Logo Platform
logo amplifiers simplified

8 days - too many issues...

Reply
Copied to clipboard!
7 years ago
May 15, 2017, 8:38:33 PM

I would have to agree with the folks offering counter-arguments on this post. This game isn't at a perfect state at the moment but in no way is it unplayable or broken. Unblanaced? Sure. And as Frogsuadron mentioned, they've addressed some, if not all (unlikely), of the balance issues in the upcoming patch (i.e., release). A game that's broken would be clicking on a ship and the game crashing and installing leprechaun sex tapes on your computer. What folks are describing here are balance issues regarding either mechanics or the numbers ticking in the background. And, honestly, folks calling to cut off some features from the game (e.g., Influence) seem set to be discontent with the game. As Poliocretes eloquently stated, a lot of the gripe here are standard features in other 4x games. Why folks seem so angry is beyond me. Well, perhaps not. As an old saying goes, "For the willing, nothing deters. For the unwilling, anything is an excuse."


Also, I'd just like to say that some of these folks feel like implants from rivaling companies trying to sow discontent. I know it seems outlandish but honestly. The arguments are so blatantly bad that I'm not sure what else to think.

0Send private message
7 years ago
May 18, 2017, 6:35:29 PM

Thanks for all of the constructive feedback. I will download the full release patch tonight and try it out. 

0Send private message
7 years ago
May 18, 2017, 4:06:48 PM
planetnine99 wrote:


This game is great in many ways. HOWEVER, the forced truce and influence conversion and influence growth need to be options that can be disabled. I am going out on a limb and assuming this, but if we took a poll from Steam users, not games2gether users, but steam users, I believe the majority, meaning 51%, would opt out of those options. 


Now that the embargo is lifted on the release version, I can share a few things:


The crazy influence growth rates have been toned back considerably.  You still probably want one system to make a deep push with influence to exert some control and protection - but the edges of your empire are more fluid in relation to other empire's influence spread. 


I think the system could use further refinement and clarity - maybe even splitting apart influence into a separate border control vs. influence mechanic.  But is isn't nearly as game breaking and ridiculous as it was.


Regarding Forced Truth - the hostility to this mechanic is a bit over-exaggerated in my opinion.  And it isn't properly a "forced" truce mechanics either.  You always have the option to ignore the request and press on.  Sure, each time that incurs a happiness penalty, but how is a fixed -10% happiness every ten turns that fundamentally different from some more linear war weariness penalty (i.e. -1% every 1 turn).  Moreover, there plenty of ways to mitigate this various laws and system developments.  Get in an alliance with two other factions and some level of pacifist laws enabled and you can have a +60 empire happiness right there.  Which gives you 70 turns of warfare before dipping into your baseline happiness.  If you can't conquer and empire in 70 turns then you maybe need to adjust your strategy.


0Send private message
7 years ago
May 18, 2017, 6:00:52 AM

@planetnine99:

As someone who played EA in other Amplitude games, just let me ask to you to give the opportunity and play released version. Tha would be fair.

Sure they won't make everyone happy and fulfill everyone desires, but I'm sure they'll at least fix bugs: look how they changed the tech treee and give us good info about combat when people requested it.

Updated 7 years ago.
0Send private message
7 years ago
May 17, 2017, 10:18:05 PM

planetnine99, there is the idea section if you want to check what other people think about your suggestions.

Actually, I think your proposal of implementing defense orbital station could have some success. For truce/influence, well, I am more in favor of a pacific playing style, so...

0Send private message
7 years ago
May 17, 2017, 1:07:39 PM

If other player(s) influence zone bother me, I declare war (so no "peaceful" takeover of my planets can happen), or decide to conquer the system causing the influence zone. Don't see any problem caused by this mechanic. About forced truce anything is said.

0Send private message
7 years ago
May 17, 2017, 6:53:55 AM

Have you considered maybe changing your strategy a bit? I mean, it really isn't too difficult to push back against someone else's influence zone. Just head up the influence sections of the tech disk yourself and build influence generating buildings where you think it'll help. I've successfully pushed back the UE before by doing just that while playing a variety of different factions.


I strongly disagree that those two mechanics are just there to help ES2 stand out or look "unique". Both have important functions in helping with game balance and disabling them entirely would probably cause major issues that might prove to be just as annoying. Influence is nothing new to 4x games and similar mechanics can be found basically anywhere. The Civilization series has had culture flipping since forever and the Gal Civ series has it's own influence systems that can have similar results to ES2s, this has been consistent even with newer entries in those two series. Note, those are also definitely not from the 90s.  Influence spread and influence conversion are ways for less aggressive or diplomatically oriented factions and players to still do well. They can even act as a alternate way of expanding for people who prefer conquering (after all, converting systems through influence doesn't have an equivalent of forced truce). ES2, like EL, encourages at least some degree of specialization in which techs an empire develops and encourages the player to focus on specific builds rather than trying to grab everything. Not everyone is going to end up with the military tech needed to steamroll the galaxy, nor would everyone really want to. Fortunately the Devs have already stated that Influence will be less powerful in the finished version of the game. I'm sure you've also noticed the post on page one where it was stated that you'd only be vulnerable to influence conversion when you're at peace with a faction. You counter influence through war it seems, which should suit warmongers just fine.


I will agree with you on forced truce though. It's not something I'm too fond of. I think the reason why it was added was to give some of those weaker or more diplomatically oriented factions/players some degree of protection against more powerful invaders. This is helpful since, again, not everyone (even if they are otherwise relatively equally developed) is going to be militarily powerful enough to defend themselves from all comers. With a forced truce the losing faction could at least guarantee that they won't be completely wiped out. Though, IMO it's poorly implemented in its current form. It can be extremely irritating to have your invasion stopped dead in its tracks for basically no reason. It doesn't make any sense in universe why my people, lead by a Militarist majority, would basically riot over not signing a (mostly) unconditional peace with someone I'm beating badly. It might make sense for some factions. The Unfallen, from what we've seen of them, might be more inclined to give in to this kind of agreement than most. It makes me wonder how well it would work if only some factions were vulnerable to Forced Truce with everyone else working under a more traditional war weariness system, with additional options to directly mitigate the unhappiness penalty through buildings or laws or something. Really, I suppose my main issue with the forced truces has to do with how it's presented. It just makes more sense for an empire's willingness to fight to be more vulnerable to a slow, grinding attrition and loss of morale from casualties, general hopelessness, etc. than through rejecting some sudden and nonsensical demand from their near defeated opponents. Infact, as opposed to a slow ticking penalty perhaps have empire wide happiness penalties primarily trigger (or maybe be magnified) from military defeats? Obviously your population would be less inclined to support your invasion if you're clearing losing.


With that in mind though I'll admit that it's been a while since I've played a game through to completion with the current build. I apologize if I've severely misunderstood something about the mechanics. That aside, I still personally don't find these issues annoying enough to consider my purchase a bad one. The game is probably the most immersive 4x game I've played yet. The Devs have done a fantastic job at making it actually feel like your ruling a dynamic galactic empire, and through your decisions, building it's future and helping to decide it's "character". The fact that it's weaved into a complex and interesting background and storyline makes it all that much better.


Just my 2 cents.

Updated 7 years ago.
0Send private message
7 years ago
May 17, 2017, 3:03:54 AM

No, I am not a plant from another company. 


If there is a workaround bug for declaring war on the same turn to avoid forced truces, then why have the forced truce happen anyways? Either have it or don't have it.


There are MORE 4x games that do not have influence/war weariness than games with it. You are pulling 2-4 examples out of 100s of games since the 90s. 


I stand by my statements and appreciate those who stand with me. Let me reiterate them:


This game is great in many ways. HOWEVER, the forced truce and influence conversion and influence growth need to be options that can be disabled. I am going out on a limb and assuming this, but if we took a poll from Steam users, not games2gether users, but steam users, I believe the majority, meaning 51%, would opt out of those options.


When you dig down deep, those are basically "opinions" the dev has built into the game, to give the game more character, and stand out from other 4x. They are not true in any sense. If we lived through a real life 4x game, either prior history, modern history, or future history, you will NEVER see such things as influence conversion or forced truce. They don't exist. It is made up and annoying as hell. I put in actual work and time to conquer someone and I feel like the liberals of the gaming universe said wait a second, your too dominant, lets get everyone back to equal grounds. I am taking back over those planets you took from me because of a bogus game mechanic and I am penalizing you for continuing to battle me. 


All I am asking is to give me the option to play the game "normally", and I define normal by how it has been done in the past by the majority of 4x games. Leave the bare bones system alone and add options. I think you will find enough of your customers that want to just play the game without these oddball conditions. I have given you guys the benefit of the doubt by buying the game and I will stick to it through the release date. If those features aren't made into options I can disable, then no sweat, you won't see or hear from me again. Game will be removed from computer and it just didn't work out, not the first time or last time I have wasted money on a game that almost had the potential. You guys will move along just fine too and I am sure game2gether will continue being successful. You just won't have me as a customer.



0Send private message
7 years ago
May 16, 2017, 4:41:31 PM

Hi, just curious as i also find the truce mechanic right now pretty annoying. Why not implement the truce mechanic of Endless Legend? Last time i remember in EL, granted i havent played EL in a few months coz im playing this, you could give a counter proposal to accept any form of treaty and also declaring war on truce spends more influence.

0Send private message
7 years ago
May 16, 2017, 11:07:28 AM
Frogsquadron wrote:

"Known Issues" from the changelog is doable. Keeping this up to date post-release is an altogether different challenge without some sort of automation process (which in turn would require development time).


I thought about a thread shown as bug list, like you had for planned implementations on your way to release (marked as done or implemenented if finished).


Known bugs list -> marked as fixed by edit function. Should be not as much work (in my "planless" innocent small world).  

Updated 7 years ago.
0Send private message
7 years ago
May 16, 2017, 10:56:44 AM

"Known Issues" from the changelog is doable. Keeping this up to date post-release is an altogether different challenge without some sort of automation process (which in turn would require development time).

 

@Ianethas Make sure you use the search function atop the page to search for similar threads, so you can check out if they deal with the same or simply a similar issue.

0Send private message
7 years ago
May 16, 2017, 9:20:22 AM

Would be useful stuff. Some work in the beginning, but if kept up-to-date the profit should be well.

0Send private message
7 years ago
May 16, 2017, 9:13:46 AM

Hey Frogsquadron!


Can we have a list of known issues in the bugs section after release?


I believe most bugs in the test version will be addressed, so I'd expect the list to be of manageable size by then.


Currently I'm report bugs without knowing whether there's an existing post.

0Send private message
7 years ago
May 16, 2017, 8:07:22 AM
OmegaPraetor wrote:


Also, I'd just like to say that some of these folks feel like implants from rivaling companies trying to sow discontent. I know it seems outlandish but honestly. The arguments are so blatantly bad that I'm not sure what else to think.


Let's absolutely not go there, shall we? Everyone has a right to express concerns or criticism, so long as the feedback stays constructive.

0Send private message
7 years ago
May 15, 2017, 9:31:05 PM

Truce mechanic def should be an option in the game settings. Otherwise i feel this will irritate quite a few people out there. ;) 


Updated 7 years ago.
0Send private message
8 years ago
May 12, 2017, 5:00:17 AM

I am going to try and keep this short and simple as most of my complaints are already listed in detail on this forum. We are 8 days away from official release and it still says "Alpha"? I bought this early release 2 weeks ago thinking it should be close to being completed. 


Influence - this is just a silly idea, not named properly, and not executed correctly. So here on Earth we are hearing about the Martians power growing and their tales of glory spreading. We are going to sell out our planet to let them control us now? It makes no sense at all. It is an arbitrary feature you guys are implementing in hopes to make your game stand out a bit. It is not working and will back fire on you if you release the game with this feature working like it is. PLEASE give us an option to disable it, someone already wrote a mod to disable it or turn it down a lot. 


Forced penalties/truce - Wait a second, I just declared war, my planets are happy, we are warmongers. I take over 1 planet and the enemy AI offers me a truce for a pathetic amount and if i decline, because i don't know, i actually want to fight a war and win, i am penalized 20%, 40%, 60%, 80% ?! Or even better, the enemy AI knocks out a few of my ships, I am in the middle of responding, I get a truce notice from him telling me that I have clearly lost and I need to accept the truce and pay him or accept a penalty?!!?

This is the worse heavy handed feature I have seen besides War Score in Stellaris. If you guys can't figure out how to implement this correctly, then leave it out of the game. ( I don't think there is a way to implement this feature, it is pure crap)


People like to play the game and conquer their foes. Not everyone has 10 days to sit around and finish 1 game and tediously go through 100 truce/declar war scenarios. This is the bread and butter of 4x Games, the conquering part. Part of the fun for me is to carefully maneuver and position myself to launch a huge campaign towards the end of the game. 


Other minor issues:

As posted in another thread, how can you have a space 4x game and not think to have planet or system orbiting defense station? Huge oversight to leave that out.

Resources capped at 999? What is this, 1989? System resources can't handle more than 999? What a joke. Now i have to go micro manage that every 3-4 turns. 




There are some great things about this game but the above is enough for me to uninstall this after a few weeks and not play it again, ever. I am the Player, let me PLAY. It is your world but you build games that need to sell. If they dont sell, you dont build games anymore, simple math. The above features are too controlling and will be a turn off for many people. They WILL show up on all professional reviews as negatives and drive away potential space 4xers.


0Send private message
7 years ago
May 15, 2017, 5:53:06 PM

So much salt!!!


I think the game is in a pretty good shape right now, I haven't encountered any game breaking bug, the gameplay is engaging and most games feel unique. The things you thought that was unfun had the opposite effect on me. Most games make extermination by war the most straightforward strategy. But it's not like that IRL in any period of history. No empire have ever got to the point we see in 4x games. Being the biggest military in some point of history should not snowball into world (or space in our case) domination. H

I do agree with you, some features feel either incomplete or lacking. For instance, converting planets could be more interesting, like assimilating a minor faction where you have layers of bonus before total conversion. A orbiting battle station would be cool as fuck too (let's face it, every game is better with a death star). But a 4x game could always improve, and at some point the devs must ask themselves what is really important.  

0Send private message
7 years ago
May 14, 2017, 12:30:38 PM

I am baffled as most of the things you complain about are standard features of modern 4X games.  


Influence - standard feature, also known as Culture in other games.  Common examples are 1990's East Germany or Poland leaving the Warsaw Pact and joining NATO.


Forced Truce -  Common game feature, also known as War Weariness.  Common example cited is Vietnam War 1970's.  As for the notion of people suddenly signing a truce after losing a single battle; historically sometimes it works (Blitzkreig France) and sometimes it doesn't (Pearl Harbor).  


Planetary defense/system defense - also known as Castles.  Implementation is variable depending on the assumptions you make about the ease of taking asteroids at the top of the gravity well and moving them to the bottom where your stationary target sits.  Given the historical trends of the twentieth century (Castle + ship = battleship;  Castle + Wheels = Tank) and the island hopping campaigns of the Pacific in WWII, the viability of non-mobile castles in space is debatable.                 ie. Castle + warp drive = USS Enterprise.


As to how well all the game mechanics mesh together, that is always the hard part in making a fun game.   



Poliorcetes


0Send private message
7 years ago
May 13, 2017, 10:49:21 PM
Lanius wrote:
WeLoveYou wrote:

The system in ES2 requires that some losses are actually incurred by at least one side before peace can occur.

lets say if i pissed off some cravers on another constellation enough to declare war on me, but they are playing defensive and i dont really care about them because i got another closer target

am i going to be locked in this (slightly hotter cold) war until one of us attack each other?

thats hilarious

'Cravers' ... 'Defensive'

Now that's hilarious!

  

0Send private message
7 years ago
May 13, 2017, 8:22:44 PM
WeLoveYou wrote:

The system in ES2 requires that some losses are actually incurred by at least one side before peace can occur.

lets say if i pissed off some cravers on another constellation enough to declare war on me, but they are playing defensive and i dont really care about them because i got another closer target

am i going to be locked in this (slightly hotter cold) war until one of us attack each other?

thats hilarious

0Send private message
7 years ago
May 13, 2017, 3:11:39 PM
UndeadPuppy wrote:

Influence conversion has to stay in the game. I don't want another game 4x game where you can play as pacifist factions but still can only win games and expand by war and conquest.

I fully agree with you

0Send private message
7 years ago
May 13, 2017, 2:29:24 PM

"Influence conversion has to stay in the game. I don't want another game 4x game where you can play as pacifist factions but still can only win games and expand by war and conquest."


Amen to that. Words can't express how refreshing it is to have a viable option that is not knuckle dragging war monger to achieve victory. Planet conversion feels much more active than the passive economy/science/score victory .





0Send private message
7 years ago
May 13, 2017, 10:37:57 AM

Influence conversion has to stay in the game. I don't want another game 4x game where you can play as pacifist factions but still can only win games and expand by war and conquest.

0Send private message
8 years ago
May 13, 2017, 5:25:51 AM
Onionbreath wrote:

The only valid game design philosophy that exists is "Make it enjoyable." 

Yeah, games target is to have fun, but stating that "make it enjoyable" is the only valid design philosophy... You're mixing concepts.


4x is not just a war game, so there's are lots of features related to empire management, and empire interactions, some are more eye-candy, others are just numbers, the "fun" can be archieved in many ways, and the control you have over many features or the way you can handle incoming events is part of the joy.


Not sure of what you're aiming for with all that hard feelings, anyways, you should get out of EA and wait to release if you're really in that state.


If something truly defines gaming companies are their products, I'm man of facts, ATM they have Endless Legend as a reference, and damn, that game, at least for me, is incredible, quite polished in the mechanics and balance, lots of factions with lots of different play styles, and you have an incredible amount of strategic choices everywhere. You can focus on exploring, build tall, wide, science, go hard military, diplomacy, mix any of that, and get great results.


I've put high hopes on Amplitude, and I feel they wont disappoint me.

Updated 8 years ago.
0Send private message
8 years ago
May 13, 2017, 1:16:57 AM

How many times does it need to be pointed out?

Step 1: AI declares force truce.
Step 2: Accept force truce.
Step 3: Click on diplomacy screen.
Step 4: Declare war again.

All on the same turn. Even the AI does this. You bypass the approval penalty entirely.

So much rage on these forums over FT, all for nothing.

I don't know whether the devs intend for FT to remain this way, but at the moment it only functions as an influence cost for reDoWing, and even that's true if and only if you don't have militarists as the leading party. If you do, force true literally does nothing other than providing the possibility of reprieve if your opponent accepts. Please learn the game mechanics before complaining about them. There is absolutely nothing stopping you steam rolling through an opponent without any hits to approval if that's what you desire, so long as you manage your influence/politics accordingly.

As for previous games, the current system is, IMO, better. Take Civ for example. You can declare war on someone, do nothing for X number of turns, they can do nothing for X number of turns, war then ends. A bit of war weariness at worst. The system in ES2 requires that some losses are actually incurred by at least one side before peace can occur. This feels a hell of a lot less gamey and arbitrary than in some other 4X iterations.

Pacific conversion is completely legit and has been used in plenty of other titles in one form or another. I'm glad they are rolling back the influence generation as it can get a little too much at higher levels, but cultural conversion has long been a staple of 4X games. It allows for 'peaceful aggression', creates another resource to manage, and naturally generates conflict between neighbours which escalates tension from the mid-end game. 

Updated 8 years ago.
0Send private message
8 years ago
May 12, 2017, 4:06:37 PM

" It's simply a different game-design philosophy "


What philosophy is that?  The only valid game design philosophy that exists is "Make it enjoyable."  Everything else about a game: its design, mechanics, testing, balance, debugging--  all of that is ultimately to ensure an entertaining experience.  Anything that detracts from that isn't worth the time.


"I personally find it a decent compromise compared to Stellaris' 10 years of unbreakable peace"


At least with Stellaris, you can control the objectives of a war and renegotiate what you're willing to accept before ending it.  It's not perfect, but it provides the player(s) something to work with in exchange for peace.  Endless Space 2 just says "ok now suddenly we're forcing this truce.  You have no control in the conditions and no agency.  You either accept or you take a happiness penalty."  At best, it's an annoyance you overcome by accepting the nonsensical conditions forced upon you and then immediately paying influence to continue your war campaign right after; and you'll be doing that a hundred times over the course of the game.  Or at worst, it's a game-crushing features that stops your fun in its tracks.  


In both scenarios, it's utterly pointless in its implementation.  What is even the "problem" this is supposed to fix?  To stop a stronger faction from demolishing an opponent in all-out war?  Why?  Why would that be a problem?  In 20 years of 4X, that's a valid strategy of winning the game in almost all of them.  Some factions are even dependent on war to thrive (Cravers, Vodyani).  If the concern is over-expansion, we have a mechanic already in place to slow that down.  Just what is a ham-fisted forced truce supposed to fix, and if you took it out of the game, would the game really be that unbalanced and broken?  The first Endless Space never had that and it was just fine.  Endless Legend never had that (except for the Drakkin but it was only a feature of theirs specifically to give them an interesting advantage) and it was just fine.  Why is it necessary in this game?

  

As for influence conversion, while the idea seems interesting, the implementation for it is definitely awful.  I'm glad to hear the power of it has been scaled back, because at present, there's not an effective balance against someone whose whole strategy is influence expansion. Having to actually be at peace with another empire might at least be a good start and may give people additional reasons to rethink peace treaties with certain factions that may prove a threat to them.


"There probably won't be any more builds this close to release date, but to call this "not caring" is to be objectively insensitive to all the hard work and open communication the devs have committed since the beginning."


The OP was being hyperbolic, sure.  But at the same time, the way the development team has been going about this game raises more than a few red flags.  This game, a week away from release, is riddled with more bugs and imbalances than the original Endless Space and Endless Legend had by far, even by the beginning of their open-access testing cycles.  I'd dare say if it was released in its current condition, that it would receive poor reviews almost immediately.  I wouldn't say Amplitude "doesn't care", but they are rushing this product out the door without any beta testing and with so many game-breaking problems that it will be impossible for them to fix them all without having to do months of post-release patching.  And that will leave a very poor first impression.  You think this guy's post was rude?   Wait until two weeks from now.  


"Above all, you came into this early-access knowing the risks and potential shortfalls that early builds of the game might have"


Except you could be forgiven if you didn't.  Before Sega bought them, Amplitude's games were always very polished even during the early alpha stages.   I remembering buying into their early accesses because they actually ensured their games were air-tight before release, unlike the majority of Steam developers and big studios that slap "Early Access" on a title, promise the world and say "it'll all be fixed! Don't you trip, chocolate chip!", then release a shoddy product and fail to deliver upon their agreements.  But the way Endless Space 2 has been handled feels far too much like the later and less like the former.   I don't know if there's any correlation between that and Sega's buying of their company, and I'm not going to drum up conspiracy theories, but I find this rushing to get an unpolished product on the market highly atypical and more than a little concerning.  If it does get released as a buggy mess, and the inevitable cries for a refund start popping up, I sincerely hope you people don't think "Well, y'know... you should have known what you could be getting with these Early Access titles"is a valid argument in the developer's defense.  That won't hold up well against a litany of irate steam reviews and will just serve to spread more distrust.


"If you have an all-or-nothing approach to game features that are works-in-progress, then the iterative process of early-access is not for you. "


What does this even mean?  There are certain things one must hold as all-or-nothing.  For instance, the game has to be playable and its features can't hold it back in that regard.  That's an all-or-nothing that has to work by release.   And I bring that up, because we're 8 days from then, and people are still turning up to show massive performance issues in their games past 100 turns and frequently-corrupted save files.  If you can't finish a game you've started because it bugs out your save file or runs like a donkey mid-way, that's a massive issue.  I'd even call that unplayable as it's nigh impossible to reach a victory condition without having to start all over.  At the very least, that HAS to be fixed before release, and I certainly hope all those bug reports the development team have been collecting on the matter are being put to good use.  


But even assuming that is taken care of, there's still the massive faction imbalances, dysyncs, broken features, broken quests, and such that have to be addressed and many will flip their lids from that alone if they encounter these problems on release.  We all know some things will have to be tweaked post-release; that's just the nature of the beast. But statements like this makes me believe you don't quite understand just how bugged and imbalanced things are at present.  If even half of these issues go unaddressed, the team's in for a world of rage from buyers day 1.


"This isn't new either; Endless Legend went through the same process and became a well-polished game with expansions by the end."


And it had its own problems. There are still certain things in that game I don't like.  But it's playable and it's fun.  And when it was released, it was solid.  Endless Space 2 is FAR from meeting the same metric.  I sincerely hope for a miracle but my experience has told me it's going to get ugly soon.  


By the way, this is my first post so... hello everyone.  Sorry for beginning on such a contentious topic.

Updated 8 years ago.
0Send private message
8 years ago
May 12, 2017, 3:26:16 PM

You're pointing out a balance issue. Influence area growth has been scaled back quite significantly in internal builds, and release should see that kind of occurrence a lot less often.

0Send private message
8 years ago
May 12, 2017, 3:01:14 PM

So much rage just because of that peace conversion tech


It's simply a different game-design philosophy; I personally find it a decent compromise compared to Stellaris' 10 years of unbreakable peace. That said, the devs have acknowledged before that they are tuning what determines who's "winning", and influence conversion has been changed to happen only when you are at peace with the other empire (i.e. safe during cold war). There probably won't be any more builds this close to release date, but to call this "not caring" is to be objectively insensitive to all the hard work and open communication the devs have committed since the beginning. Above all, you came into this early-access knowing the risks and potential shortfalls that early builds of the game might have (or at least you should have). If you have an all-or-nothing approach to game features that are works-in-progress, then the iterative process of early-access is not for you. This isn't new either; Endless Legend went through the same process and became a well-polished game with expansions by the end.

0Send private message
8 years ago
May 12, 2017, 2:30:32 PM

Just stopped a game from last night. Late into the game, 3 races left. UE (ai) controls 50% of the galaxy, Horatio (myself) control 40% and Lumeris (ai) left hanging on with 10%. I am trying to drive deep into UE territory. I have taken over about 7 systems, in 15 turns or so. Meanwhile i am dragging my empire up to 80% penalty because i keep having to decline a truce. Finally I give into the truce with UE and re-gather my ships and tend to all the new systems i took over. About 10 turns pass, all those planets are now around 80+ approval rating and thriving. Next turn, i lose all 7 back to UE because of his humongous influence bubble. 25 turns of work wiped out in 1 turn without me being able to do one thing about it. 


How broke does that sound? If that sounds normal to you then you need to re-evaluate what you enjoy in a game. That sounds to me like the computer is using cheat codes. "Human defeated me in combat and took over my systems, release the truce virus too slow him down. Now release the insta-takeover magic code of suck and take back our planets we lost." 


TERRIBLE Game mechanics. I will give this until release date to see if you guys give the option to disable influence and forced truce penalties. If not, then scratching you guys from never trying 4x game again list. Obviously you dont care about one consumer but minus your hard core fans, this is going to be a problem with many people. 

0Send private message
?

Click here to login

Reply
Comment