Why legacy points are one of my biggest concerns?

[Evie]

Far better score than the modern arbitrary nonsense where your game can suddenly end because some militarily non-existent, economically broke country somewhere managed to throw everything they had at holding a world fair. The maladive need to have hyperfocused victory condition for each sphere of the game that can be achieved best by sacrificing every other sphere of the game to pursue a single sphere only deserves nothing but scorn, and the designers responsible for it don't deserve much response for their abilities.

IF a victory condition does not in some way represent an actual natural end to the game (as in: we reached the limits of what the game can simulate. or we are out of players to play the game with, or one player is no longer even playing on the same game board as everyone else), where it makes little or no sense to keep playing past that point, then it shouldn't be a victory condition.

(And all victory conditions should be intertwined, so that you cannot achieve any of them without advancing on all of them. The hyperspecialized focus vision of the last few games is bovine manure of the worst sort).

 

[King Flevance]

Far better score than the modern arbitrary nonsense where your game can suddenly end because some militarily non-existent, economically broke country somewhere managed to throw everything they had at holding a world fair.

The problem is
1. Being militarily non-existent means you sat back and ignored their effort.
2. Being economically broke is a bold assumption considering the work they have to put in to housing 15 artifacts in their empire to even be able to attempt the fair before anyone else..
3. Discovering the civic "Hegemony" at the end of the cultural civic tree so they can even attempt a world fair - means they are NOT culturally destitute to go for a cultural victory. The civic after Hegemony is "Future Civic"

The maladive need to have hyperfocused victory condition for each sphere of the game that can be achieved best by sacrificing every other sphere of the game to pursue a single sphere only deserves nothing but scorn, and the designers responsible for it don't deserve much response for their abilities.

Wow, that is harsh. I really don't understand nor agree with the perspective of wanting the game to not reward refined or focused strategies in a strategy game. I personally don't want a military player be able to change strategies on the fly and win a cultural victory over someone who has invested in culture all game long. It would feel cheap and as though choices are meaningless, not strategic. It is simply "pick what you like". I would just play military all game long to keep my opponents suppressed for resources and then go for the easiest win at the end.

(And all victory conditions should be intertwined, so that you cannot achieve any of them without advancing on all of them. The hyperspecialized focus vision of the last few games is bovine manure of the worst sort).

The problem with this is that since we are all fighting over the same real estate, whoever pulls ahead on the military front, will claim victory if they can hold it making the snowball effect more pronounced. The Civ franchise has been working on how to make all other avenues as valuable as warfare in a 4X system where more land is more power. This can only be mitigated so much in the genre and the last thing you want to do is lean into it. Civ 1-3 passively does what you desire them to actively integrate. Your best odds in them is to focus on both military and science (and therefore economy) with culture as an added benefit in 3.

They are now trying to design a more dynamically diverse gameplay model that allows for asymmetrical gameplay strategies. However, they are also trying to make it flexible enough that you don't get "pigeonholed" or locked into an unwinnable corner. Some things they have done to implement this flexibility is that you can only advance so far in each branch every age. (3 steps)

It is possible, beneficial, and very difficult to advance all 3 steps in all 4 categories in an Age. If you want to be able to do any victory condition at the end, you could theoretically do that but you will need to earn every one of them by doing good in every category. The developers have suggesting picking 1 or 2 as a primary focus - basically having a strategy in mind, in a strategy game. In every developer playthrough, they have 8-9 legacy points and 6 of those points are 2/4 categories maxed out. They suggest focusing on one or two but as you notice yourself meeting those requirements, start trying to earn points in every category you can. But they intentionally made each one require a lot of effort.

 

[Core Imposter]

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.

I don't think victory is important. What seems important is design that provides constant challenge and a game that cannot be "won" by formulaic play. If there is a "best practices" in anything other than general then the game is short of its potential. Compare to chess, there might be a best line of play but the opponent has a vote. AI civs need a vote.

 

[Evie]

I care about themes more than I care about strategic challenge, and the absurdly moronic victory conditions of the later civilization games and the entire array of of impact they have on the game make a mockery of any pretense of theme Civilization claims to have. As the game is now, someone trying to hold a *World Fair* is somehow an existential threat to every civilization the game - to the point that the natural reaction other civs should ahve to a world fair is to rush a military attack to prevent it. IN what world does this make any sort of freaking sense? In none! A world fair is certainly an accomplishment, but it in no way represent even a minor threat to anyone else. But somehow it has to be a threat, because...there has to be a cultural path to victory and holding a fair is how it ends? No. That's a complete and utter failure thematically and flavor-wise.

A game is not a simulation, but at the same time, a game is more than mechanics, and if you cannot flavor your mechanics in a way that make sense with the theme of the game, you've failed as surely as if you had created bad mechanics in the first place.

And frankly, I think that yes, a civilization that realizes its original game plans is not going to work should be able to reasonably easily pivot to a different victory condition and get back in the game that way. This would actually keep the game more fluid, and avoid early game decision (ie, what to specialize in) having outsized impact long into the game. Even mechanically, letting civilization pivot should serve to make the late game more dynamic and unpredictable, which is good. As to conquerors being too advantaged by getting an early lead in city count, the solution is to make conquest less rewarding (ie, by making conquered cities less valuable), not to isolate it in its own silo. Siloing off game systems is not good design ; it's an admission of failure.

 

[gdr_willter]

I care about themes more than I care about strategic challenge, and the absurdly moronic victory conditions of the later civilization games and the entire array of of impact they have on the game make a mockery of any pretense of theme Civilization claims to have. As the game is now, someone trying to hold a *World Fair* is somehow an existential threat to every civilization the game - to the point that the natural reaction other civs should ahve to a world fair is to rush a military attack to prevent it. IN what world does this make any sort of freaking sense? In none! A world fair is certainly an accomplishment, but it in no way represent even a minor threat to anyone else. But somehow it has to be a threat, because...there has to be a cultural path to victory and holding a fair is how it ends? No. That's a complete and utter failure thematically and flavor-wise.

I will partially agree with the point that the World Fair may be better when it works as some kind of race (tho we don't really now what is the World Fair in Civ 7 yet), but the World Fair of the Modern global powers was actually the matter of ostentation about their cultural triumph. Yes, in real life, they would react to it by participating it and showing off more exhibits, but the declaration of the triumph over the rivals also could cause some militaristic conflict...

A game is not a simulation, but at the same time, a game is more than mechanics, and if you cannot flavor your mechanics in a way that make sense with the theme of the game, you've failed as surely as if you had created bad mechanics in the first place.

A game is more than mechanics, and it means the enjoyable mechanics. "Oh you can't reach any victory because your empire is too weak in military which is what truly and only matter" is not so funny to me.

And frankly, I think that yes, a civilization that realizes its original game plans is not going to work should be able to reasonably easily pivot to a different victory condition and get back in the game that way. This would actually keep the game more fluid, and avoid early game decision (ie, what to specialize in) having outsized impact long into the game. Even mechanically, letting civilization pivot should serve to make the late game more dynamic and unpredictable, which is good. As to conquerors being too advantaged by getting an early lead in city count, the solution is to make conquest less rewarding (ie, by making conquered cities less valuable), not to isolate it in its own silo. Siloing off game systems is not good design ; it's an admission of failure.

Anyway, now we have the Civ switching. We can pivot the strategy in each new Age by choosing proper Civ for the accessible Victory.

I can't read the point of your last statements well. If you hate the settlements limit, just go beyond it. Your empire will be larger while its reward reduced. And choose the Civs and any other bonuses who have additional settlement cap.

 

[Krikkit1]

. AI civs need a vote.

I think this is important.
There are a few types of ways the AIs can “get a vote”

1 getting something before you so you don’t get it (wonder/IP suzerein/the final victory)…this is the civ as race

2 taking something from you (a settlement /IP through war/religious spread…IP through diplomacy?) ..this is civ as a game

Part of the problem is that
1. the AI is bad at number 2
2. if the AI is too good at number 2 you get problems (same for #1 but not quite as rage inducing…because you can always do #2)

A big problem is the dominance of territory….
I was hoping the Crises would be the way to sort that out …a massive empire would face a crisis severe enough to probably lose some settlements (though those settlements helped them get one or more legacy bonuses that will carry over to the next age even if the settlements themselves do not)




Also, hoping that if they get a 4th age, it gets the “true” victory conditions
Expansionist or Diplomatic
Mars Colony (Requires Science and Economics Legacies)
World Civilization (Requires Military and Cultural Legacies)

 

[King Flevance]

I agree that it can feel dissappointing for a theme to be stapled on to a game mechanic. However, the Civilization franchise is turning something very serious in reality into a game. Military transfers into the game formula easily because it has a win state. However, science, culture, and economics do not. Previous Civ games had Diplomatic Victory where other countries say "you win". Win what? So there does need to be a line drawn and that line will always be arbitrary in this circumstance.

Why do you win science if you are the first into space, and not be the first to discover electricity, or scientific theory? Why is that seen as an understandable scientific threshold but a World Fair is nonsense? That would be like saying you win military with the invention of gunpowder or nukes. (Which they do use the invention of nukes for that victory I believe in 7) At worst this is just a issue of naming the mechanic. What if the World Fair was instead the World Olympics or something that doesn't even exist in our reality like the World Culture Forum and explain it like a UN but focused on art & sociological guidelines that brings all nations integrating together under your Civ's cultural guidance.

Having looked over the legacy system more due to this discussion, I do think the game offers versatility while also offering incentive towards a more focused strategy. We are getting the best of both worlds from what I can see.Some details are foggy due to our limited perspective right now. However, for me, this thread has helped me become more comfortable with the legacy point system and even raised my anticipation a bit to see how it all flows. More than likely I will be digging into those videos more this week to see what I can find as I haven't been able to do much more than just listen to the videos vs sift through the video footage of the UI like I have this weekend.

 

[Leucarum]

If there was an iteration of civ where Score Victory made sense as the default win condition it's 7! But it sounds from the livestream as if they felt every victory type needed to end with a bang to keep them memorable.

I don't neccessarily know how much I care about that. Winning in Civ is usually a foregone conclusion by the time you win. That said, the social media marketability of civ demands big moments and even bigger yields. You'll be shocked by the size of my world fair and Firaxis don't want you to know how you get yields this high!!!

 

[Wielki Hegemon]

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.

And this is what narrows your options.
You should be able to change legacy p[points in your talent tree before each era. Otherwise, your game experience will be full of dead ends And believe me you will not gonna like it

 

[pokiehl]

And this is what narrows your options.
You should be able to change legacy p[points in your talent tree before each era. Otherwise, your game experience will be full of dead ends And believe me you will not gonna like it

I think it’s premature to be this confident about how a gameplay mechanic will feel when the game isn’t even out yet.

 

[King Flevance]

And this is what narrows your options.
You should be able to change legacy p[points in your talent tree before each era. Otherwise, your game experience will be full of dead ends And believe me you will not gonna like it

That would be like having to reassign ALL your skill points in an RPG every 5 levels. Believe me, I would hate that. Even having it optional deters me. This is the reason that I don't like to play Minecraft on creative or like the leveling system in Diablo 3. Even in Diablo 4 you can respend every point anytime you want and I see that as a reason to only play each class once.
I like investing in my decisions in games as only then do my choices ever really matter. I dont want to have the option to reallocate my development points every time I get one in Manor Lords. It would cheapen the experience for me.

Sorry if being locked in to your decisions is a put off for you, but it is the very thing that draws most people to the strategy genre. Being able to not commit to your decisions makes victories feel cheap and unimpressive to most people.

 

[Wielki Hegemon]

I think it’s premature to be this confident about how a gameplay mechanic will feel when the game isn’t even out yet.

Of course! However, some things are noticeable from the gaming experience and mistakes made by others.

- If you have a talent tree allow me to adjust it to my current strategy
- More options are better than fewer options (in general)
- Rules or attributes that force your decisions make them less meaningful.

This topic is not about revolution. It's about to give us some options we do not have now. It reminds me discussion before World of Warcraft Shadowlands about Covenants. Everybody knew that the lack of possibility to easily change it (that gives you certain powers) was a bad idea. And it was. Developers said it after two years and changed it.

 

[Evie]

Why do you win science if you are the first into space, and not be the first to discover electricity, or scientific theory? Why is that seen as an understandable scientific threshold but a World Fair is nonsense? That would be like saying you win military with the invention of gunpowder or nukes. (Which they do use the invention of nukes for that victory I believe in 7) At worst this is just a issue of naming the mechanic. What if the World Fair was instead the World Olympics or something that doesn't even exist in our reality like the World Culture Forum and explain it like a UN but focused on art & sociological guidelines that brings all nations integrating together under your Civ's cultural guidance.

I used World Fair as an example, but what I was saying apply to all of the non-military victory conditions (and even the military victory condition is only passable because it's marginally better than the one in Civ VI). All other civilizations suddenly surrendering because you put a man in space is ridiculous, too.

In most of the early Civ games, the Science Victory was about colonizing an exoplanet, and becoming an interstellar civilization. At that point, you won the game because the game can only represent events on a single planet, and your empire now stretch beyond that. You've outgrown civ and the competition for a single world, and the only way to keep playing your empire is to move over to Galactic Civilizations or Stellaris. Was it ever realistic? No! Victory conditions were never meant to be things that could reasonably happen in the time frame of the game. They were stupendous achievements that would end (or make irrelevant) the central conflict of Civilization. Because the main victory condition was, in fact, score - the expected game result was getting to the end of the game and seeing whose civilization had had the greatest impact on human history. But of course people latched on to the idea that the real challenge and achievement was winning before final score calculation, and so everything about the game has become about facilitating early wins(rather than improving score to make it more dynamic).

The move to make the space victory "more realistic" by making it about colonizing mars or landing on the moon or any other reasonably reachable space goal has been an unmitigated disaster, because while it IS more realistic for mankind to achieve, it has no logical relation to actually ending or winning the game.

 

[Wielki Hegemon]

That would be like having to reassign ALL your skill points in an RPG every 5 levels. Believe me, I would hate that. Even having it optional deters me. This is the reason that I don't like to play Minecraft on creative or like the leveling system in Diablo 3. Even in Diablo 4 you can respend every point anytime you want and I see that as a reason to only play each class once.

This is a good example. I am not saying to change it every 5 levels but before the new era, when you swap Civilization.
BTW We don't mind swapping civics in the game but suddenly have a problem with leader abilities?

If you were playing Science Civ in your previous era and invested your science legacy points in a science tree and the next Era you got only Cultural and Economic Civs to choose you would probably want to spend some or maybe all of your legacy points in an economic tree. Specifically, if it's the final era. So the game should give us such option. If you don't want to do it nobody force you. It just makes the game nice and smooth. The same with Civs. Perhaps you would like to choose a Science Civ you cannot. Again An option to choose one of all Civs in this era.
If you start with a cultural Civ and in the next era you cannot pick cultural Civ, or cannot rearrange your leader talent tree it's punishing and limiting for the player. The same way Covenants were in WoW Shadowlands.
And let it be my summary.

 

[Krikkit1]

This is a good example. I am not saying to change it every 5 levels but before the new era, when you swap Civilization.
BTW We don't mind swapping civics in the game but suddenly have a problem with leader abilities?

If you were playing Science Civ in your previous era and invested your science legacy points in a science tree and the next Era you got only Cultural and Economic Civs to choose you would probably want to spend some or maybe all of your legacy points in an economic tree. Specifically, if it's the final era. So the game should give us such option. If you don't want to do it nobody force you. It just makes the game nice and smooth. The same with Civs. Perhaps you would like to choose a Science Civ you cannot. Again An option to choose one of all Civs in this era.
If you start with a cultural Civ and in the next era you cannot pick cultural Civ, or cannot rearrange your leader talent tree it's punishing and limiting for the player. The same way Covenants were in WoW Shadowlands.
And let it be my summary.

The problem is that erases the unique benefits of choosing a science civ and
1. makes science v cultural civ meaningless bad for gameplay
2. erodes the nature of building through history

 

[Wielki Hegemon]

1. makes science v cultural civ meaningless bad for gameplay

No, it just gives you the option to play a cultural game in one era if you want to, or you do not have another option to choose in this particular moment of the game. Besides if you want science legacy points (or other) in a science game for the last era and you cannot play a science game in the previous era and you play let's say a cultural Civ. Those cultural legacy points you earn are they important for your strategy or rather meaningless? Imagine you MUST invest your Governor Title in a certain governor tree in Civ 6. Not the one you want) Is this good for gameplay?

2. erodes the nature of building through history

But why? It gives you the freedom to shape your history. To build something you believe in (as the game's slogan says), not something you are forced to because of this, or that rule How playing religious/cultural game in the exploration era and then switching to science in the modern can erode the nature of building through history?

 

[TheGhostEnthusiast]

How playing religious/cultural game in the exploration era and then switching to science in the modern can erode the nature of building through history?

Because in your model you can overwrite your previous choices for the sake of min-maxing. Something as big as how you won the previous Age becomes meaningless.

 

[Wielki Hegemon]

Because in your model you can overwrite your previous choices for the sake of min-maxing. Something as big as how you won the previous Age becomes meaningless.

The same way you overwrite civics in Civilization VII. Winning the previous Age is not meaningless because you get a legacy points, your currency to buy simple buffs for the next era, or invest in a leader ability tree important until the end of the game. I am not proposing to erase the legacy point from the game! All I want is to make them more flexible.

They should not be assigned to one particular leader ability tree, the same way as a Governor Title in Civ VI, or/and I should have the option to adjust it to my current tactics or situation (once per era, or anytime? for some cost or for free? I don't have answers for those questions). If the game wants to challenge me (by narrowing my options to choose any Civilization), let me adjust to playing around it. If not just give me an option to fix my build (In a game that lasts a few hours and is not skirmish mode). This is not about minimaxing. This is about our general experience and quality of life.

 

[King Flevance]

I would offer that even score is absurd, as who had a higher "score" in real life? Greece, Rome, or Egypt? How do Britain or United States compare? China? There is no 'realistic' perspective of this. It is absurd to translate the concept of human civilization as winnable for only 1 nation. Human civilization is more than nationality and nations aren't even objectively quantifiable. The Civ franchise's tongue-in-cheek historical flavoring should rule out any arguments in regards to realism. There are much more apt games for arguing realism.

Civ aims to make a fun game first with human history as a backdrop theme.

 

[TheGhostEnthusiast]

The same way you overwrite civics in Civilization VII.

Just for confirmation, what do you mean by this? I’m not aware of what you are referring to.