Hmmm. Those are some pretty valid concerns that I hadn't thought about until you mentioned it.

Although, it may work off the age of the soul now as opposed to the age of the character. If that's the case then it would work around the problems of the old alchemist and young warrior being the only viable build. If it's the soul that's young, then the warrior could be 50 years old yet still in their prime, at least as far as skill ramps are concerned.

Perhaps the age might show as 50, but the skills and abilities would be capped to be equal to the 15 year old heir, that way there's no advantage between what age you take them over?

I'd love to know the details on this one.

CRAAAAAZY

I agree with you completely, I don't exactly like the changes either and it feels a little overly complex because they don't want to magically remove your 15 year old heir from the game until you are ready to use them, but because there is no guaranteed age your heir will be now they need to create more options. Once you add more options there will be exploiting and a meta to follow as you've noted. Also again as you noted it seems like if your decided heir is older than expected you might miss the prime opportunity to become a warrior and so if you become a warrior anyways as an older character you will be at an inherent disadvantage compared to the younger warriors in the world who took their heirs at 15.

I posted a lengthier solution I thought of in the Aging Forums but I'll reiterate here what I think would work best. Rather than completely stop your children from growing older at 15, I think SBS could make it so a closed off child code being saved for later would have that NPC child age twice as slow from 15-25 and have 25 be the oldest you could take over a code. If every year is a week, this model would give players a 20 week (5 month) window of opportunity to take over their own offspring rather than a random character and continue their line directly without needing multiple children or taking a random family member. No one would age to be much older than 75 this way as well and would keep the continuity of the game that way. It would also mean players could still get an advantage by taking over at 15 or 25 but there wouldn't be as huge a gap as taking over a child between 15-40 years old. This model would also mean you still get to see your child age, so just slower in that prime age gap where you would want to take them over anyways.

Im with you on this. I kind of just wish they'd allow temporary Heirs, more like a guardian to the Character you're waiting for till they come of age. Or just pick another kid near enough of age and accelerate him/her to 15.

A 'tribal' attitude to kids might also be a better thing here, where families just 'get' kids and are looked after as a group. Then just pick one from various customization and logically they'd be near enough for it to make sense that they idolized you're previous character and would have interests that would then accelerate their progress towards such skills. Either would generally work. There would just be 'some' downtime playing guardians occasionally, but only if you didnt attempt to time your own kid's entry into the world.

It wouldnt matter too much imo if the 'coming of age' was changed to a range of years, instead of the stable 15. Make it 14-18 or something, and have them gain a bonus (that would be less than the effort of actually training those years) for picking someone thats 18 so people dont feel like their character is negatively impacted for being 18 as opposed to starting at the lower ages.

There are a range of solutions to these problems that can still make sense, while changing very negligible things.

I love the changes, because I like that I'll have a lot longer to play a character in the age-range I prefer. It gives me the chance to play my character a squire for longer, for example, rather than time-skipping ahead as quickly to knight and then getting around with a walker.

Though maybe they could allow adding a spark of life to an existing character to give them another ~50 years (still only up to the maximum)?

I just was really worried about the previous system and don't want to see it return. It's too much passing of time in one year for me, from 15-100 years old. I like that now we'll have more time to enjoy each period of age, not skip it if we miss a week of gameplay.

Posted By Gwyn at 10:35 PM - Wed Aug 10 2016

I love the changes, because I like that I'll have a lot longer to play a character in the age-range I prefer. It gives me the chance to play my character a squire for longer, for example, rather than time-skipping ahead as quickly to knight and then getting around with a walker.

Though maybe they could allow adding a spark of life to an existing character to give them another ~50 years (still only up to the maximum)?

I just was really worried about the previous system and don't want to see it return. It's too much passing of time in one year for me, from 15-100 years old. I like that now we'll have more time to enjoy each period of age, not skip it if we miss a week of gameplay.

I wouldn't mind if they kept the year length but still allowed for a full life experience from one spark. I see what you're saying, but I think both of us can be satisfied.

Posted By CuteLilPuppyDog at 10:18 PM - Wed Aug 10 2016

I agree with you completely, I don't exactly like the changes either and it feels a little overly complex because they don't want to magically remove your 15 year old heir from the game until you are ready to use them, but because there is no guaranteed age your heir will be now they need to create more options. Once you add more options there will be exploiting and a meta to follow as you've noted. Also again as you noted it seems like if your decided heir is older than expected you might miss the prime opportunity to become a warrior and so if you become a warrior anyways as an older character you will be at an inherent disadvantage compared to the younger warriors in the world who took their heirs at 15.

I posted a lengthier solution I thought of in the Aging Forums but I'll reiterate here what I think would work best. Rather than completely stop your children from growing older at 15, I think SBS could make it so a closed off child code being saved for later would have that NPC child age twice as slow from 15-25 and have 25 be the oldest you could take over a code. If every year is a week, this model would give players a 20 week (5 month) window of opportunity to take over their own offspring rather than a random character and continue their line directly without needing multiple children or taking a random family member. No one would age to be much older than 75 this way as well and would keep the continuity of the game that way. It would also mean players could still get an advantage by taking over at 15 or 25 but there wouldn't be as huge a gap as taking over a child between 15-40 years old. This model would also mean you still get to see your child age, so just slower in that prime age gap where you would want to take them over anyways.

I definitely like it better than what we have now. I still don't see the problem with having one heir you can freeze at 15. It seems like a non issue to me.

Posted By Gwyn at 3:35 PM - Thu Aug 11 2016

I love the changes, because I like that I'll have a lot longer to play a character in the age-range I prefer. It gives me the chance to play my character a squire for longer, for example, rather than time-skipping ahead as quickly to knight and then getting around with a walker.

Though maybe they could allow adding a spark of life to an existing character to give them another ~50 years (still only up to the maximum)?

I just was really worried about the previous system and don't want to see it return. It's too much passing of time in one year for me, from 15-100 years old. I like that now we'll have more time to enjoy each period of age, not skip it if we miss a week of gameplay.

Remember, that you will basically be 'forced' into later age ranges, which isnt a good thing. Not everyone wants to play as a later adult.

I think you missed a few key points in the Dev Journal. Yes fewer years total but "Fewer cumulative years pass during a lifetime which leads to fewer generations and a more natural transition between lives." by this statement its seems if you start at age 15 and basic math says 7/365 which is the approximate 10-14 months of game play i chose the middle. That adds 52 years. so we are looking at late 60's early 70's for the oldest people in the game starting from age 15. This gives a new interesting balance imo. So your first character lets say start at age 15 and you die in your 60's that character mostly focused on doing the skill you were doing making a base for your next soul for boosting, while your next character starts at an older age. Now this older character if you chose to play an older one which you can if done right play your grandchild as an heir at 15 again. OK lets say you play the max starting age possible 52 add approx 50-60ish years and you can live to around 100 on average. But playing an older character gives you the opportunity if you played your previous character right in training your heir to become renowned and possibly legendary at a skill as you'd need to be old to do that. I believe this will also balance the game to having that 1% legendary status for professions and not have a waiting list type deal. In short I think we have to look more closely at all the features that this enables for us rather than just the negatives. And back to your whole age for a young warrior vs an old Alchemist. You learn skills better by teaching someone as well and if you teach your children and grandchildren in game they would have an edge over the other with having the older character. Then when your old character dies you can play your Child who is older to refine skills or go young and be adventurous and more durable being able to practice new techniques and not suffers as much crippling damage as an older person would. We still play the characters for the same duration it just means you don't age as long per character. I think it adds a new dynamic that fits more niche play styles allowing players to play how they want to play. You can play the character that is young and always ready to go. Or you can play the old wise man teaching the young. and lastly you can find your own balance between the two slingshotting the next generation forward then setting up a good base for your next old wise character with experiences that are soulbound to your character.

Yes some things may seem OP for certain skill sets but in the end if you are playing an RPG game to min-max I personally don't think you are playing the game for the right reasons. And in my eyes this seems to add a unique dynamic to the game that not any games I can think of have.

I'm not 100% sure if you can choose grandchildren as heirs (I'm not sure if it was mentioned in the update), but assuming you can marry your children off and then switch to their child, that would be a viable way to play as a younger person each time.

if you are playing an RPG game to min-max I personally don't think you are playing the game for the right reasons

For a lot of us, its not about min-maxing, but still undesirable.

I dont want to end up playing an old man all the time just because i want to play my characters kid. And i dont want to have 'half' a lifespan just because i want to start at 15 years old. I want to play my character for the full experience, but still get to the old age everyone else gets.

Posted By Vanthie at 11:16 PM - Wed Aug 10 2016

I'm not 100% sure if you can choose grandchildren as heirs (I'm not sure if it was mentioned in the update), but assuming you can marry your children off and then switch to their child, that would be a viable way to play as a younger person each time.

Grandchildren and great grandchildren.

They said you can basically pick any NPC in your dynasty that is alive and open (or closed and you have the code) plus if you choose to close a child/grandchild all of their descendants will be closed so only you can use them (or someone you give the code to).

Posted By BigKiwi at 11:03 PM - Wed Aug 10 2016

I think you missed a few key points in the Dev Journal. Yes fewer years total but "Fewer cumulative years pass during a lifetime which leads to fewer generations and a more natural transition between lives." by this statement its seems if you start at age 15 and basic math says 7/365 which is the approximate 10-14 months of game play i chose the middle. That adds 52 years. so we are looking at late 60's early 70's for the oldest people in the game starting from age 15. This gives a new interesting balance imo. So your first character lets say start at age 15 and you die in your 60's that character mostly focused on doing the skill you were doing making a base for your next soul for boosting, while your next character starts at an older age. Now this older character if you chose to play an older one which you can if done right play your grandchild as an heir at 15 again. OK lets say you play the max starting age possible 52 add approx 50-60ish years and you can live to around 100 on average. But playing an older character gives you the opportunity if you played your previous character right in training your heir to become renowned and possibly legendary at a skill as you'd need to be old to do that. I believe this will also balance the game to having that 1% legendary status for professions and not have a waiting list type deal. In short I think we have to look more closely at all the features that this enables for us rather than just the negatives. And back to your whole age for a young warrior vs an old Alchemist. You learn skills better by teaching someone as well and if you teach your children and grandchildren in game they would have an edge over the other with having the older character. Then when your old character dies you can play your Child who is older to refine skills or go young and be adventurous and more durable being able to practice new techniques and not suffers as much crippling damage as an older person would. We still play the characters for the same duration it just means you don't age as long per character. I think it adds a new dynamic that fits more niche play styles allowing players to play how they want to play. You can play the character that is young and always ready to go. Or you can play the old wise man teaching the young. and lastly you can find your own balance between the two slingshotting the next generation forward then setting up a good base for your next old wise character with experiences that are soulbound to your character.

Yes some things may seem OP for certain skill sets but in the end if you are playing an RPG game to min-max I personally don't think you are playing the game for the right reasons. And in my eyes this seems to add a unique dynamic to the game that not any games I can think of have.

I disagree with basically this whole thing lol. I was gonna break it down quote by quote but ill just skim over the main reasons i disagree.

1. Players will min-max. If you give them a reason to they will. You can say "your playing for the wrong reasons" but that's a cop out answer to a problem. Name any game and players will always gravitate to what gives the biggest advantage.

2. I think it's silly to have to play 2 chars in order to feel the effects of a full life. I don't like that philosophy at all. Not to mention you are assuming that your heir will have to be old. As far as i know you can have an older or younger heir whether he's 50 or 18.

3. I don't like the idea of needing multiple characters in order to be good at a skill. That's great that you can teach skills to your heirs/kids, but what if I played a fisherman and now want my next char to be an explorer? I would guess very few people would want to play the same type of character for multiple years in a row. I don't think this is how the devs are intending for this to work at all. You can be trained by any experienced trainer to my knowledge.

4. The negatives heavily outweigh the positives IMO. And TBH I wouldn't consider most of the things you listed as positives.

There's more I disagree with, but yeah. I basically disagree with everything you said lol.

Posted By Darknesse at 11:18 PM - Wed Aug 10 2016

if you are playing an RPG game to min-max I personally don't think you are playing the game for the right reasons

For a lot of us, its not about min-maxing, but still undesirable.

I dont want to end up playing an old man all the time just because i want to play my characters kid. And i dont want to have 'half' a lifespan just because i want to start at 15 years old. I want to play my character for the full experience, but still get to the old age everyone else gets.

Exactly.

Posted By Vanthie at 11:16 PM - Wed Aug 10 2016

I'm not 100% sure if you can choose grandchildren as heirs (I'm not sure if it was mentioned in the update), but assuming you can marry your children off and then switch to their child, that would be a viable way to play as a younger person each time.

This is a quote from the dev journal: What this means is, there is a set of NPCs - your children, nephews, siblings, etc., all of varying ages, all of which who are possible heirs. At any given time you can appoint one of them who is over 15 years old to be your heir.

by this it seems you could possibly play as a grandchild being a heir.