Eji1700 wrote:

Barrier, nanorepair, nanorepair was the only choice for 90% of the games life.

Yeah, I think most of us had our favorite cards to use for battles, no matter what race we were playing.  There were very few times I used different cards.  The ES2 battle system is actually more like a real battle plan than the cards. 

As a side note, I find it annoying that many of these folks, like Testy, who look like newcomers to these forums are talking about the game like it is the finished product.  Are they completely forgetting that it is in ALPHA!?!  We aren't even in the Beta version yet...  smh...

testy wrote:

Eji1700 wrote:

ES's battle system was worse in every single way to ES2's. The visuals were boring,  the strategy was boring, the concept was boring.  It was a pretty shell over what was basically a bare bones system.

An incredible statement.  There were like dozens and dozens of different cards and combinations. Players had to pick a card for each of the three phases of combat. As I said they could be researched as well to give players and edge.  This alone gives you thousands more combinations and possibilities on how things can turn out compared to what it is in ES2.

ES2 battle actually is just like ES battle , EXCEPT THAT each player has only three cards to select from (instead of dozens of cards, of which existed several types), and selects only ONE of them to apply to each of the three phases of the battle (instead of one card for each of the three phases of combat). ES combat was much more strategic than ES2.

And I forgot ANOTHER very important parameter players could control int the battles: You could also control the formation and targeting priorities of your fleets in battle as well which added another HUGE amount of depth and control to the outcome of the battle.  The players decisions mattered.

 If you think ES2 combat is strategic, then you must also think that the game of rock/paper/scissors is a strategic game...LMAO!

How the heck can ES2 battles be seen as better?  It is just a very dumbed down ES system (the ES combat system probably started off as an idea like what you see in ES2 and they decided it was way to simple and basic so they gave it more depth/variety/strategic significance).

You talk about visuals????  OMG.  The combat visuals make no difference to the game.  In fact the combat visuals in ES2 I would argue tell the player LESS about what actually is going on than in ES.  In ES you could see the health of all the ships displayed on the sides of the screen.  You knew exactly what was killed and when.  In ES2, by default they don't even show the health/status of each ship.  You can click on a button and you get this horrible 3D health circle appear on the ships (blocking your view of it).  if the camera is not on a ship, or if the camera is too close, you have no idea what is going on with the ship.  The only way those health rings communicate anything is if the camera happens to be showing the ship.  Even then, you have no idea really what you are looking at as it is not even clear who is who.

Barrier, nanorepair, nanorepair was the only choice for 90% of the games life.

i liked the card system of es1, i think im in the not really vocal minority lol

The new UI is just fantastic.

Also we already know from past screenshot that more combat plans will be available.

I like new visual style very much. It is a flavour of ES1 + style of EL + a lot of work to make a new level of quality.

Don't like very much strange icons from ES1 . And ES1 never was so dark like you saying.

Battles? They are not finished yet. Looks like you don't know what "early access" means.

I don't see any Sega influence in the game at all, but I will agree with one point you made about the "Disney-like" Adviser character. I'm coming at it from a slightly different direction though. It's not the art design, it's the fact that he's a different race than that of my empire.

I've already complained before about how immersion-breaking it is to have Heroes from other factions join the player's empire, especially when it happens before you meet their faction in space (or on the ground, in the case of Endless Legend). It just makes no sense to me. And now we're co-inhabiting our home planet with a minor faction, right at the start of the game? The fact that the "Adviser" is yet another alien, not someone from my own faction, is just icing on the cake. Apparently all these aliens I've never met in space can just teleport around the Galaxy at will.

I'll get used to it, because this seems to be a consistent Amplitude design, carried through from their other games. It just makes role-playing each faction more difficult when the game is such a kaleidoscope of different races mixed with my own, and before I ever take my first step off the home planet.

I can't say that I share your other points. The battles are okay. I knew going in that it would be hands-off, and I prefer that to the gamey card draw system we had in ES. That never felt like an organic part of a space 4x to me. Deciding a battle plan before entering combat feels better, even if it doesn't add that much to the game yet. As noted above, those formation plans probably become more important with larger mixed fleets. So I want to see how that turns out.

LOL.The evil Sega must the be the art designers now.Is this serious?

D-M wrote:

Yeah, everytime I watch the vodyani or the Cravers introduction, I 'm always like : "this is fuckken Disney material !".

Sorry, I couldn't resist...

Hi,

I have considered Amplitude as being one of the better game design studios.  Both ES and EL are examples of great game design and especially interface.  Slick, crisp, original.  The art, sound and lore behind the games was to quality as well.

I was concerned that when SEGA came on board.  Would ES2 suffer as a result of being partnered with such a massive commercial company whose brand and style of game really is more "console focused", hoping to win over customers with flashy full screen dramatic graphics, cut scenes, explosions, trailers and a fabricated sense of grandeur that the more discerning gamer that follow indie game companies like Amplitude just see through for what it really is: an appeal to the lowest denominator of game design....a superficial focus on graphics/looks rather than game play.

If this is TLDR, my take home message is this: Amplitude! Take back control of your game from the influence of Sega.  The Endless universe you imaged has been hijacked by much less talented people than yourselves.

With ES2 now in early access, it just seems to m that the identity of the ES series has been lost somewhat.  It seems evident even in some of the art and new characters used in the game.   I understand that Sega's main role has been to help out with the art/graphics and it is clear to me that you can already see the effect of this.  The graphics just don't look like they are from the same universe/world that the other Endless titles come from.  There seems to be a focus on making some of the factions/characters in the game look more "family friendly"/Disney like/anthropomorphic/generic rather than more dark, unusual, ominous and alien like we have seen in the series so far.  I think the character/graphics/art just doe not feel like it is from the Endless universe.  That stupid character in the tutorial popup screens is a perfect example of an "generic anthropomorphic alien" that you would expect to see in any "generic" space game.  I would bet you that this uninspiring character came straight out of the "mass market driven" Sega art crew that are supposed to be assisting Amplitude.

On to interface.  What once was a strong point of all the Endless games, the user interface and presentation of information (art/style included) I have seen in ES2 is in no way better than ES or any other in the series.  It just seems that the interface and art/graphics have been changed not to make for a better interface/gaming experience.  There is something just not right with it in general.  I can see the legacy of the previous titles (which is a good thing), but it seems to be mixed in with a less coherent approach to presenting information. Things have changed "just because", and the game is worse for it.

The biggest disappointment to game play however are the battles.  It's like someone at Sega told Amplitude "Hey guys, you know what is the most important thing about the battles in this game...the battle graphics and cinematic cut scenes!"  Seriously, how many of these lengthy battle scenes in the course of a game before the cheap "wow cool graphics" appeal wears off?  And it's not like the player actually gets to interact with the game/battle/outcome once these battles commence.  At least in ES a player could at least actually choose what battle card they would play in the next phase at the end of the previous phase.  I know there has been some discussion about "the broken battle system in ES" and hopes of improving it in ES2.  Personally, I would prefer the same battle system in ES2 than the dreadfully dumbed down one we currently see in early access. The options/strategic depth given to the players at the start of each battle to influence the battle is about as deep a a game of rock/paper/scissors.  Seriously disappointing.  The battle card system and the customisation of the ships was much more clear and deep than this stripped back, unintelligent battle system.

And now just to game play.  Despite playing ES and other Enless titles, I just don't seem to really know how to play ES2. 

There seems to many areas of the game that are still locked in early access and I hope they add more to the game.  But of the stuff I have seen, I would rather Amplitude realise that they need to fix what is already there first before workign on the other content.

Anyway, first impressions count, and so far, I am not impressed.

A huge step backwards.

Amplitude, please rescue your game, retake full artistic control and direction.  Sega have nothing on you as far as creating the type of games you have created.  Their input so far has robbed you of the elegance of design and art you once had.

D-M wrote:

Yeah, everytime I watch the vodyani or the Cravers introduction, I 'm always like : "this is fuckken Disney material !".

Sarcasm?

The cravers or Vodyani as dumbed down Disney races? Have you actually played them? Combat is currently a bit worse than ES, but hopefully it will improve over the course of EA.

There are plenty of problems with ES2. Sega isn't the root cause of any of them (as far as I can tell), and sega fearmongering and bashing won't help ES2 development.

I disagree with most of what testy says and feel quite the opposite. The only thing I might agree with is the battle system since this one, so far, seems to promote less choice and has a more rock-paper-scissors feel to it, but then again, I enjoy ES2's battles system far more than the boring card system of ES1.

Sure you aren't trolling, Testy? 

Yeah, everytime I watch the vodyani or the Cravers introduction, I 'm always like : "this is fuckken Disney material !".

Eji1700 wrote:

ES's battle system was worse in every single way to ES2's. The visuals were boring,  the strategy was boring, the concept was boring.  It was a pretty shell over what was basically a bare bones system.

An incredible statement.  There were like dozens and dozens of different cards and combinations. Players had to pick a card for each of the three phases of combat. As I said they could be researched as well to give players and edge.  This alone gives you thousands more combinations and possibilities on how things can turn out compared to what it is in ES2.

ES2 battle actually is just like ES battle , EXCEPT THAT each player has only three cards to select from (instead of dozens of cards, of which existed several types), and selects only ONE of them to apply to each of the three phases of the battle (instead of one card for each of the three phases of combat). ES combat was much more strategic than ES2.

And I forgot ANOTHER very important parameter players could control int the battles: You could also control the formation and targeting priorities of your fleets in battle as well which added another HUGE amount of depth and control to the outcome of the battle.  The players decisions mattered.

 If you think ES2 combat is strategic, then you must also think that the game of rock/paper/scissors is a strategic game...LMAO!

How the heck can ES2 battles be seen as better?  It is just a very dumbed down ES system (the ES combat system probably started off as an idea like what you see in ES2 and they decided it was way to simple and basic so they gave it more depth/variety/strategic significance).

You talk about visuals????  OMG.  The combat visuals make no difference to the game.  In fact the combat visuals in ES2 I would argue tell the player LESS about what actually is going on than in ES.  In ES you could see the health of all the ships displayed on the sides of the screen.  You knew exactly what was killed and when.  In ES2, by default they don't even show the health/status of each ship.  You can click on a button and you get this horrible 3D health circle appear on the ships (blocking your view of it).  if the camera is not on a ship, or if the camera is too close, you have no idea what is going on with the ship.  The only way those health rings communicate anything is if the camera happens to be showing the ship.  Even then, you have no idea really what you are looking at as it is not even clear who is who.

ES's battle system was worse in every single way to ES2's. The visuals were boring,  the strategy was boring, the concept was boring.  It was a pretty shell over what was basically a bare bones system.

ES2's system isn't even fully implimented yet (possibly more manuvers, much larger fleets will change tactics heavily as they do already, and no system effects), and it's already better than ES1.

Yes the AI is box of rocks dumb right now so you can just throw a bunch of long range ships on sniper fire and be done with it, bu once you start getting larger feet and bigger ships, and the game starts splitting them up based on weaponry, you start to see not only the potential scope and scale, but depth as well.  The battles are gorgeous in comparison and I still find myself stopping to watch the few large ones that occur just because it's neat to see (and the detail on the ships/weapons is great).

My only issue right now is all heros having basically 4 different ships between them, which are visually some of the less impressive styles so far (and strategically a bit shallow). 

On the basis of that claim alone I can only guess you haven't gotten to the mid game where ships start forming into groups, and "100% with star counter" is no longer an option if you're running mixed fleets.  You'll still steamroll the AI but PvP or vs better AI I can already see something much deeper than RPS given you have to consider not only enemy weapons, defenses, and loadout, but your own, and how to allow the engage (given that some ships will never get into certain ranges once it starts splitting fleets, which eliminates certain weapons but also the chance for them to take, or tank, any damage).