2. there is no more benefit in that legacy path

so if you want the cultural win
then you go …with civs XYZ
Antiquity: culture and science
Exploration: culture and economics
Modern: culture (maybe a couple others that give immediate benefits)

but with civs FGH
Antiquity: culture and military
Exploration: culture and science
Modern: culture
 
I think part of the idea is that in pre-victory ages you can go for more than one….

ie once you have finished the science legacy path in Antiquity
1. the age isn’t done, you can continue to get more in different areas
2. there is no more benefit in that legacy path

so if you want the cultural win
then you go …with civs XYZ
Antiquity: culture and science
Exploration: culture and economics
Modern: culture (maybe a couple others that give immediate benefits)

but with civs FGH
Antiquity: culture and military
Exploration: culture and science
Modern: culture
I can go for more, but I still must go for this one win:

with civs XYZ
Antiquity: culture and science
Exploration: culture and economics
Modern: culture (maybe a couple others that give immediate benefits)

but with civs FGH
Antiquity: culture and military
Exploration: culture and science
Modern: culture

Does it make my game and strategies more flexible, or not? Do I have more options or less?
The problem is I can't go:
Antiquity: science and military
Exploration: economic and science
Modern: culture

I mean I can, but it is better not to do it. This is called a false alternative. On paper, you have many options, but only one is effective.

And all because of one bad rule: "It's your progress through all three ages that help you towards these victory paths (...) The victory is always through a great project you have to undertake. For Culture Victory it's a Worlds Fair's Project. How long does it take? Every legacy point you have earned towards culture in every age gonna speed that up."

Just change it, or remove it. It gives a little benefit but creates potential problems.
 
I agree that they should get rid of the historic paths, but that's mostly because the implications they suggest are awkward in a lot of cases. I'd rather they'd avoided them altogether.

You're talking about there being an optimal civ every time. I don't neccessarily know that there will always be the same "best" civ - so far it looks like the map will dictate your ideal next age civ. Too many of the exploration era civs are terrain dependant - something that is only influenced by your antiquity civ and leader. So if you see lots of mountains, does the exploration era dictate that you go for Inca every time? Is that you playing the game, or the game playing you? I think it would have been better to leave civs which are terrain dependant to the antiquity era where you can control the terrain... This has definitely turned me off the exploration era quite a lot.

This also interacts badly with historic paths. So the Maya turn into the Inca by default but don't have a mountain bias? The Coastal Axumites turn into River-dependant Songhai? Yet another strike against historic paths, especially when there aren't enough leaders to cover several terrain biases important for later wra civs without replaying the same leaders over and over...

And terrain requirements mean the legacy paths throw up a wrench in exploration, since they really push for you to be a coastal civ that wants to explore. Firaxis have already had to make 2 civs which can score their legacy paths without access to the distant lands. In exploration especially, the legacy paths (except the science one which is just yield ramping) look quite prescriptive in how you play.

It also doesn't look like this will be the civ that ends snowballing, regardless of legacy paths. If you cripple your opponents in the home lands... Thus far it doesn't look like they'll bounce back easily. I don't know if the legacy paths will be the worst cause of snowballing. It's more a question of does the settlement limit block early conquest sufficiently and doesn't look to me like it will. You'll maybe not have as many cities but if you cripple your opponents by taking theirs, you'll still snowball ahead of them.

All in all, I'm a little concerned that this civ will be the one where I play past antiquity the least... I guess I'll find out if I'm wrong soon enough...
yes, if you have mountains everywhere, go for inca
 
The problem is: there is always the best meta-pick" in such games (Civ tier lists for Civ 6, or best build in RPG-like games. Civilization VII will be more RPG-like. The rule "play as "x" in exploration for "y" win will remain. The limited choice just narrows the number of possible builds. It does not break this rule. RNG or skill level does.

The limited choice narrows the number of possible builds, but it increases the number of competitive builds. With no limitations, you would just choose an S-tier civ in each age and combine it with an S-tier leader for whatever victory you want to pursue. This would result in an completely overpowered build an no other build could compete. With limitations, you cannot do that, so you might need to choose an A-tier or even B-tier civ for one age to make your build possible. This would mean that the build is not as overpowered and another build which swaps in a different A-tier civ might be competitive as well. Or you try to get your S-tier combination anyway with game play unlocks, taking the risk that you do not manage to get it and force you into a C-tier choice instead (and this would even offer counterplay for an opponent to deny your build).
 
The problem is: there is always the best meta-pick" in such games

I simply feel this is true regardless of how you design a game, and it was true for Civ VI too. I'm going to be slightly silly here but I think my point will still stand; the best meta pick to win a game in Civ VI is to play Settler, with a top tier Civ (because the system of having a civ the entire game did not change that one bit, there are still civs that are better than others), in an OP starting location (we get to reroll, AI does not).

I can't believe this discussion is had about a game in which most people play single player, define their own parameters, and can decide for themselves what kind of challenge they will have.

I might not move from X to Y because that is the best choice meta. I might move that way because I feel like challenging myself, because I haven't tried it before, because I ....

Civ VI: want to win a science victory? Seondok comes to mind. But why not try it with Barbarossa, or Cleo? There is always the best pick, but "best" is set according to your own standards here, so we cannot argue as if it's a universal truth.
 
On the first point, the problem could be mostly mitigated if all civilization have gameplay unlocks and if the unlock requirements are made so they sync well with that civ abilities. Albeit for now we don't have that confirmed yet.

Another thing on this, I don't think most players playing single player care so much about optimizing builds, and in multiplayer all are unlocked automatically (as they left for people to make their own house rules to limit anything if they want to).
 
The limited choice narrows the number of possible builds, but it increases the number of competitive builds.
If it is balanced. Same rule refers to the case where you don't have limitations. In both cases, you still have the best builds, decent builds, and builds that don't work. The rest is a matter of balance.

At the end, you are speaking about a solution where a smaller number of good builds minimizes the risk of OP Civs (S-Tiers). In my opinion, this is a lazy design. In the end, you will have fewer builds and less replayability, not more.
Even more, forcing a player to play C-tier means there are no tiers in the game at all :) Every combination is perfectly equal and does not matter. This is how Cuban economics is supposed to work. It doesn't :)
 
I simply feel this is true regardless of how you design a game, and it was true for Civ VI too. I'm going to be slightly silly here but I think my point will still stand; the best meta pick to win a game in Civ VI is to play Settler, with a top tier Civ (because the system of having a civ the entire game did not change that one bit, there are still civs that are better than others), in an OP starting location (we get to reroll, AI does not).

I can't believe this discussion is had about a game in which most people play single player, define their own parameters, and can decide for themselves what kind of challenge they will have.

I might not move from X to Y because that is the best choice meta. I might move that way because I feel like challenging myself, because I haven't tried it before, because I ....

Civ VI: want to win a science victory? Seondok comes to mind. But why not try it with Barbarossa, or Cleo? There is always the best pick, but "best" is set according to your own standards here, so we cannot argue as if it's a universal truth.
Everyone plays as he likes. I am not a competitive minimaxer type either :)
I just always believed a game is more fun if gives you more possibilities, not limiting you. More fun for everyone :)

Those two things I mentioned are limiting. No matter how do you want to play :)
I also think this is the role of a responsible consumer/fan. Our role. To point out potential problems and risks. To give as valuable feedback as we can.
 
I can go for more, but I still must go for this one win:

with civs XYZ
Antiquity: culture and science
Exploration: culture and economics
Modern: culture (maybe a couple others that give immediate benefits)

but with civs FGH
Antiquity: culture and military
Exploration: culture and science
Modern: culture

Does it make my game and strategies more flexible, or not? Do I have more options or less?
The problem is I can't go:
Antiquity: science and military
Exploration: economic and science
Modern: culture

I mean I can, but it is better not to do it. This is called a false alternative. On paper, you have many options, but only one is effective.

And all because of one bad rule: "It's your progress through all three ages that help you towards these victory paths (...) The victory is always through a great project you have to undertake. For Culture Victory it's a Worlds Fair's Project. How long does it take? Every legacy point you have earned towards culture in every age gonna speed that up."

Just change it, or remove it. It gives a little benefit but creates potential problems.
I don’t see the “must” here: legacy points speed up the project, yes, but I can easily see other factors playing a larger role in achieving a quick victory, namely having high centralized production and the speed at which the VC is completed and the project unlocked. Ultimately it’s hard to say at this point since we know so little about victories and the balance of all these aspects.
 
Interesting viewpoint. I really like Point #2 in the original post.

The problem is: there is always the best meta-pick" in such games (Civ tier lists for Civ 6, or best build in RPG-like games. Civilization VII will be more RPG-like. The rule "play as "x" in exploration for "y" win will remain. The limited choice just narrows the number of possible builds. It does not break this rule. RNG or skill level does.
As for point 1, as has been addressed, this could be less of a problem than you anticipate.

A. The internet makes "meta-pick" & "Tier" lists for games even when the benefits are negligible, and the game is pretty well balanced. It's just what the internet does. However, to your credit, in the Civ franchise these lists have been traditionally pretty credible and valid. So it is a reasonable concern
.
B. It is entirely possible to design these Civs in a way that mitigate poor civ choices. Player freedom to pick civs in a freestyle manner actually can work against this in the same way, allowing players to accidentally pick a horrible choice. A good rule of thumb would be that your follow up civ should share a characteristic of your previous civ(s).
Using your example:
Does it make my game and strategies more flexible, or not? Do I have more options or less?
The problem is I can't go:
Antiquity: science and military
Exploration: economic and science
Modern: culture

Your modern civ choices should be Science & Culture, or Economic & Culture, and maybe even include past choices like Military & Culture. Now, this assumes you would have 3 culture choices available. You could design it so that your only modern civs available to pick are civs that share previous traits you have already used. This would create an interesting path through the game. By picking your starting civ, you pick 2/3 of you traits in the game. In Exploration Age, you double down on 1 trait and pick your 3rd. In the modern age you exploit previous choices.
In your example, I agree it would be bad design to offer the player Cultural & Diplomatic. Science is the clear best option for the Modern Age. But you could make an argument for military or economics.
 
Last edited:
I don’t see the “must” here: legacy points speed up the project, yes, but I can easily see other factors playing a larger role in achieving a quick victory, namely having high centralized production and the speed at which the VC is completed and the project unlocked. Ultimately it’s hard to say at this point since we know so little about victories and the balance of all these aspects.
Exactly…especially since all of the previous victory conditions are ways of improving your empire (Wonders, spread your religion, more settlements, bigger yields, early techs, resource access)

as mentioned going
military military victory of choice
could be pretty standard
or
miltary science victory of choice for tall playthrough
 
Everyone plays as he likes. I am not a competitive minimaxer type either :)
I just always believed a game is more fun if gives you more possibilities, not limiting you. More fun for everyone :)

Those two things I mentioned are limiting. No matter how do you want to play :)
I also think this is the role of a responsible consumer/fan. Our role. To point out potential problems and risks. To give as valuable feedback as we can.

I think we are arguing this topic against Civ VI and other parts in the franchise, am I correct? Because I do agree with the first part, a game is often more fun if it gives you more possibilities instead of limiting them, but I'm not sure that I agree with your reasoning on how VII will be more limiting because of a choice of civs, than say VI.

Playing Rough Rider Roosevelt America in VI, I have to wait until my UU comes along. If I die before then, I at least have a great boost in the beginning from my Civilization Ability, as well as my Leader Bonus, but my speciality will have been in vain. Another Civ, say Egypt, will have had a stronger start. I cannot negate this start until my time comes up. There is no reset, no redo, unless I start over the whole game.

Playing Australia on a land map makes for an even more precarious situation. I'm subject to the AI declaring war on me, or going out and actively waging war when the game allows me to liberate a city. Start in a Jungle with Mansa Musa leaves me a bit behind as well. The same goes for a Korea start without many hills, or a Lady Six Sky map on a small island or a large coast.

In VII, the game gives me the possibilities to change my luck by allowing me to change twice throughout the game, depending on my situation.

So no, those two things you mentioned are not limiting, you posed them in a limiting way. I just post them in a way granting you more liberty and possibilities. Your second paragraph under point 1, you write
In a game with four important characteristics like this (leader and three different civilizations), a player has to find an optimal combination of these elements (the most effective 'build.') So why are we limited here?

You just assert that we are limited here by asking 'so why are we limited here?'. But the correct question should first be 'Are we limited here?'. To find 'the most effective build', you'd argue that regardless of the (unknown) situation the game will confront you with (map, opponents, resources, etc.), picking a build at the start (Australia, Curtin, no other options there), is better than having the option to choose again at two different intervals in the game. I'd argue, in any other Civ game you'd be more limited, since you have to think of your 'build' before you start, and cannot adapt as you go, other than in ways any other civ and player can using standard game mechanics. In VII, the game allows you to realise your map makes for a great naval exploration civ, and change your build when a new phase of the game starts.

I agree that consumers play a role in providing feedback. And in that same regard, it's my role then to counter argue your points.:)
 
I don’t see the “must” here: legacy points speed up the project, yes, but I can easily see other factors playing a larger role in achieving a quick victory, namely having high centralized production and the speed at which the VC is completed and the project unlocked. Ultimately it’s hard to say at this point since we know so little about victories and the balance of all these aspects.
Legacy points also unlock leader attribute points :) for example cultural legacy point unlocks a cultural attribute point.

Ok guys, I will try to explain it once again :)

"Must" is perhaps a bad word here. Let me put it this way: if you introduce a certain currency into the game there is a reason for this. You probably want to give some benefits for achieving this currency. Players are encouraged to grind it because it can be changed for some benefits. It makes a player stronger, and in general, is a reward for him. The more effective way a player grain this currency the better his reward. This is how it works in every single game. So yes, perhaps you don't need to collect this currency. You want to do it. This is the reason this currency is in the game.

Legacy points are this kind of currency. And are very impactful because:
a) it's valid in all three eras.
b) unlocks a strong versatile and universal leader power: https://well-of-souls.com/civ/civ7_overview.html#leader_attributes come on just look at those beauties.
c) buffing your power in the late game.

So yes. You want it because it is impactful and makes you stronger.

So what is the problem? You can archive one kind of attribute point: cultural, economic, militaristic, or scientific. So if you want to be strong in for example scientific game you want as many scientific attribute points as you can. So you adjust your strategy, and your choices to archive as many as you can. If you have a scientific game in the ancient era and in the next era civilization A that is good in a scientific game you will probably want to pick civilization A, over B or C. But you have only B or C to choose. This is not only limiting but makes ancient era civilization with a B or C option significantly worse than another scientific civilization with an option of picking A.
To get your prize you want to play a combination of three scientific civs. Not because you must, but because this is how the game is designed.

So do we have more options and Civilizations to play or less?
And you, as a player: Do you want more impactful and rewarding options in your game or less?

And this is how you can fix it. Either let us mix all civs to get our reward from legacy points, or make legacy points more flexible: Any archived legacy point should enable any leader attribute point, and any archived legacy point should speed up any late-game project. Or both.

Is this complicated? No. Is this hard to introduce? No. Does this turn upside down all the mechanics? No.
Can it be customizable for players? Yes. Does it give you more options and more flexibility? Yes.
So what is controversial here? :)

You just assert that we are limited here by asking 'so why are we limited here?'. But the correct question should first be 'Are we limited here?'
Yes, we are. We are limited in our choice of Civs when changing eras, and the game mechanics push us to stick to one victory path throughout all the ages. This is quite obvious.

Player freedom to pick civs in a freestyle manner actually can work against this in the same way, allowing players to accidentally pick a horrible choice.
:crazyeye: what?
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom