With the early access closing in, I was wondering what would be the feeling of the game around systems. I've felt a bit letdown after a while playing ES1 and EL, and spent most of my 4X time this year playing Civ IV (modded) again. 

Put simpley, I love the early mid game, and I usually stop caring around late game once the cities/systems don't feel "special" enough to me. When considering ES2 there is hope but still some worry, infered by my experience of the endless games.

What makes systems special ? When you clearly can tell them apart, don't build similar things in them, add to manage them a bit differently and have specific "values or stories" for them in mind. This helps building the narrative of the game in an organic manner, and we do know it's something Amplitude cares about. 

TL;DR : I hope in early mid game systems will stay quite distinctive, through a careful balance of events, specialized resources and buildings and be fun to manage. 

What are my feeling about systems in ES1 

How did they fare in ES 1 ? Not so good after a while. The early game is about exploring several systems, and picking the ones you wanted to settle in, home in for the need tech to use planets types and then, well it was a similar sequence of maxing population quickly then settling pop on the most efficient tasks for each type I guess ?  Of course there is securing system with strategic resources, an important part of the early game. Then the lunar temples and the anomalies. But somehow I started not too feel invested in systems after a while. 

It's a subjective thing, as in other games, there are "terrain" (planets) which predicitive yield, by their presence a system may be specialized early, you can snatch special ressource and allocated the output of them. I think it's because I like more the economy of - relative - scarcity, and tech planning. In civ you'd scout early and see lands a plenty. But selecting a spot was the interesting parts. You'd see right away some kinf of special resources (crops and animals) and could bet on some others (ore deposits) depending of geographic clues. Then both choosing your science progression and city spot would be intertwined. You could leverage industry and infantry with ore technologies, or bet on quick growth with the various farming tech to make use of the crops, or go toward cavalry, animal husbandry egg. In the mod I played (FFH) you'd even could choose to invest in specific religion and units to make use of the terrain (was it forest/jungle ) . 

In endless space, somehow, these choices seemed more abstract. The most interesting part of the system was how it could features planets type that were locked. But then again colonosing them or not was a binary choice, you could't pick among a few tiles to secure a productive tile or ensure a specific ressource was within borders. Then once started, some cities couldn't really rise unless you'd really invest in the relevant techs, especially as food/happiness could be heavy constraint. Another thing was how special resources and anomaly were kinda disconnected (it could not have been the case) from the systems types. Of course my memories may be blurry here. I partly blame the tech tree which was a bit too atomic in it's structure. Planet types tech and special resource extraction were not linked and didn't mean for a real empire agenda.

Of course the main issue is not really tied to the gameplay but the theme : in FFH  you could have your civ be industrial themed and residing around hills, desert dwellers having to make best use of the rare flood plains/oasis, forest themed etc. In ES1, beside your starting planet type, everything was quickly the same. The kind of units you'd have access to, in particular wasn't themed at all. And of course having scifi/fictional names for varied resources and tech  didn't yield the impact of mastering copper/iron metallurgy, being able to industrialize/irragate, finding coal/petrol later in the imagination.

In short all the important ingredient are present to specialize systems (from planets types yield, anomaly, planetary enhancement, tech unlocking of planets...) but I felt it missed the mark, somehow. Maybe it was an issue of rhythm or planning, at least at my level. 

What makes system "special"

Differenciated exploitation/buildings at every stage of the game. If it's a given basic flat bonus type will be made in almost all systems after a while, there still should be much incentive/restrains to avoid the "building whatever" syndrome

Distinctive anomalies. If possible have they impact what you want to produce in a system.

Distinct stages of progress. have the game nudges you into have to pick what to develop and when. If there is empire expansion penalty for instance, don't have it be as punishing for a very small system than as a large. 

Events changing how a system is perceived, this can be mechanically induced, like revealing resources one after another. 

Exclusive thing to unlock. Wonders. Whatever the system it means you can have something but not everything anywhere. 

How do you envision it in ES 2 ?

There are two new features that I'm watching with anticipation : specialized population and system unlocks. Population will give a distinctive flavor and impact the empire agenda. System unlock in several stages I don't know exactly how they will work, but they mean we'll have to pick some choices about our systems.

I'm still a bit skeptical of the new tech pools, because the tech "cherry picking" feels less narrative driven than tech branches somehow. What I do hope is there will a way to pick a planetary "agenda" . Have special resources anomaly tied to planetary type (like 9 chances out of 10 to be features on some planets) This will be akin to the classical categories in civ (rice/banana in jungle, iron in mountains) and would mean that if I pick tech to colonise arid/desert then I do this hoping to find some specific resources I fancy. Same for jungle/marsh gas giants, etc) Still leaving room for the freak anomaly.

As ressources go, food is used locally (but allows for man power) Science/dust/influence are empire wide ressources (meaning you won't ponder where they came from) thus that leaves us with industry as a possible specialized factor. I'd really like to have the system give incentive for producing some kind of units as in bonus to smaller/large ships, to armor/propulsion. It could be a mess though...

The new siege rules could make the distinction between underpopulated but strategic systems and your main living centers more vivid. As in there is the place where your empire works/makes sciences and the places where empire resides, with different stakes. 

Finally speaking of anomalies and luxury/special resources, I don't feel the more is always the better. I'd rather have their number reasonnable but their effects very distinct. 

Of course most of these parameters are subjective. Numbers are actually run in the game engine, but how we feel compelled to interpret and fancy them is something else. 

So what are your feelings about this topic ? What makes/would make you invested in your system, agains the "abstraction" of a space setting ?

Thanks for the input. 

The point you raise about the whole "empty shell" is similar to what I've felt. As I said, on the paper most mechanisms are here, and I don't want to dwell too much about EL, as I've not played it deeply, but one thing that struck me is how little the terrain and cities did strike a chord narratively for me. I've tried several time to play the wildwalker and beside that 1 insutry bonus in forest, what was the point of them being nice to nature ? I mean in fall from even, when playing elves you would beable to build on forest tiles without chopping them (which is a BIG deal) and you could adopt the felloship of leaves religions, with assorted terrain bonus/units and civics. And you wouldn't get any siege weapon . that went a long way toward a very distinctive gameplay and approach of the world, you would get huge amount of forest around your cities, well defended by recon units and you wouldn't haphazardly try to capture cities without heavy magic backup. 

Now we are in a space setting with varied races applied advanced science to bold go where no plant/fish/insect/man/robot has gone before. So of course the factions won't be as constrained as in a historical/fantasy game. before I go on, I'd like to add that all of this narrative aspect is mostly relevant to single player and that should be that way. adding very assymetric element, hazards and generally unjust elements doesn't bode well with a multiplayer game (unless the fun is not how to win at all cost but how to fare with what you have) 

The way the things are, I'm afraid the narrative part will be fed to us, and the writing could be really neat, but one big thing in 4X is how what happens in game can be used as bricks by a player. let's say the quests and galaxy are the terrain and furniture. But how you build your house/manor should be inferred by the player decisions and the events. 

We will have planets with varied types and size and anomaly and their access will be linked to tech. But what could be neat beyond simple arithmetic of FIDSI yields is how picking/sticking to planets types and assorted tech could have an impact on what is your empire and even it's relationship with others.

For instance, you could imagine that factions that fancy similar planet could have some diplomatic kinship, whereas the ones that really don't settle in similar systems won't feel any similarity. I guess the senate and parties will play a role but why not associate those with planets types too ? I mean on the surface it seems like a constraint, but if you consider it, picking any tech in open eras, having any anomaly and political party regardless of techs will weaken the narrative. 

If you take Stellaris or similar games with "design your empire" approach, you can indeed have whatever approach available, but this randomness is detrimental to the sense of having something genuine. 

So let's say for instance techs and factions that prefer large type one planets (ocean, terran, jungle) could have those more ecologist wibe, the ones that go toward arid/desert more adventurus, mercantile spirit, the one that go into industry heavy planet type are more pragmantic, and finally techs that go toward settling is those awful places that allows to to important research are more scientifically oriented. This relationship should be partial of course but this "tint" would start a specific atmosphere to colonization. 

When you say a system should be special, we can consider the impact of war. Losing important population center ought to be very distinctive diplomatically and politically. Same for wonders and very rare anomalies, the struggle for their host system could be intense and have impact on population. 

I'm getting back at the tech pools. Without branch, I hope techs would still add some "packages" rather than utilitarian unlocks. Consider the agriculture techniques needed for arid colonization or the radiation shielding used for sterile planets : do you feel they would entail a similar mindset for the civilization that masters them ? They could both unlock more political perks or we could even imagine your parties ask for some actions : like scientist giving you as a quest to settle on sterile planets, industrialist a quest for volcanic/asteroid, whereas religious/bellicist could ask for some neat class I planets as holy planets/lebensraum. 

EDIT : as pure eye candy, I'm for any little details showcasing your occupation of systems of course ;)