Dynasty Legacies shouldn't be trees

[Despotism]

While I like the idea behind the legacy system, I think that the way they are implementing it in linear trees is the wrong direction. It feels WAY too gamey, and seems counter-intuitive to making things more customizable as it railroads you down a few set paths.

I think a better system might be some kind of perks system, where you can select from a large list of perks in a non-linear fashion. The perk system would be restricted by certain requirements of your current Dynast; for example, you wouldn't just be able to take a perk that increases the chances of genius children, your current Dynast needs to be a Genius to select it, as your Dynast makes your dynasty's huge intellect well known and famous. You might need a certain large number of children to select a fertility bonus perk, and your dynasty being known as great warriors actually requires your current Dynast to be a great warrior.

This would also allow the implementation of negative perks (that actually harm you), like increasing the chances of Hunchback if you want your dynasty to be famous for that, as well as various other perks that might have high roleplay and fun value without having much value mechanically.

I'll be the first to admit that the system I described above is not well thought out yet, as I just came up with it, but I am curious what fellow people think about dynasty legacies being linear trees.

 

[Stepina]

I'm so hyped for this ive been playing table top rpgs since i was 13 and that's what draws me to ck2, so more rpg elements are a win in my book

 

[fourworlds]

While I don't mind the linear tree, I do like the idea of choosing from perks and being limited to perks based on your actions. Feels like a good balance between what was described in the DD and the bloodline system in CK2.

 

[Despotism]

While I don't mind the linear tree, I do like the idea of choosing from perks and being limited to perks based on your actions. Feels like a good balance between what was described in the DD and the bloodline system in CK2.

My main concern is just that CK3 has a roleplay/player choice focus, but these Dynastic Legacy "tracks" seem to oppose that direction. For one, they can't really add negative features to the tracks, like perhaps your dynasty is infamous for being cowardly (which could increase chances of being Craven, but also giving your dynasty a knack for surviving situations most wouldn't), or maybe your dynasty is notorious for being backstabbers (which could make it harder to form alliances and marriages with others, but perhaps give an event when losing a war to sell out your allies or even your own people). Another problem is that it kind of looks like Stellaris traditions, where your going to just max all of them out by the endgame, which takes away any feeling of being unique, this is obviously speculation though, as we don't know how the system works in game yet, but I think it is a valid concern.

 

[halbort]

I agree that negative legacies should be a thing. I think that that maybe they should have it so legacies only accentuate traits you already have.

They should be like bloodlines where actions determine the bloodline.

 

[Despotism]

Whatever they decide, I think they should move away from flat bonuses, as that is how you get newborn babies with over 50 dueling stat. I don't mind if odds are skewed more in your favor by your legacy, but outright giving them better stats is questionable. Regardless, I think adding new interactions and abilities is far more interesting than stat boosts anyway.

 

[Vanhal]

Agree, with the amount of incest Crusader Kings is famous for, even perks should come in lines, not trees.

 

[Vokasak]

While I like the idea behind the legacy system, I think that the way they are implementing it in linear trees is the wrong direction. It feels WAY too gamey

One day the CK community will realize that CK is in fact a game, and things feeling "gamey" are a result of the game that they've been gaming.

 

[Despotism]

One day the CK community will realize that CK is in fact a game, and things feeling "gamey" are a result of the game that they've been gaming.

It feels gamey because the mechanic is essentially a Dynastic tech tree, where you spend an abstract resource (renown/tech points) to unlock various upgrades (legacies/technologies) like increasing their lifespan and making them better in combat. I don't think there is anything wrong with putting in a system which allows for progression throughout a game as well as adding more personalization to your dynasty, I just think it shouldn't be done in such a linear fashion as adding "tracks" you go down.

Things feeling too gamey hurts immersion and the roleplaying experience, and while not everyone plays CK to roleplay or be immersed, the developers have stated that this area is one they are focusing on, so I don't think saying something is too gamey in CK is an invalid criticism.

 

[PK_AZ]

One day the CK community will realize that CK is in fact a game, and things feeling "gamey" are a result of the game that they've been gaming.

Respectfully disagree. While games obviously cannot and shouldn't be 100% simulation of neither real nor fictional setting, and they have to use gamistic mechanics and hard math, it doesn't imply that game have to feel gamey.

Good example of what I mean is new federation DD from Stellaris and dynastic legacies from Ck3. In former, you gain XP to increase Level of your federation. In latter, you gain Renown to unlock Legacies for your dynasty. Mechanic behind is similar, but for me Stellaris feels much too gamey, when Ck3 do not. Just because choice of words, not math nor design.

 

[Kagemin]

Whatever they decide, I think they should move away from flat bonuses, as that is how you get newborn babies with over 50 dueling stat. I don't mind if odds are skewed more in your favor by your legacy, but outright giving them better stats is questionable. Regardless, I think adding new interactions and abilities is far more interesting than stat boosts anyway.

Isn't that exactly what they said how it'd work? Just nudging the probability instead of enforcing anything.

 

[V-Dogg]

Don’t like it. All legacies, genetics etc should come naturally from actions in game instead of choosing perks etc. Let’s say you have many brawny ancestors, then you should be more likely to get a brawnly child.

 

[similan]

Don’t like it. All legacies, genetics etc should come naturally from actions in game instead of choosing perks etc. Let’s say you have many brawny ancestors, then you should be more likely to get a brawnly child.

I really agree with this.
This feature is creates the notion that dynasties were specialized in certain things, as the dev diary stated under "Dynasty Legacies?", which they were not. So while the world may look at dynasties as specialized I'd rather have it be a opinion modifier than actual skill or genetic boosts.

 

[Delta5ff]

add negative features to the tracks, like perhaps your dynasty is infamous for being cowardly (which could increase chances of being Craven, but also giving your dynasty a knack for surviving situations most wouldn't), or maybe your dynasty is notorious for being backstabbers (which could make it harder to form alliances and marriages with others, but perhaps give an event when losing a war to sell out your allies or even your own people

Yea. This. Exactly this. I need this now you've brought it up to finally to make the Blackadder playthrough I've always dreamed of.

 

[Pied-Noir]

Yea. This. Exactly this. I need this now you've brought it up to finally to make the Blackadder playthrough I've always dreamed of.

lol

 

[Delta5ff]

Don’t like it. All legacies, genetics etc should come naturally from actions in game instead of choosing perks etc. Let’s say you have many brawny ancestors, then you should be more likely to get a brawnly child.

I think this is actually how it works. From the way I understand it the blood line makes it more likely you will pass on any genetic traits that you have good or bad. And the last one does the same except it makes the bad ones less likely to pass on while the good ones still have a boosted chance to pass on.

So if you want bad traits to pass along your line you can just switch tracks before you take the one that reduces the chance af bad traits

 

[Ephafn]

While I see the appeal for non-linear legacies for games where the player stays as the dynast from start to finish, I fear that any additional flexibility would be broken for games where the AI can often become the dynast.
How happy would you be if an AI dynast got to chose those legacies? Making your dynasty more likely to be Zealous when planning on switching to an heresy, or increased fertility while you are under Gavelkind? And it gets worse if negative legacies are added...

It has already been mentioned that the character perks can be reset once after you switch character, probably for the exact same reason. But that answer doesn't really work for dynasty legacies.

 

[Despotism]

Don’t like it. All legacies, genetics etc should come naturally from actions in game instead of choosing perks etc. Let’s say you have many brawny ancestors, then you should be more likely to get a brawnly child.

Here is the thing, if you take it completely out of the players hands, there wouldn't really be any decisions to be made. I definitely understand where you are coming from though, and I think they could make a game rule for an organic way of gaining legacies.

While I see the appeal for non-linear legacies for games where the player stays as the dynast from start to finish, I fear that any additional flexibility would be broken for games where the AI can often become the dynast.
How happy would you be if an AI dynast got to chose those legacies? Making your dynasty more likely to be Zealous when planning on switching to an heresy, or increased fertility while you are under Gavelkind? And it gets worse if negative legacies are added...

It has already been mentioned that the character perks can be reset once after you switch character, probably for the exact same reason. But that answer doesn't really work for dynasty legacies.

You could always add a feature where you could spend this renown to remove a legacy perk as well (representing a focused effort to change public perception and the various traditions of your dynasty), it wouldn't be all that different from when an AI gains control of your kingdom, and messes up the laws and succession, having the AI throwing a wrench in your plans when they get control, be it your realm or your dynasty, is part of CK.

 

[st360]

The linear trees with a finisher bonus feel like they where just copy/pasted from EU 4, Stellaris or some other Paradox game.

 

[Despotism]

Isn't that exactly what they said how it'd work? Just nudging the probability instead of enforcing anything.

I mean, so far, but we have received only a few examples of what they do. A perks system is similar to bloodlines, so I was highlighting a negative part of bloodlines I don't want to carry over into CK3 if they were to change the dynastic legacy system to something less linear.