Non-exclusivity penalty.

[Vishous92]

Can somone explain to me the idea behind the non exclusivity penalty?

It just artificially prolongs the game and you have to build a lot of staff or destroy it after you unlocked the perks.
Is there some late game thing I do not know about?

[Minotorious]

The more you focus on one estate the more the other estates don't appreciate that thus you get the negative.

For later in the game you can unlock some privileges that halve this exclusivity penalty and make it easier for you to focus on multiple estates.

[Boru9]

I confirm that it is currently possible to concentrate on 2/3 estates without much effort: start with one of labour/clergy and as soon as you can, activate the perk that halves the penalty for the other. Then get enough splendour points for the other and activate the same perk there, which effectively removes any penalty between these two estates. It can be done relatively early on. You then end up with a massive minus in the kingdom estate, but you later reach the relevant perks to reduce it, after which you can start earning kingdom splendour points.

[Vishous92]

True, with the perks it is managable.
However, I do not see any value added for the game with this mechanic.

[Jezz]

Originally posted by Minotorious:

The more you focus on one estate the more the other estates don't appreciate that thus you get the negative.

For later in the game you can unlock some privileges that halve this exclusivity penalty and make it easier for you to focus on multiple estates.

we get how it works, we don't get why this mechanic is in the game to begin with, what is the point of this mechanic. if its only to somewhat force replays of the game, this is the wrong way to go.

[Minotorious]

Well as I wrote above the more you focus on one estate the more the other estates don't appreciate that thus you get the negative i.e. for one immersion e.g. the King won't be really happy if you have a town full of monks that can't help him in his campaigns.

Secondly to make it harder to unlock everything though still making it possible to do so if you go the right way about it. It adds a layer of progression and management of which estates you will choose and in what order etc. That will be further developed with the reworks for the other two estates and their unique buildings like the new clergy monastery and its mechanics. (The whole process takes about 20-30 hours by my estimate to unlock everything in the game if you know exactly what you are doing)

[ZekeOmega]

It doesn't make sense from a real-world perspective. I can't see why any estate would disallow my investing in their interests. I will only employ a strategy that gets me what I want from each estate, and that involves limiting what I build at the beginning in order to get the splendor upgrades for each, then building banners and other decorations to reach higher tiers for the privileges, and then destroying them as needed. I work on kingdom first, because it is quickly left in the dust. I'm going to keep playing and replaying the game even if I follow roughly the same path every time. Replayability in the long run will depend on more maps (I know there are mods), different environments, and more buildings. And file this under minor suggestions, but the three estates ought to be shown in order, where the 1st estate is about God and the church, the 2nd estate is about the king and nobility, and the 3rd estate is everyone else (labor, merchants). This is not a religious pretension on my part, but a historical one. I'm a big fan of the new monastery though.

[Hidden Target]

Originally posted by ZekeOmega:

It doesn't make sense from a real-world perspective. I can't see why any estate would disallow my investing in their interests. I will only employ a strategy that gets me what I want from each estate, and that involves limiting what I build at the beginning in order to get the splendor upgrades for each, then building banners and other decorations to reach higher tiers for the privileges, and then destroying them as needed. I work on kingdom first, because it is quickly left in the dust. I'm going to keep playing and replaying the game even if I follow roughly the same path every time. Replayability in the long run will depend on more maps (I know there are mods), different environments, and more buildings. And file this under minor suggestions, but the three estates ought to be shown in order, where the 1st estate is about God and the church, the 2nd estate is about the king and nobility, and the 3rd estate is everyone else (labor, merchants). This is not a religious pretension on my part, but a historical one. I'm a big fan of the new monastery though.

What real world experience do you have living as a peasant, clergy, or noble? Very interested to hear about these time travel adventures. What it comes down to is that in history, the masons (laborers), clergy, and nobles were always in a power struggle one way or another, so of course there would be penalties to trying to work with everyone when they don't want to work with each other to begin with. The mechanic makes sense from a historical point of view.

[ZekeOmega]

I said "real-world perspective", and that does not denote or depend on personal experience.

[ZekeOmega]

And being in a power struggle does not lead to one faction withdrawing when things start to slip away from them. I would think the opposite.

[Hidden Target]

Tomato, tomato with perspective and experience there. It's just semantics. What's your thought process with the factions then? It's clear from the historical perspective that if you were to over-idolize a specific faction, others would not be as inclined to work with you. It's apparent that splendor is idolization, so why wouldn't the other factions be wary/angry when you're glorifying potential political opponents?

[ZekeOmega]

I think that reputation should affect what each estate is willing to do for the player, but not limit what the player is able to do for that estate. If I turn my village into a military encampment, I can see the clergy doing fewer favors for me, but I should still be able to make it up to them by building, and without tearing things down.

[Counteractive]

This mechanic is stupid. Just because I have alot of markets the king or clergy wont allow me to invest, just because I have a large fort for some reason I wont be able to give my serfs access to better goods and services, just because my cathedral is magnificent I cant make cheese. These don't follow and this mechanic needs to be removed. It would make much more sense if you actively spite these factions, like by refusing missions or helping their enemies etc.

[Counteractive]

There should at least be an option to disable the penalty mechanic.

[Minotorious]

Originally posted by Counteractive:

This mechanic is stupid. Just because I have alot of markets the king or clergy wont allow me to invest, just because I have a large fort for some reason I wont be able to give my serfs access to better goods and services, just because my cathedral is magnificent I cant make cheese. These don't follow and this mechanic needs to be removed. It would make much more sense if you actively spite these factions, like by refusing missions or helping their enemies etc.

None of what you mention is actually what this mechanic does in game.

You can build markets without getting any labour splendour.
You can build a keep without getting any kingdom splendour.
You can build a church without getting any clergy splendour.
Hell, you can even build a monastery without getting any clergy splendour, just not the chapel function.

Goods/Food or "higher tier" markets (goods, luxury stalls) are not locked under any estate but in the common path for you to unlock regardless of which estate you focus on.

There are missions that once completed will give you influence with an estate while reducing your influence with another, but that is influence. Rating is decided based on splendour and that is gained only by building as the word implies splendour has to be reflected on something substantiated in the village.

Originally posted by ZekeOmega:

I think that reputation should affect what each estate is willing to do for the player, but not limit what the player is able to do for that estate. If I turn my village into a military encampment, I can see the clergy doing fewer favors for me, but I should still be able to make it up to them by building, and without tearing things down.

As you can, I have no idea why you would start tearing things down. By simply progressing with one of the estates you can unlock the 50% penalty reduction privileges for the other two estates, afterwards it is simply a matter of building a slightly larger monument for the other estates to balance the rest of the scales.

[ZekeOmega]

Originally posted by Minotorious:

As you can, I have no idea why you would start tearing things down. By simply progressing with one of the estates you can unlock the 50% penalty reduction privileges for the other two estates, afterwards it is simply a matter of building a slightly larger monument for the other estates to balance the rest of the scales.

I'm sure there's a perfect, or least better way to do it, but it requires a balance that feels overly restrictive. In my current playthrough, I ended up building a second fortified keep that I didn't really want in order to access military fort splendor, lest I have to build even more later, and took it down when I needed to gain fortified village from labor. I guess the only right answer was to do that first. That also required a bunch of banners on my great hall, that I later took down to get clergy out of the negative. Sure, I could have built a bunch more rustic halls and bell towers that I didn't have resources, room, or a use for, but it's faster and easier to build a few, and also take down banners. I guess I built one or two things I should have held off on. I probably wouldn't comment on the matter, but I keep reading that the need to demolish buildings is against the developers' intentions, and yet it seems central to my strategy. My village will survive.