Why legacy points are one of my biggest concerns?

[stealth_nsk]

So what is controversial here?

I think the biggest issue here is that you're suggesting game balance fixes without seeing half of the game. All of them are based on your perception of what is strong and what is not, which is very limited, compared to what developers (and their testers) see and constantly play.

It's just too early. After around a month of game we (together) will have more playtest time than developers, that's when balance issues could be raised.

 

[King Flevance]

The only problem I see with making legacy points generic is that it makes our choices generic. Then at the end you will just pick a random one because they are ALL "71 turns". Making them more flexible but not generic is more ideal.

So for example:
Military & Cultural Legacy points count as "Heritage Points" which apply to both of those victory projects.
Science & Economy Legacy Points count as "Influence Points" which apply to both of those projects.

This would make 2 options viable and 2 options not viable.

To the credit of the current design, 1 will most likely be the most viable and 3 will be less so. This actually adds to replay ability. It could be interesting to add in other benefits - like certain resources (e.g. oil for military) granting a bonus that stacks toward the victory project (like corporations in Civ 4.) But details like this require us to wait and see what Firaxis themselves have come up with.

 

[Core Imposter]

I am not keen with the creative design decisions that have been made over several iterations of Civ. Certain concepts have been ruled out which seem to have forced the series down a cul-de-sac.

One key problem is that people are obsessed with keeping the game in a state where multiple people can play a starting position and compare their outcomes. So that they can pound their chest and claim to be the best. But that ruled out events or any other facet of the game that had a randomness to it. But events drive history and the lack of them leaves Civ devoid of real flavor.

The absence of short-term leaders is a similar crippling factor.

Eras and swapping Civs seems a somewhat gimmicky way to do something different with the franchise and legacy points follows that. I can help feeling that a lot of gameplay is being left on the table. The history of Civilization is a tapestry of events and the people who shaped them, and I just don't think we are experiencing the story of mankind in its fullness.

 

[Wielki Hegemon]

I think the biggest issue here is that you're suggesting game balance fixes without seeing half of the game. All of them are based on your perception of what is strong and what is not, which is very limited, compared to what developers (and their testers) see and constantly play.

It's just too early. After around a month of game we (together) will have more playtest time than developers, that's when balance issues could be raised.

That's true, and this is the only argument that appeals to me
But it does not help with my concerns

Besides this is not about balance issues, this is about mechanic rules.

 

[Wielki Hegemon]

One key problem is that people are obsessed with keeping the game in a state where multiple people can play a starting position and compare their outcomes. So that they can pound their chest and claim to be the best. But that ruled out events or any other facet of the game that had a randomness to it. But events drive history and the lack of them leaves Civ devoid of real flavor.

No. I want to have options that give me the possibility to make impactful and rewarding decisions. Not a story of mankind.

 

[bbbt]

1. Halfway Civs and era design.
...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.

They haven't followed up with it, but the implication was that every Civ can be unlocked with some specific requirement (ie 3 horses for Mongolia). So the design in theory allows for limited choice for newer players (to not overwhelm), but experienced players will know to aim for the unlock criteria

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.

That's not what the snowball effect problem is tho. Being dominant in one victory type is fine. The snowball problem is when a player is dominant in almost ALL aspects, not just one (ie in Civ 7 - you basically get more cities, you are dominant in everything). So in your above example, sure the player is snowballing in culture legacy points - they may still lose to the civ who is leading in science, or the civ leading in economics, or the civ that is not in dominant in culture but has better production (for building archaeologists and the final project), or the civ that just sacks their cities when they are trying to build the final project, etc. The point is if you are putting all your eggs in one basket, you are weaker in another.

Your suggested solution actually makes the snowball effect worse imho, as it allows a player who is more dominant overall to have victory even easier.

 

[LastSword]

I think I can summarize concerns:
-Creating a gameplay in which you are rewarded from specific actions in future eras will create very narrow experience and kind of ruin a sense of splitting the game into three subgames (by sense I mean both a fun aspect and anti-snowball mechanism).

I will add one from myself:
-It will also hurt AI since it just can't plan ahead like human. Nor it will understand that some actions are worthless/voided.

Well, civ7 had an opportunity to break a linear gameplay of series. At this point I don't believe it will happen. I was very disappointed how they handled era-split; it kind of ended in the middle where we neither keep our progress/civilization, nor we can sink in each era, nor we have fully working anti-snowball mechanism.
Even small things like an order of picking civilizations for next era, in which players do it in numerical order (single player: human is always first player). I believe they said it works exactly the same for multiplayer... It is just not a serious behaviour.

 

[King Flevance]

I think I can summarize concerns:
-Creating a gameplay in which you are rewarded from specific actions in future eras will create very narrow experience and kind of ruin a sense of splitting the game into three subgames (by sense I mean both a fun aspect and anti-snowball mechanism).

Interesting take on it. Most people tend to like being rewarded (consequences) to specific actions. I fail to see how this directly translates to a more "narrow experience" instead of a more versatile experience. If every choice rewards you in the same way, any "choice" is removed and you are left only with a "narrow experience".

I understand the desire to want more flexibility but this creates a dichotomy:

Easier to win regardless of choices (Always being able to adapt your choices to a winnable condition)
vs.
More choices with consequences. (Disjointed strategies do not work as well as synergized strategies)

I do not think that many fans of strategy games will like the former game design.

I will add one from myself:
-It will also hurt AI since it just can't plan ahead like human. Nor it will understand that some actions are worthless/voided.

Actually, the more specific the system, the easier it is to get AI to value it properly. AI usually doesn't do very well with ambiguous or vague strategic decisions. It is easier if you use something like legacy points as they work as a "carrot on a stick" for the AI to follow. Mixing this with having your civ picks be tied to previous traits, or something similar, you could even lead the AI to making smart civ picks.

Even small things like an order of picking civilizations for next era, in which players do it in numerical order (single player: human is always first player). I believe they said it works exactly the same for multiplayer... It is just not a serious behaviour.

One good thing is that they allow multiple players to pick the same civ, so you can't be blocked from your strategy. I do have some slight grievances about things I have seen dealing with era crossover but there is too much outside of my view currently. I haven't seen anything yet that feels broken. Most things people like you and I bring up, is speculation as to how 2 things will relate without full knowledge of the game's system. Every Era crossover has had things hidden from us as they use pre-saves to show us new features. They have talked about crossovers but never let us watch an era transition or they block things from our view of it. So we have no idea what an eras transition is actually like, just what it sounds like based on limited information they want to showcase.

 

[Wielki Hegemon]

That's not what the snowball effect problem is tho. Being dominant in one victory type is fine. The snowball problem is when a player is dominant in almost ALL aspects, not just one (ie in Civ 7 - you basically get more cities, you are dominant in everything). So in your above example, sure the player is snowballing in culture legacy points - they may still lose to the civ who is leading in science, or the civ leading in economics, or the civ that is not in dominant in culture

That's true, you can always lose with AI or another player. But for certain paths - let's say the science path, one build (in my opinion and this is the core of my concern) will be stronger than the others - one that has three scientific civilizations in it - (ancient, exploration and modern era civs).

Your suggested solution actually makes the snowball effect worse imho, as it allows a player who is more dominant overall to have victory even easier.

This is how you want to make the best build. Now this build is somehow predefined. It consists of Civs with the same attributes that are connected between eras. (Axum-Songhai on economics) and it has easier than other economic civs way to victory. That can make many overall good and interesting Civs not effective only because they are not connected with others. That's the point here. Of course, it doesn't solve the problem of balancing builds. It doesn't prevent power-creep or OP builds. It just gives some interesting Civs a chance and gives you more options you don't have now.

The point is if you are putting all your eggs in one basket, you are weaker in another.-

Good point and this is the argument that gives me hope.

 

[Krikkit1]

Good point and this is the argument that gives me hope.

That I think is the key thing…the things you do to get any of the legacy points are things you do to make your empire better for any victory in the next age… some of the legacy points themselves will be better for certain victories at the end… but the actions you take to get them will be beneficial to many victories.

 

[Wielki Hegemon]

I think I can summarize concerns:
-Creating a gameplay in which you are rewarded from specific actions in future eras will create very narrow experience and kind of ruin a sense of splitting the game into three subgames (by sense I mean both a fun aspect and anti-snowball mechanism).

exactly! That is my point. Thank you for this beautiful tldr

Well, civ7 had an opportunity to break a linear gameplay of series. At this point I don't believe it will happen. I was very disappointed how they handled era-split; it kind of ended in the middle where we neither keep our progress/civilization, nor we can sink in each era, nor we have fully working anti-snowball mechanism.
Even small things like an order of picking civilizations for next era, in which players do it in numerical order (single player: human is always first player). I believe they said it works exactly the same for multiplayer... It is just not a serious behaviour.

I have similar observations.

 

[King Flevance]

exactly! That is my point.

So, am I right in assuming you would prefer the game to be divided into 3 mini-games, but the final victory is solely dependent on the 3rd mini-game to avoid snowballing?

If so, what is the incentive to do well in the first 2 minigames?

Additionally, what would be the deterrent to avoid map sprawl/conquest being the only best strategy in the first 2 Era to win the game?

 

[Seek]

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?

My point, which perhaps I was not clear on, was that we still don’t know how important these points will be to creating a winning strategy. You are making some assumptions regarding their importance that we simply do not have knowledge about and can’t judge currently.

We do not know if sticking to one legacy focus throughout the whole game will outweigh other parts of the game, such as synergies between alternate Civ paths, or overcoming obstacles on the map (be they terrain or other civs), or perhaps even that creating balanced empires will be stronger than focusing on one mechanic. We simply don’t know.

I’m not really even disagreeing that there should be some freedom in choosing subsequent civs. I look forward to finding those unexpected synergies and maximizing a particular yield! I just like the method the devs (hopefully) implemented, where it’s terrain dependent and not just free for all, and think it’s worth trying before suggesting an overhaul. Terrain dependent unlocks help keep the game grounded, and in my experience the greatest creativity comes with having some limitations.

 

[Wielki Hegemon]

So, am I right in assuming you would prefer the game to be divided into 3 mini-games, but the final victory is solely dependent on the 3rd mini-game to avoid snowballing?

If so, what is the incentive to do well in the first 2 minigames?

Dividing a game into three mini-games is a mean not a goal. Besides it is now an objective fact. So it doesn't matter if I prefer it or.

The final victory is not dependent on a third mini-game (modern era) and should not be dependent. Otherwise, the first two games would be without any meaning.
What makes "the snowball effect" is that you are building your powers for the last stage in the first two eras in a very specific way. By graining attribute points. Specific attribute points. Science for a science leader tree for example. It makes your game style in the previous two eras very limited because you must earn science points with all consequences - playing science game with science civs.
What I want is to make this process more flexible. Attribute points should be neutral.
Example:
If I play a good science game in an ancient era and have like 5 attribute points I can spend them for leader economic tree abilities and play an economic game in the exploration era. Then get 6 attribute points. With all 11 points I enter into the modern era, invest them all into into cultural tree, and play a cultural game in the last era. In the last era I will get another 4 points. With all my attribute points from all eras (15) can speed up the last project.

 

[Wielki Hegemon]

My point, which perhaps I was not clear on, was that we still don’t know how important these points will be to creating a winning strategy. You are making some assumptions regarding their importance that we simply do not have knowledge about and can’t judge currently.

Sure. You are right. Time will tell. I am just pointing out a potential danger.

 

[King Flevance]

Dividing a game into three mini-games is a mean not a goal. Besides it is now an objective fact. So it doesn't matter if I prefer it or.

It is not 3 minigames though as they are not isolated. It is 1 game divided into 3 stages. There is a difference but I don't think I agree with your assessment after all. I feel that making the legacy points generic it would turn the 3 eras into a minigame. (That is, get as many legacy points as possible - of any kind.) I like that only the kind toward the victory makes a difference.

The final victory is not dependent on a third mini-game (modern era) and should not be dependent. Otherwise, the first two games would be without any meaning.

What makes "the snowball effect" is that you are building your powers for the last stage in the first two eras in a very specific way. By graining attribute points. Specific attribute points. Science for a science leader tree for example. It makes your game style in the previous two eras very limited because you must earn science points with all consequences - playing science game with science civs.
What I want is to make this process more flexible. Attribute points should be neutral.
Example:
If I play a good science game in an ancient era and have like 5 attribute points I can spend them for leader economic tree abilities and play an economic game in the exploration era. Then get 6 attribute points. With all 11 points I enter into the modern era, invest them all into into cultural tree, and play a cultural game in the last era. In the last era I will get another 4 points. With all my attribute points from all eras (15) can speed up the last project.

Your example is a bit confusing. I don't think you are very familiar with how the system has been shown. The most legacy points you can get in each category per Age currently is 3.

This is a great balancing tool as no leader can advance too far in any one tree. I think the most investment in 1 attribute possible we have seen is 5 using the category's 3 plus 1 or 2 "wild" legacy points. And I don't think they have told us where those "wild" points came from. I am guessing Wonders. Plus, in the developer playthroughs they usually had a total of 8-9 points spread out over all the categories at the end of an age.

But lets say you get 5 legacy points and spend them all on attribute points and forfeit spending them on golden ages, or bonus cultural per turn/bonus production per turn for 1/3 of the game. (Probably not a good investment) As legacy points are generic in your example.

So you spend them all on 5 economic leader tree abilities. Then you gain 6 legacy points in that age, and in the next age you want to take all your points back out of economic traits (which isn't allowed) mix them with the other six and get 11 cultural leader abilities (If there even are that many) and play a solely cultural game. However, this only applies to your leader. Your social policies may not add in to this strategy, your buildings (archeology), the map, etc. Additionally, our view and knowledge of the leader attribute trees are severely limited to my knowledge. So we don't even know how much impact this would have, though I am certain it would help.

Gaining 4 in the modern age I don't think will net any attribute points to my knowledge. Modern Age legacy points only count toward helping build the victory project as far as I am aware.

In your example lets also remember that your opponents may have gained 18 or 20 legacy points. Which will snowball their victory since they have done better (generally - due to more legacy points) in the game, they have a better chance at winning than you. In your system, whoever gets the most legacy points will most likely win.

In the current system, you have to be the first to be able to build the victory condition, THEN legacy points help propel you forward. But you can reach the victory condition before your opponent and negate their bonus as is. (Depending on how much of a bonus it actually is. We are still waiting on that information.) Or you can be late to getting the condition but because that has been your specialty all game, you boost past them. Or you can show up with too little, too late. The current system offers more diversity.

 

[Core Imposter]

You see here one problem that stems from defining a game ending victory mechanic which is not appropriate for a game like Civ. It should not be. If one applies the standard Civilization victory scheme to history, then Rome lost the game. Britain lost the game. But neither did. Both empires profoundly influenced the world not just in their apogee but yet today.

So, this is pertinent, we should not be aiming in the early stages of the game to accrue credits (legacy points) that can be used to win at some arbitrary point in the future but rather, to maximize the glory and power of the civ we are playing at whatever period in history that we are playing. The designers should simply adopt a victory methodology that measures and rewards achievements in a game world in which empires inevitably rise and fall and whose components then transform into some later entities.

Firaxis should slip the bonds of standard game design, alas too late for 7, but 8 looms.

 

[Krikkit1]

You see here one problem that stems from defining a game ending victory mechanic which is not appropriate for a game like Civ. It should not be. If one applies the standard Civilization victory scheme to history, then Rome lost the game. Britain lost the game. But neither did. Both empires profoundly influenced the world not just in their apogee but yet today.

So, this is pertinent, we should not be aiming in the early stages of the game to accrue credits (legacy points) that can be used to win at some arbitrary point in the future but rather, to maximize the glory and power of the civ we are playing at whatever period in history that we are playing. The designers should simply adopt a victory methodology that measures and rewards achievements in a game world in which empires inevitably rise and fall and whose components then transform into some later entities.

Firaxis should slip the bonds of standard game design, alas too late for 7, but 8 looms.

Thats …basically what they did… The legacy points that you rack up as one civ (by doing glorious things*) help you in the future (both next age and final victory)

*building Wonders, spreading religion wide
recording new learning, reaching peaks of cooperative achievement, mobilizing vast resources, conquering/controlling vast territories
(culture, culture, science , science, economic, military)

 

[chaosprophet]

You see here one problem that stems from defining a game ending victory mechanic which is not appropriate for a game like Civ. It should not be. If one applies the standard Civilization victory scheme to history, then Rome lost the game. Britain lost the game. But neither did. Both empires profoundly influenced the world not just in their apogee but yet today.

So, this is pertinent, we should not be aiming in the early stages of the game to accrue credits (legacy points) that can be used to win at some arbitrary point in the future but rather, to maximize the glory and power of the civ we are playing at whatever period in history that we are playing. The designers should simply adopt a victory methodology that measures and rewards achievements in a game world in which empires inevitably rise and fall and whose components then transform into some later entities.

Firaxis should slip the bonds of standard game design, alas too late for 7, but 8 looms.

What you're suggesting seems to me just a score victory, which tend to be he most boring way to get a victory in civilizations games, and seems to be available if no one achieves a victory in time as usual, and possibly could be the only option available if you set so in game start, if it is similar to other civ games in that way.

 

[Vandlys]

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.

Okay. We are limited in our choice of Civs when changing eras. We have a limitation of (how many at the moment exactly?), let's say 10. How much choice did you have in previous Civ iterations? 0.

So, yes, we are limited, but by phrasing it like this you make it seem like the game has fewer options and less freedom than previous instances in the franchise, whereas I argue it's the exact opposite.