Big for ImperiumRex's idea of agri-worlds and settlements. As much as I like Endless Space, it feels rather soulless to have to trudge between a straight or wavy line just so I can reach a node that does something. Having a trade outpost on the outskirts of your realm, or even having some stations created in between colonised systems, could also work as a means of creating reserves, so that in case your system with agri-worlds is conquered you would still have access to reserves that were accumulated on these trade outposts. It would be a very cool idea if players could create these trade outposts in between systems, you could then choose to decide how each individual trade outpost would function.



For example, if this is an outpost placed in between this "Alexandria" of systems and an already inhabited system, then you could create a storage facility in space where a certain percentage (the player would be able to decide how much) of the harvests from the agri-worlds would be kept there. After a certain amount of turns have passed--which would depend on the amount of food you store--you would be able to naturally create food stockpiles which you could quickly dispatch to the other system. A clever strategist would then be able to at least have some counter-measures against an aggressive conqueror (e.g. Cravers, Hissho etc.), so that they wouldn't immediately lose all their food. The same could be done on a system that has many opportunities for Dust mining or otherwise.





In order to prevent the game from being broken and having people just terraform an entire system into an agri-world system and exploit this mechanic, there should be certain penalties attached to terraforming itself. It should either take a considerable amount of time and resources, or it should never be on par with these naturally rich systems that can be mined or harvested. An in-game explanation for this could range from complex science and physics things of which I have absolutely no knowledge of, or just go for a "because the Endless" reason (whatever it will be, I do not doubt your superb ability as storytellers).



I also think it would be helpful if you either allow a limited number of outposts where the more your empire grows, the more outposts you could create (this could also leave room open for a faction that would, amongst other things, have a larger amount of outposts at their disposal); or, create game system where creating outposts are easy, but developing them into truly beneficial parts of your galactic empire's infrastructure would take a considerable amount of time and resources. Sacrifices would have to be made. Do I consolidate my borders by creating a better infrastructure and a revenue of income, but halt the growth of my borders; or do I continue to my empire's expansion, but risk leaving my worlds in a more potentially vulnerable state?



In terms of customisation, I feel like these stations would function a primary goal. If a sector is plagued by many pirates, you could create a station that would focus on guarding the "roads" between your inhabited systems. This wouldn't completely stop the presence of pirates, but it would lower the likelihood of them popping up by a certain percentage (a percentage you would be able to increase with several upgrades). If you had a guard station or outpost, it would serve as a buffer between an encroaching enemy faction gnawing at your borders, or, offer means for patrolling your infrastructure on an "intrasystem" scale. Sure, all outposts and stations would have the option to build stronger fortifications and even some patrols (or a guard station would be able to generate some food, Dust or otherwise), but only a guard outpost/station would have the unique abilities and upgrades to meaningfully guard itself against attacks.





Finally, I have one idea in mind regarding these outposts and their significance to diplomacy. In the previous game, having a bad approval rating meant that your empire reaches a standstill. Productions are on hold, research is abandoned and while the entire infrastructure of your empire is perfectly intact, your people being on strike means that the machines of industry no longer run. My idea is that you go one step further with these mechanics. If you fail to satisfy your people's needs, if your acts as a particularly brutal and oppressive ruler far outweigh the economic benefits of your reign, people would revolt. One of these people could be an NPC governor. Each trade post, after years and years of existence, would naturally develop their own culture. A trade outpost would be in the hands of those who were the initial settlers (or those descending from this line) and, depending on their role, would reject your rule. Since they largely lived on the outskirts of your empire, they would be more capable of open rebellion than systems that have been in your sphere of influence for many, many years. If you are a particularly brutal and incompetent autocrat, you would have to pay for your choices in ways that are more significant than "I'll just lower the taxes and have a Dust output on a system or two." I believe this would place more emphasis your citizens rather than having them be numbers to increase or decrease your production output.





Even though I love Amplitude Studio's games to bits, there is one aspect which I think is a huge loss and that's the lack of fixed teams or teams that you could create throughout the game itself. Diplomacy in both Endless Space and Endless Legend feel like a big waiting game, the only difference being where in EL you have the added option of bombarding people with [insertcompliment] to accelerate the process. Furthermore, nothing feels genuine or sincere in this game. It is a millennium between ES and our present time and I find it an incredibly boring and pessimistic view that it is impossible to forge meaningful alliances between other species who wish to work towards a similar goal. I mean, why have the diplomatic alignments if you cannot do anything truly significant with them?



The dog-eat-dog "everyone for themselves" mentality that permeates all Endless games, with the exception of Dungeon of the Endless, makes every endeavour ultimately feel like a selfish project. Whether it is leaving all other factions to perish in the winters of Auriga in Endless Legend whilst I sit atop the big Wonder, or whether I have manipulated everyone into exploiting the knowledge of others to improve myself and myself alone, it all feels dirty. Honestly, at least the Cravers or Necrophages are sincere and straightforward about their relation to others. I'm not pleading for an unrealistically happy-go-lucky world and I understand that these tensions and suspicions play an important role, but at least offer some opportunities for mutual growth amongst other space-faring civilisations. Limiting allegiances by diplomatic alignment (and where it makes sense according to the in-game lore) of these factions would limit the number of scenarios you would have to write. Or don't write anything at all and let the players decide how and why a fixed team would work in the game. In fact, they wouldn't have to work at all because it's just fun to play together. In terms of game mechanics, you could always allow the opportunity for people to renounce their allegiance with their team members (as long as the teams aren't fixed, of course, which should be a separate option in the menu), but if they do so it would be extremely disadvantageous to both teams. The longer you play with someone, the more you rely on one another. Culture, infrastructure, naval fleets and soldiers would all become more and more entwined with one another the longer you were in a team, so you create an incentive to truly continue your joint empire together.



Anyway, those are my thoughts. I'm really looking forward to this new game!

After reading the G.D.D. I'm rather worried. One of the things that attracted me to Endless Space was the freedom I had in diplomacy. I could propose things then see if the AI would accept them: the whole process is very flexible. It didn't require an unnecessary resource generated out of.. nowhere. I certainly do not care for "Influence" as a resource and don't want to see it in Endless Space 2. I feel it strongly inhibits what is achievable diplomatically for both players and A.I.'s. I find "Influence" an un-fun mechanic.



I'm also concerned at the mentioning of "eras". I vehemently love the technology tree of Endless Space, it is so unique in the fact you're not restricted to a linear progression as artificially defined like in Civilization 5 or even Endless Legend. I dislike, in the extreme, the way Endless Legend's tech progression is set up compared to Endless Space, especially the artificial progress suppression created by gated eras rather than know-how linked to any one thing. Progression in Endless Space feels very natural, with a few exceptions, and I'm saddened this didn't carry over to Endless Legend. I hope that Endless Space 2 is in keeping with Endless Space's very forward thinking tech tree design and layout.

Selein wrote:
After reading the G.D.D. I'm rather worried. One of the things that attracted me to Endless Space was the freedom I had in diplomacy. I could propose things then see if the AI would accept them: the whole process is very flexible. It didn't require an unnecessary resource generated out of.. nowhere. I certainly do not care for "Influence" as a resource and don't want to see it in Endless Space 2. I feel it strongly inhibits what is achievable diplomatically for both players and A.I.'s. I find "Influence" an un-fun mechanic.



I'm also concerned at the mentioning of "eras". I vehemently love the technology tree of Endless Space, it is so unique in the fact you're not restricted to a linear progression as artificially defined like in Civilization 5 or even Endless Legend. I dislike, in the extreme, the way Endless Legend's tech progression is set up compared to Endless Space, especially the artificial progress suppression created by gated eras rather than know-how linked to any one thing. Progression in Endless Space feels very natural, with a few exceptions, and I'm saddened this didn't carry over to Endless Legend. I hope that Endless Space 2 is in keeping with Endless Space's very forward thinking tech tree design and layout.

Well on the later point I have to agree. The whole "era gate" thing which I firstly encountered with CIV was one thing I always disliked in 4X games.

The senate idea sounds really exciting, however, is there a chance for a faction ruled by a mindless tyrant who does not care for his people?

What about uprisings? In ES1 and EL you get a serious debuff when your subjects are not content with your politics, but no one ever tries to overthrow you, your empire never splits and your heroes always stay loyal.

Well this seems to be competing with stellaris from paradox for 2016 some similarity in certain points of design will watch later.

All this news are really cool!

I hope the link + era system for research will be more a tree segmented by eras than the EL system, that seems too free to me.

For the population part it could be interesting to separate race and faction, so that race affects FIDS and bonuses while the faction of origin can influence the population's reaction to war or deals with their homeland.

Tymorius wrote:
The senate idea sounds really exciting, however, is there a chance for a faction ruled by a mindless tyrant who does not care for his people?

What about uprisings? In ES1 and EL you get a serious debuff when your subjects are not content with your politics, but no one ever tries to overthrow you, your empire never splits and your heroes always stay loyal.

I would like to see a uprising mechanic.



I would also like to have an option to rule an empire with a population which actually hates me (zero approval) but still is productive to some point at least just out of my massive opression I put on them.



In Endless Space I. A low approval strategy was just not viable the malus was just to gigantic ( and I tested it ALOT)

Some sort of unhappiness neutralized by garrisons, you mean? Certain Civ governments worked this way (Communism maybe? I'm talking Civ2 as it's the one I spent hundreds of hours in).



I'm not saying I don't see it working, but with certain factions like the Harmony, for instance, there wouldn't be any cost of having all systems garrisoned out the wazoo while still reaping the effects of a max garrison (ok, Harmony didn't have approval issues).





It might be a bit gamey, but I see it as much easier to design systems around keeping that approval rating up there rather than negating all aspects of a low approval (in terms of implementation). I may be mistaken, of course, this is guesswork at best.

Frogsquadron wrote:
Some sort of unhappiness neutralized by garrisons, you mean? Certain Civ governments worked this way (Communism maybe? I'm talking Civ2 as it's the one I spent hundreds of hours in).



I'm not saying I don't see it working, but with certain factions like the Harmony, for instance, there wouldn't be any cost of having all systems garrisoned out the wazoo while still reaping the effects of a max garrison (ok, Harmony didn't have approval issues).





It might be a bit gamey, but I see it as much easier to design systems around keeping that approval rating up there rather than negating all aspects of a low approval (in terms of implementation). I may be mistaken, of course, this is guesswork at best.

Who said it would be easy ; )





I just guesswork too.



Negating all aspects of a low approval could also not be necessarily the only way.



More like actual fighting them.

(though this implies negative approval shouldnt solely be negative FIDS multiplier)



Or creating some niches and situations where you just have to treat your people like garbage.For the greater good of course...or the intrests of the ruling classes.





Try always to keep your approval high!!!

"Only a Sith deals in absolutes"

Steph'nie wrote:




WINNING THE GAME

In a sandbox game like ours, it is important to provide the tools and motivation that allows the player to play and win as they wish. War is only one way to succeed, because we will encourage players to show superiority in other important fields such as economics, science and diplomacy. In total we have at least eight possible victory conditions, all of which are totally different.

Eight possible victory conditions, for now I see confirmed:

- Economic (I hope something different, could be like in SMAC that you need enough money to bribe all other players cities or something new like monopolizing trade routes or related with the new company sistem)

- Science (Suppose like most of 4X that has it, discovering techs)

- Diplomacy (Like economic I hope something new and not simply collecting influence like in EL or "doing nothing" like in ES1)

- "War", which I suspect includes Supremacy and Expansion.

Also I suppose there will be a Score victory if turn limit is reached.



All that leaves 6 known, or reasonably suspected victories, with 2 unknown, my guesses:

- Elimination (Yes Cultists!! in ES2)

- Quest.



What do you think?



An please Amplitude, surprise us again with one of your twist on classical ideas!

Tech Tree



One of the aspects I loved about ES was being able to completely customise my races extra bonuses and minuses, one of the reasons this was so good was because you could specialise in a certain direction if you so wanted. With the open tech tree you could then advance in certain areas at the cost of others to achieve your main objectives.



It was always a delicate balance when you went deep into one tree as you would need to dive back into another tree to improve weapons, resolve unhappy population or unlock other techs before you could advance further.



Going back and forth testing new builds for a race and choosing different techs to see how advanced I was on turn 20 or 40 was really good. The game was great also because you could achieve an end goal in many different ways and often differing strategies ended up being quite close at certain points in the game.



An open tech tree makes the game much more rewarding as you learn and develop through the game and reap the rewards, learning what you can lose and what you gain by skipping areas but also as events change knowing when to change your research order and what is needed now and what can be delayed until the current crisis is over.



Putting an Era or large restrictions on this I feel will hurt the game, the point is that you have a space civilisation and build it from the ground up in the direction you want, if you have the best research facilities in the universe but never bothered to invent a decent farm that is your choice. If you have designed a race with massive food bonuses so that you can focus research elsewhere why should you be forced to complete certain researches you don’t need/want?



That being said I like the idea of links between researches and a choice system is very interesting and could be very good for some if not all researches.



I like the fact that each race had unique researches that added to the flavour of that race, this I would like to see again albeit with a bit more balance as some races were unusable as their ships or certain technologies made them almost unplayable.



Conclusion



Keep the tech tree open but you can still control pacing by putting pre-requisites on other areas of the tech tree or if you speed through without doing supporting researches you lose parts of a certain development arc, giving the player the choice to speed into terraforming but lose X.



This opens a player to being able to define say a fast strategy at the cost of a well-balanced end game and vice versa another player who would need to be defensively cautious at the start and perhaps not expand as much as much but with the ability to have a better end game.

I missed the era thing when I first looked through this, and I totally agree, eras would limit and linearise progression way too much, and doesn't really fit the game anyway.

Seems like my expects will be answered nicely by Endless Space 2



https://www.reddit.com/r/EndlessSpace/comments/3f6mw8/endless_space_2_announced_discussion_thread/cwh0o3j

Mesen wrote:
Seems like my expects will be answered nicely by Endless Space 2



https://www.reddit.com/r/EndlessSpace/comments/3f6mw8/endless_space_2_announced_discussion_thread/cwh0o3j

More dynamic-interactive "Early Game". Most thing i do at early game is clicking "end turn" button and its really boring sometimes.

Its funny, whenever I played a game like Civilization, the first 100 turns are the most interesting part to me but then I feel like im just clicking end turn past that for the next 200 turns. In all my hours of ES, I have to agree the early game was a little lacking but I did still enjoy, it didnt leave me feeling like I was ONLY clicking end turn; the exploration and finding sweet systems right next door to me was the high points of it and the game came into its own mid to late so long as... well...

More balanced galaxy design. You can lose game from start. Some star systems have two-three planets which are gas giants, lava, barren etc. Some star systems have terran planets with wonders. Thats affects games way too much. I know that game settings can change these things but this time its gonna be too easy. Hard but not lucky heavy games are always best(SM Civilization series do). It's same for heroes. Sometimes you get three battle monster heroes(pilot-commander) and you are progressing slowly by comparison to other factions.

So long as your starting system wasn't pish and you rolled decently for the heroes you wanted to see.



However, I agree. Our hopes and dreams for whats planned already covers your "expectations" and also mine. So I cannot wait to get my hands on the early access version.

I still hope they leave some element of luck regarding systems, but I'm stoked that a bad starting system is out of the cards. There was nothing worse than an OK homeplanet that was flanked by Barren, Volcanic and Asteroids. lol

I don't understand why the tax rate is not directly linked to the approval rate.



Not by a slider you can play with to get more dust or more approval, but rather as a variable.



I mean, if you have a global approval of 50%, you get 50% of the taxes your empire is supposed to generate, 75% if your empire's approval is about 75%...



Does that sound logical to you too?

SireTriste wrote:
I don't understand why the tax rate is not directly linked to the approval rate.



Not by a slider you can play with to get more dust or more approval, but rather as a variable.



I mean, if you have a global approval of 50%, you get 50% of the taxes your empire is supposed to generate, 75% if your empire's approval is about 75%...



Does that sound logical to you too?

Then why wouldn't it just be as it is with tax rates being set by the player to manipulate depending on approval and money need.

SireTriste wrote:
I don't understand why the tax rate is not directly linked to the approval rate.



Not by a slider you can play with to get more dust or more approval, but rather as a variable.



I mean, if you have a global approval of 50%, you get 50% of the taxes your empire is supposed to generate, 75% if your empire's approval is about 75%...



Does that sound logical to you too?

Not really. Plenty of governments raise the taxes of unwilling populations. If most people got their way, they wouldn't pay any at all. It makes perfect sense to me that approval would be determined by taxes instead of the other way around.

Seriously? Because to me the happier you are, the more keen you are to pay your taxes to the government.



And if you are really, really happy of the way the government lead your nation, give you opportunities etc, you will be ready to pay more taxes unflinchingly.



@Sinnaj63 The difference here is that it would work the other way around, you manipulate approval to gain more money.



@Gwydden Of course, and that could be a new layer of gameplay, why not? To be able to raise the tax rate but loosing approval to compensate.

SireTriste wrote:
Seriously? Because to me the happier you are, the more keen you are to pay your taxes to the government.



And if you are really, really happy of the way the government lead your nation, give you opportunities etc, you will be ready to pay more taxes unflinchingly.



@Sinnaj63 The difference here is that it would work the other way around, you manipulate approval to gain more money.



@Gwydden Of course, and that could be a new layer of gameplay, why not? To be able to raise the tax rate but loosing approval to compensate.

I pay taxes if I'm happy or not though, and I you already do this, more or less; changing the slider manipulates both approval and income; usually you'll want high approval, but you'll also want to get at least some dust; and somtimes you wanna get through low approval for a turn or two to the dust to heal or hire a hero you need.