Propbuddha wrote:
I like to think of EL as a strategy game, not an RPG. I'm not in a rush to finish, but when I've won or lost the game I don't want to play 100 more turns so I can see a cut scene. I'd like to see Amplitude make the first 9 hours of each game more interesting, rather than focus on the last hour...

Then I don't understand your complaint. Guardians has done exactly what you are asking for. Now, if you aren't satisfied with the job Guardians is doing, well, I don't think there is much that I can say about that without appearing like a jerk.



What I want is a complete game. A good start, a solid middle, and an interesting end that gives closure and satisfies.



The AI should always be improved from start to finish. Flavor can and should be added. Immersion is a must. Like a good movie, a book, a musical or a meal... I want my time to have equal value from start to finish. If you like to rush through things, that your call because we each have our ways of enjoying how we spend our time.

First game with Roving Clans.



Holy crap they are awful. I know it's common knowledge they're the weakest, but I didn't realize HOW weak.



Not sure if market ban even affects the AI. The only use I got out of it was putting "market ban removal" on the bargaining table, effectively allowing me to use some influence to nudge the deal accepted slider.



Is there any way to tell how much money you're getting from market sale cuts? As far as I can see I'm not getting anything.



Double life mercenaries are still crappy.



Mobile cities. I've only found 2 minor uses for them: moving your starting city to a more optimal spot if you were rushed to settle at the start, or moving captured enemy cities to better spots since the AI is so bad with placement. Both cases probably aren't worth the turns spent relocating and rebuilding districts (especially the first city early on).



To top it all off, they actually have WEAKNESSES to go with their weak bonuses! Increased winter penalties. Compare this to the amazing Vault Dweller, Wind Walker, or Drakken bonuses who have zero weaknesses to them. How does that balance out?



Edit: one more minor benefit to mobile city: rearranging districts so that you if you build a legendary building, you can shuffle to ensure it gets central placement to level up.

I've said it before, and I've repeated myself since and I guess I will say it one more time...



The end game in all but one respect is lackluster. The new escape ending (with it's quest line) is fantastic. if similar things were done to existing winning conditions, I think it would be a vast improvement. Also adding an end game external and potential internal threat would really flesh things out.



But that's just my opinion.

Yes a winter threat that is more than just negative bonuses would be absolutely wonderful.

Nasarog wrote:
I've said it before, and I've repeated myself since and I guess I will say it one more time...



Also adding an end game external and potential internal threat would really flesh things out.



But that's just my opinion.

Something like the Antarans from MoO2?



I could see something like that occuring in one of three ways:



*Remnants: A possible remnant faction of Endless using the Endless Ruins as portals --- would function exactly like the Antarans.

*Invaders: A space faring race, arriving in dropships. (It could be neat, they could introduce their own alloy for weapons/armor only attainable through defeating them.)

*A Subterranean threat or a threat arriving from the polar icecaps in the face of climate change.



Remnants would open up portals or simply use Ruins as portals-- attack, hinder, vanish -- they would do this to all empires. To engage them you would need to research a tech to travel through the portals or complete a quest line that grants you the tech. They would use end-game gear in their army composition. Upon defeating them you stop the attacks on everyone, but you're rewarded with some advanced technology.



Invaders would arrive in dropships. They would be the most external threat I can fathom. They would drop powerful armies using alloys and metals not found on Auriga.

Defeating these armies would be difficult, but once you do you are rewarded with small amounts of the those metals.

Completing a quest line to capture a dropship and let it carry an army into their mothership and to blow it up would reward you with the ability to use those metals to fabricate gear.

Everyone else could choose to (or choose not to) put their alloys on the market at that point or even before hand.

*Possible interaction with quest victory, the "mothership" could act as a blockade.



The polar-threat could just make the winters harder and harder as the game progresses, as more of whatever-they-may-be roam around and cause damage during the winter.

The subterranean idea would honestly probably be akin to the Remanent idea with a different theme, only the portals/holes would need sealing to stop them which could become problematic to balance.



Another nifty idea are some sort of remnant/invader forces left behind. When the map is generated maybe a few regions get exceptionally good pockets of anomalies or strategic resources.

Those areas could be occupied with stranded forces of the same well-equipped faction as the attackers. Expansion into those regions would probably be a mid-gaime goal.



Internal threats.. Civil unrest? Some sort of riot mechanic? Civil War?

Nasarog wrote:
I've said it before, and I've repeated myself since and I guess I will say it one more time...



The end game in all but one respect is lackluster. The new escape ending (with it's quest line) is fantastic. if similar things were done to existing winning conditions, I think it would be a vast improvement. Also adding an end game external and potential internal threat would really flesh things out.



But that's just my opinion.

End game content doesn't matter if the game is won in Era 2 and 3.

Adventurer_Blitz wrote:
Yes a winter threat that is more than just negative bonuses would be absolutely wonderful.

Right...so how do you plan to have the already brain-dead AI handle additional environmental threats? Make them immune? Give them more bonuses?

I'm not the devs so I have no idea, but I would like to think they are developing more effective AI system and would release them as a patch.

Propbuddha wrote:
End game content doesn't matter if the game is won in Era 2 and 3.

What? If there is nothing interesting going on at the end of the game, then you have a point. If each victory condition has it's own unique ending, then people will play to the end. Because you want to finish ASAP, doesn't mean others will too.



@Rudest - Nice ideas.

Adventurer_Blitz wrote:
I'm not the devs so I have no idea, but I would like to think they are developing more effective AI system and would release them as a patch.

I don't know either, but we're 8 months past release and there hasn't been a truly significant AI patch in that time. I wouldn't hold my breath at this point.

Nasarog wrote:
Because you want to finish ASAP, doesn't mean others will too.

I like to think of EL as a strategy game, not an RPG. I'm not in a rush to finish, but when I've won or lost the game I don't want to play 100 more turns so I can see a cut scene. I'd like to see Amplitude make the first 9 hours of each game more interesting, rather than focus on the last hour...

It is a problem how cultists don't scale at all with increased map size.



There was a similar faction in the Fall from Heaven 2 mod for Civ 4: Beyond the Sword (an awesome mod I highly recommend to anyone interested in the whole 4X with totally different factions thing). They had a hard limit on the total number of cities they could have, but each city had an increased yield/exploit range. The city cap was based on map size: 2 cities on small, 3 on medium, etc. I know they want to thematically keep cultists to a single city, but maybe something like increased cost reductions for boroughs as the map size goes up.



Another problem with cultists is the annoying tendency for a lot of villages to be located on borders so they get less than 6 exploit hexes, sometimes in corners where they only get 1 or 2 hexes. Random factor screws them a little too much there. Would be nice if converted villages ignored region boundaries to get the full 6 hex exploitation every time.





Regarding Vaulters being the strongest, it's a long standing trend in 4X that the "research faction" is always the best. The University was the best in Alpha Centauri (barring the totally broken expansion factions). Then there's the all time greats: the Psilons in Master of Orion. They were so much better than the other races that playing them was like playing one difficulty level lower. Research factions usually need a big weakness to balance them out, and Psilons had NONE. In fact they started with friendlier diplomatic relations to other races than average. Vaulters also have no weaknesses and a lot of other good bonuses. Compare that with say Cultists who have major weaknesses in exchange for OK strengths.





Another needed feature: double movement speed on your starting settler like how Civ does. This heavily mitigates the luck of starting out in the perfect spot vs someone who has to waste 3-4 turns getting to a spot that doesn't suck.



Re: the problem of the total lack of advantages for the defender in wars and the ease of mulitple single unit army sieging, they could just make army upkeep costs a lot more for armies while in hostile territory.

Nasarog wrote:
Then I don't understand your complaint.

There's been a couple of pages of discussion before you dropped in with your "I've said it before, and I've repeated myself since and I guess I will say it one more time..." routine. Please go read them and you'll understand what we are discussing.



If you're worried that you sound like a jerk, you probably do.



We all want a complete game, and different aspects are important to different people.

Propbuddha wrote:
There's been a couple of pages of discussion before you dropped in with your "I've said it before, and I've repeated myself since and I guess I will say it one more time..." routine. Please go read them and you'll understand what we are discussing.



If you're worried that you sound like a jerk, you probably do.



We all want a complete game, and different aspects are important to different people.

Said the jerk that doesn't seem to care...



I've read that thread, and 50 more like it. I will keep at it because one day it will get a definitive answer. I know and understand your stance. I think that the end game needs attention. It's a 4X problem, not just a EL problem. If EL makes headway in the end game like it has in it's attempts to improve on ES and really help with overall immersion, I don't see where the problem is.



Instead of selling 800k copies in 2.5 years... which is fantastic, it will sell 800k copies by the first anniversary, and maybe another 800k by the second. Why? Because AMPLITUDE has what it takes. It's so damned close to scratching that itch.... so damned close. They don't need to keep adding to... but if they do, it would rock. They need to polish the last 3rd of the game...







Balance, AI improvements, and patching is always needed.



On Edit: Let's agree to disagree. I don't want to argue with you.. not in this thread or any other.

Nasarog, I tend to play very short games. I do that because every turn counts: every turn that I don't win is a turn that my opponents are getting stronger. That's true in multiplayer, that's true in single player (although it doesn't really matter except at the highest difficulty). I don't think of myself as racing through the content. I think of myself as playing competitively. I actually have been a little disappointed by Guardians content, because it seems focused on a part of the game that competitive players are unlikely to reach. It's cool content for a lot of players, but it doesn't end up affecting play very often in my games.



I understand the complaint that peaceful victories feel bland. Econ is just spending your dust. Diplomatic and science is just hitting next turn. There are very few non-military ways for inter-factional conflict in this game. If you play a military game, you win way before these victories become viable, and if you don't, there's not a lot to do at the end of the game except hit next turn. Clearly, since my games don't last that long, it doesn't much bother me that the endgame is bland-- it affects me about as much as ugly box art affects me and my Steam library.



A lot of players don't play the same way that I do. A lot of players win score victories (never got that achievement lol). So I know that your complaints are shared by a lot of players, and I don't think they're unimportant. But I also think that if you have improvements that are going to affect part of your player base, and you have improvements that are going to affect all of your player base, it's smart to prioritize the latter.



Does that make sense?

natev wrote:
Nasarog, I tend to play very short games. I do that because every turn counts: every turn that I don't win is a turn that my opponents are getting stronger. That's true in multiplayer, that's true in single player (although it doesn't really matter except at the highest difficulty). I don't think of myself as racing through the content. I think of myself as playing competitively. I actually have been a little disappointed by Guardians content, because it seems focused on a part of the game that competitive players are unlikely to reach. It's cool content for a lot of players, but it doesn't end up affecting play very often in my games.



I understand the complaint that peaceful victories feel bland. Econ is just spending your dust. Diplomatic and science is just hitting next turn. There are very few non-military ways for inter-factional conflict in this game. If you play a military game, you win way before these victories become viable, and if you don't, there's not a lot to do at the end of the game except hit next turn. Clearly, since my games don't last that long, it doesn't much bother me that the endgame is bland-- it affects me about as much as ugly box art affects me and my Steam library.



A lot of players don't play the same way that I do. A lot of players win score victories (never got that achievement lol). So I know that your complaints are shared by a lot of players, and I don't think they're unimportant. But I also think that if you have improvements that are going to affect part of your player base, and you have improvements that are going to affect all of your player base, it's smart to prioritize the latter.



Does that make sense?

Oh, I understand completely. I do the same when I play RTS. But in TBS, there is no rush for me. Almost every single change they have made has improved the early game, improved it significantly, and now they are improving the mid-game, but the end game? Almost abandoned except for the new escape quest victory (which is awesome by the way).



I play 4X to relax, if you can believe that. The end game tedium is anything but. I don't like MP competitiveness. That's why I enjoy the SP experience.



AMPLITUDE is really doing something amazing with Endless Legend. Is it perfect? For some people I suppose, but I feel it needs some more work. Why? because they are not only pushing the genre, but they are trying for some new things. The general sentiment across the 4X genre as a whole is that the end game is a boring slog. I tend to agree. I'd like to see how these folks fix it...

I'd like to see the redundant white hexagons removed from the city screens.

It looks like it was intended to indicate terrain height, but I don't see where that is relevant in city construction. I want to see the cities I'm building - is there a way to toggle this off without deselecting the city?



I hope to see 3D support coming as well - this game is too pretty to flatten it out like a board game!

I loved watching the planets orbit in Endless Space, the 3D effects there where great!!

I'm just curious, Ryders still heal 1 HP per level ? It is so insignificant that I cannot believe that is their ability listed. Maybe make it 1 per level per movement done per level of enemy. So if you level 3 attack enemy level 3 and crossed 3 tiles you will heal 27 HP, not much, but better than today's 3.

myrec wrote:
I'm just curious, Ryders still heal 1 HP per level ? It is so insignificant that I cannot believe that is their ability listed. Maybe make it 1 per level per movement done per level of enemy. So if you level 3 attack enemy level 3 and crossed 3 tiles you will heal 27 HP, not much, but better than today's 3.

The amount of HP healed thanks to the Life Drain capacity = 2 (base value) + 1*current lvl. Life Drain's effect is applied when a Ryder attacks or get attacked, but only once per battle phase. The tooltip is very misleading. I agree, Life Drain is the most insignificant racial capacity in the game and should be buffed.

Trade routes really need to be reworked, especially foreign trade routes, especially with the AI. The AI rarely researches Imperial Highways, so to trade with them you must research it yourself, then spend influence to gift them the tech, then MORE influence to set up both trade and research deals. The influence cost for setting up trade & research deals is absurdly high, something like quadruple the cost of declaring peace or war. You can't even reduce the cost by issuing compliments (this only works on declaring peace, which cost is so low that you don't need the reduction).



That is insane. So you spend over 300 influence to set up trade & research deals with a faction, then weep 15 turns later when the schizophrenic AI randomly decides to cancel all deals and go back to a cold war for no reason at all. It's not a prelude to going to war or anything, it's just totally random behavior that happened because the RNG dictated it.



Foreign trade either needs to be buffed or the barrier of entry lowered. Massively buffing foreign trade would lead to more incentive to play the passive building game instead of going military genocide every time as you're forced to ask if attacking someone will be worth giving up the trade routes.



Also, the buffed foreign trade routes will only be available to factions you have open borders with, just like Civ. There needs to be a reason to have open borders. Right now there are none. In fact, it's outright suicidal to keep open borders with human players. This change will make you weigh the benefits of increased income+research at the cost of giving a neighbor free scouting on you.





(On another note, while winter fits the story of the game, it's a terrible mechanic. It would be one thing if it changed things up and pushed players towards another strategy when it hit, but it doesn't. FIDS income is slowed, army movement is slowed. All it does is slow the game down for everyone as you wait for it to end. Things that let you ignore winter penalties are sparse enough that they're not a factor.



Maybe to make winter an interesting factor AND solve the problem of the lack of defensive advantages, change it so all armies caught outside cities during winter suffer significant health losses every turn, with even heavier losses to armies in enemy regions. Then the "it's only a matter of time" nature of conquest means that if you delay the attack long enough, winter kicks in and the defender can counter attack, Soviet Russia style.)