Romeo wrote:

If you didn't enjoy the first, why would you even buy the sequel? If I disliked Call of Duty, I sure as hell wouldn't keep buying them. If they had done what you were speaking of - building upon - you and I would be in agreement. It would be a great sequel. But changing does not mean building upon. If you write a sentence, and I delete what you wrote and put in a different sentence, I haven't built upon your sentence. I've changed it.

Also, yes, it is meant to be a sequel, hence the "2" succeeding the title. It isn't "Endless Sky" or "Endless Galaxy". It's Endless Space 2.

What argument is that? I shouldnt buy the sequel because i didnt like the first one? You know why? It has an awesome design, cool races with nice lore, unique gameplay and awesome designs and most of all: ITS NOT LIKE ENDLESS SPACE 1!!!!

It doesnt have an absolute bullshit card fight system, an overloaded painfull to navigate techtree, because its not making those mistakes again but rather trying something new! They might not be perfect or good yet but pfew they are avoiding the biggest mistakes. 

I am not arguing about how a 2 means "sequel" because its silly and yeah the definition of a sequel differs. 

What i am saying is: you guys are trying to force your idea about what this game should have been on it, and worse wanting bad old systems back, rather than trying to make the great game together with Amplitude and form the new systems into something great. 

You know another decision i bought the game? I trust that Amplitude will deliver me a great game. And if they failed, i do believe they tried their best to do so. They gave me 3 Good to great games. 

But seriously guys lets help Amplitude to make this game great (again? :3 ) 

Romeo wrote:

If you didn't enjoy the first, why would you even buy the sequel? If I disliked Call of Duty, I sure as hell wouldn't keep buying them. If they had done what you were speaking of - building upon - you and I would be in agreement. It would be a great sequel. But changing does not mean building upon. If you write a sentence, and I delete what you wrote and put in a different sentence, I haven't built upon your sentence. I've changed it.

Also, yes, it is meant to be a sequel, hence the "2" succeeding the title. It isn't "Endless Sky" or "Endless Galaxy". It's Endless Space 2.

What argument is that? I shouldnt buy the sequel because i didnt like the first one? You know why? It has an awesome design, cool races with nice lore, unique gameplay and awesome designs and most of all: ITS NOT LIKE ENDLESS SPACE 1!!!!

It doesnt have an absolute bullshit card fight system, an overloaded painfull to navigate techtree, because its not making those mistakes again but rather trying something new! They might not be perfect or good yet but pfew they are avoiding the biggest mistakes. 

I am not arguing about how a 2 means "sequel" because its silly and yeah the definition of a sequel differs. 

What i am saying is: you guys are trying to force your idea about what this game should have been on it, and worse wanting bad old systems back, rather than trying to make the great game together with Amplitude and form the new systems into something great. 

You know another decision i bought the game? I trust that Amplitude will deliver me a great game. And if they failed, i do believe they tried their best to do so. They gave me 3 Good to great games. 

But seriously guys lets help Amplitude to make this game great (again? :3 ) 

Fenrakk101 wrote:

uriak wrote:

The sequel argument is bit flawed, for it is quite a generic term. At it's most basic level it could mean little more than same franchise. If we consider 4X specifically, Civ 4&5 are very different mechanically while retaining some common elements (the game concept, resources, etc) For me how close ES2 is or not from ES1 is not important, I'd rather judge it on its own merits. I'm not sure there are some non negotiable features from the first game that can't be removed/reworked in the second installment. 

Civ games are not all that very different mechanically. The important note here is that every new mechanic added by every new Civ game really acts as a logical progression of the mechanics from the previous game. For example, the most major difference between 4 and 5 is that the map was changed from a square grid to a hex grid, which is a 100% logical evolution of the formula. They removed unit stacking, which is important to note that this was in no means an "integral" part of the Civ formula - nobody would accuse a Civ game of not being a Civ game without unit stacking - but that was also a logical consequence of the new map. Having a hex system means you now have more freedom to move and thus positioning can become an important skill (note: one of the main problems in ES2 is that they use EL mechanics of colonization and the like, but the way the ES map works prevents you from having freedom to move and use positioning, which leads to a lot of conflicts and frustrating mechanics).

In Civ 6, you now have city structures built on tiles around the city rather than all being contained within it, which again, is an entirely logical progression of the mechanics of previous games. For years people have been wanting Wonders to be on their own tiles, or at least, were always open to the idea. It may be a slightly different experience, but ultimately, it's still a Civ game through and through. None of the game have contradicted the series's identity, nor compromised its addicting gameplay loop. Even Beyond Earth, which is in a radically different setting, still plays in very much the same way as the previous games.

But nothing in Endless Space 2 is a "logical progression" of the mechanics from Endless Space 1. There's nothing about accruing resources that "advances" the gameplay, the new shipbuilding and combat systems restrict player freedoms and options that the previous game was praised for, and I've hammered on already about how the tech tree was core to ES1 but was gutted here. None of these are continuations or extensions of the ES1 formula; they're not bad per se, but they're not Endless Space, and that's the disconnect. Civilization with districts is still Civilization. Endless Space without a tech tree, is that really Endless Space? Without wormholes? Without combat cards? Without building weapon types and defenses that counter your opponents'? Hence my comments (and the sentiment of many others) that this game is really more of a sequel to Endless Legend: this may be called Endless Space 2, but it's Endless Legend through and through.

So you are really continue riding on the semantics of a sequel and why it shouldnt be called "Endless Space". Does this help forming Endless Space 2 into great game in any way ?

Fenrakk101 wrote:

 None of the reasons someone would have enjoyed Endless Space are present in Endless Space 2.

Please don't speak for everybody.

Fenrakk101 wrote:

Tingeltangelflo wrote:

So you are really continue riding on the semantics of a sequel and why it shouldnt be called "Endless Space". Does this help forming Endless Space 2 into great game in any way ?

It's like you haven't read any of my posts at all.

The problem is that people buy this game because they have faith in Amplitude, and they don't get the game that was promised. And then they don't get refunds. No matter how you put it, no matter what you argue or what you believe, this game should not be called Endless Space 2. None of the reasons someone would have enjoyed Endless Space are present in Endless Space 2. Others have jokingly referred to this as "Endless Legend: Beyond Auriga"; if that's what it were called, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

But Amplitude called this a sequel, despite it not being a sequel by any reasonable metric, and you shouldn't forgive that just because you like it. People spent good money on this game and didn't get what they expected. We had no reason to doubt Amplitude, and now we do.

You've also ignored all of my points I've made thus far about how the conflict between the name and what the game actually is makes discussing the game far more difficult, because people have different expectations now. But I'm not resummarizing that, go read my OP.

The only thing i see you doing is cherry picking your examples. Even with CIV 6

Why is Endless Space 2 a Sequel? It still uses quite some of the mechanics, like having the academy and such, and i am not starting to list all the stuff thats there that was in ES1 because you can do that on your own and still have quite the List. 

You know what the people are that buy in expecting something and not getting it from an Early Access? The people that shouldnt do Early Access in the first place. It also means they didnt inform themself enough before making such a purchase wich is quite honestly a problem with early access in general. No its not the fault of Amplitude to call it "2" while in enough Interviews it is stated that its rather redoing Endless Space 1 than continuing it. There is also enough videos out there showing key gameplay mechanics and elements. I myself had the chance to play the very limited demo at gamescom, talk with the devs and get the systems explained to me. I decided to buy it after that occasion, because i myself liked what i see, in which i seem to be the polar opposite to you, which saddens me a bit, because i believe this game can become something we both can and will like. 

And i do again think the point about how the naming makes discussing the game is quite honestly a whole lot of hot air. Because it should not be, that you buy a game in early access without informing you about the content. simply go by the name. 

In his own thread with 4 pages you can't really say his major problem is the name of ES2...

You kind of "cherry pick" one of his arguments and present it like it's just semantics or his fault for buying a game in development he doesn't like at this moment.

A lot of people joke about things like "Endless Legend: Beyond Auriga" etc. because it just plays more like EL than ES1. They simply borrowed/copied the core mechanics from EL and put them into ES2.

Before I bought ES2 I read/watched a lot about it and still complain about key game design features, especially since I liked the original.

I didn't really enjoy playing EL all that much compared to ES1, but I bought ES2 even though it seemed to be more like EL in everything they've put online before launch.

So here I am on this forum and trying to steer the devs into a game I'd like to play and from what I've seen in the last weeks I am not alone with my complaints.

There are so many threads about the tech system being a bad copy of EL that doesn't fit in the game right now. With the same tech system they also implemented EL's weapon/armor unit design system and use of strategic resources, just with a lack of meaningful unit classes compared to EL. The combat system is pretty much as bad/simple as the one in ES1... just with less options (cards).

There are a lot more valid complaints made by many people and even more that I don't really agree with but that's the reason we bought an early access game.

Of course all of the input is based on opinions we can only speak for ourself or the ones agreeing with us.

If you like the game or the direction it's going, that's okay with me but in the end we can only create threads and let the devs decide how to value everything.

I just hope we get something from the devs about the most discussed topics in this part of the forum.

They simply borrowed/copied the core mechanics from EL and put them into ES2.

Can you please elaborate which core mechanics from EL have been irrevocably ported to ES2 to the detriment of gameplay?

Some of the EL's core mechanics that I can think of: 

• Tactical turn-based combat with individual unit control. This is nowhere to be seen in ES2 and runs contrary to the dev's stated ambition for an emperor's point of view in battles.
• Era-based technology tree. Devs acknowledged problems with the current iteration of the tech tree and are working on redesigning it. 
• Diplomacy based on the influence resource. Diplomacy is very much a work in progress in the current version of ES2. However, the devs showed that they are not wedded to concepts, like forced truce, if they don't work. 
• Minor factions. A great addition to the ES2 universe, as I'm pretty sure everyone would agrees.
• Customisable units with upgrades linked to strategic resources. I can't see nothing inherently bad in this. 
• Hero management. The principle of having heroes of another faction lead your empire is not exclusive to EL; the same happened in ES1 and is part of the lore as relates to the Academy and Dust-touched individuals.
• Major factions with a unique twist on their gameplay. There was an interesting line in Rock, Paper, Shotgun's Early Access review, where the journalist said that, "Learning the four major factions already integrated would probably occupy you for the next few months." It recognizes one of the distinct features of ES2/EL in the 4X canon: playing a different race changes how you play a great deal. I feel it's much more pronounced in ES2, compared to ES1 which is a good thing (to me at least). 

So to me, comparing ES2 to EL and saying that somehow it's a sequel to a wrong game doesn't quite stack up.

Reading some reviews on Civ VI, they stated that Firaxis way of doing sequels is: 1/3 same as old game, 1/3 modified and 1/3 new.

What I actually feel with Es2 is that Amplitude did:

1/3 Es1: glaxy generation, planets, systems, preplanned battles.

1/3 EL: influence, tech tree, unit design, minor factions.

1/3 new: probes and all that exploration, different pop for each faction (their bonus and political reactions), senate, laws

This is not a problem for me, and as I enjoyed both ES1 and EL, I like this mix. Of course you can discuss the proportions, but I always will have an argument, because this proportions are hardly measurable.

And of course some people didn't like it.

Actually I'm more worried on how they implemented it than in the original idea. I'm sure they'll hear the community and release something good at the end. But for now there's a lot of work to do and somethings has to be changed, what are you doing an EA if not for this?

N.N.Thoughts wrote:

They simply borrowed/copied the core mechanics from EL and put them into ES2.

Can you please elaborate which core mechanics from EL have been irrevocably ported to ES2 to the detriment of gameplay?

Some of the EL's core mechanics that I can think of: 

• Tactical turn-based combat with individual unit control. This is nowhere to be seen in ES2 and runs contrary to the dev's stated ambition for an emperor's point of view in battles.
• Era-based technology tree. Devs acknowledged problems with the current iteration of the tech tree and are working on redesigning it. 
• Diplomacy based on the influence resource. Diplomacy is very much a work in progress in the current version of ES2. However, the devs showed that they are not wedded to concepts, like forced truce, if they don't work. 
• Minor factions. A great addition to the ES2 universe, as I'm pretty sure everyone would agrees.
• Customisable units with upgrades linked to strategic resources. I can't see nothing inherently bad in this. 
• Hero management. The principle of having heroes of another faction lead your empire is not exclusive to EL; the same happened in ES1 and is part of the lore as relates to the Academy and Dust-touched individuals.
• Major factions with a unique twist on their gameplay. There was an interesting line in Rock, Paper, Shotgun's Early Access review, where the journalist said that, "Learning the four major factions already integrated would probably occupy you for the next few months." It recognizes one of the distinct features of ES2/EL in the 4X canon: playing a different race changes how you play a great deal. I feel it's much more pronounced in ES2, compared to ES1 which is a good thing (to me at least). 

So to me, comparing ES2 to EL and saying that somehow it's a sequel to a wrong game doesn't quite stack up.

Well... first of all did I miss the dev post on the tech system, I was busy with work for one or two weeks and didn't read up on everything?

The tech system with era's and everything else is poorly implemented and a copy of EL. Colonization doesn't really work most of the rounds and your options in general feel quite limited.

Minor factions are one bonus and the different population(bonus) which could be unique tech or ship classes but don't add much at the moment. EL had at least the unique unit.

The unit customization is a bit weird in ES2 right now because you don't really want to research the special weapon in the first 2 era's since it's not worth it. In EL you had lots of different unit classes that 

you could equip with meaningful buffs using strategic resources. ES2 doesn't offer these customizations right now compared to EL.

The whole UI looks pretty much like EL (diplomacy, trade, army,etc.).

I like quite a few new things in ES2 but right now I feel like I could play a round of EL and do the same things I could do in ES2. This game should be a lot better as well, because of their own set standards. I didn't say it's a sequel to the wrong game but it copies too much from a game that doesn't quite work in the ES setting.

Tingeltangelflo wrote:

The only thing i see you doing is cherry picking your examples. Even with CIV 6

Why is Endless Space 2 a Sequel? It still uses quite some of the mechanics, like having the academy and such, and i am not starting to list all the stuff thats there that was in ES1 because you can do that on your own and still have quite the List. 

You know what the people are that buy in expecting something and not getting it from an Early Access? The people that shouldnt do Early Access in the first place. It also means they didnt inform themself enough before making such a purchase wich is quite honestly a problem with early access in general. No its not the fault of Amplitude to call it "2" while in enough Interviews it is stated that its rather redoing Endless Space 1 than continuing it. There is also enough videos out there showing key gameplay mechanics and elements. I myself had the chance to play the very limited demo at gamescom, talk with the devs and get the systems explained to me. I decided to buy it after that occasion, because i myself liked what i see, in which i seem to be the polar opposite to you, which saddens me a bit, because i believe this game can become something we both can and will like. 

And i do again think the point about how the naming makes discussing the game is quite honestly a whole lot of hot air. Because it should not be, that you buy a game in early access without informing you about the content. simply go by the name. 

Why is Endless Space 2 a sequel? Well, jeez, if I had to pin it on something, maybe the fact that there's a game called Endless Space that many of us loved. And this new game just happens to share it's title, but with a '2' added on to the end.

Most of us have been with Amplitude through Early Access on every single one of their games, so do not presume to hold sway over this community. But there's a stark difference here. When the previous three games were being created, the advice wasn't "jeez, we don't like this game", they were bug-testers, and advisers, because Amplitude was making something new. However, calling this a sequel IS wrong. It's not Endless Space 2; As others have said, mechanically it's closer to Endless Legend at this point. And I would absolutely LOVE to see the part where people didn't inform themselves about how they were gutting the core of Endless Space, because the first reveal of the game didn't mention in any sentence that they were planning on changing the fundamentals of the game. I'm glad you had Gamescon available as an option, but for most of us, that ain't a real possibility, we had to operate by using two things: The GDD reveals and our knowledge of what Endless Space is like. Could you imagine if your friend went to see the next James Bond, only to find out it was a romantic comedy, and he couldn't stand the changes? You'd sound like an idiot saying "Well why didn't you talk with the studio, and go to the film festivals for a sneak peek? Besides, just because it's another James Bond doesn't mean it has to be similar to the others in any way."

And again, the naming of the game is not hot air. There was a very clear, conscious decision to call this "Endless Space 2". Were this called "Endless Galaxy" or some such thing, you wouldn't hear a god damn peep from most people, because sure, they'd be trying new things. But they aren't, and this is a sequel.

Romeo wrote:

Could you imagine if your friend went to see the next James Bond, only to find out it was a romantic comedy, and he couldn't stand the changes? You'd sound like an idiot saying "Well why didn't you talk with the studio, and go to the film festivals for a sneak peek? Besides, just because it's another James Bond doesn't mean it has to be similar to the others in any way."

The change from ES1 to ES2 is not a genre change so I feel like this is a bad analogy to make. What you seem to argue would be more akin to going in to see Guardians of the Galaxy 2 only to discover that they have replaced Rocket Raccoon with Spiderman, Groot with Thor, the ship they are flying around in is now a Leviathan type creature as in Farscape, they are fighting something like the Reavers from Firefly/Serenity and the new mix tape is full of heavy metal music. Could be a cool movie but it betrays expectations attached to the name Guardians of the Galaxy gathered from the first movie (leaving the comics aside...)

As others have said, mechanically it's closer to Endless Legend at this point.

I play EL a lot and in all honesty can't see many similarities that take away from ES2's gameplay. So far, I saw two things mentioned: the tech tree and the drag and drop of modules in the ship design window. The first one is being re-designed so I think we should reserve judgement until we see the next iteration (which might not be perfect, of course). As for the drag and drop, I think devs mentioned they had to do it due to how the cinematics of the battle are calculated. Personally, I don't think it's intrinsically worse than the tonnage system of ES1. I don't have strong feelings about tonnage; at times I found it mildly frustrating to min/max the build I wanted, but I appreciate some people like this level of micro. As long as there is sufficient variety in the types of modules we can install, I'll be happy with drag and drop. Might have to wait a while, though, since this is Early Access after all.

Asuzu wrote:

N.N.Thoughts wrote:

As others have said, mechanically it's closer to Endless Legend at this point.

I play EL a lot and in all honesty can't see many similarities that take away from ES2's gameplay. So far, I saw two things mentioned: the tech tree and the drag and drop of modules in the ship design window. The first one is being re-designed so I think we should reserve judgement until we see the next iteration (which might not be perfect, of course). As for the drag and drop, I think devs mentioned they had to do it due to how the cinematics of the battle are calculated. Personally, I don't think it's intrinsically worse than the tonnage system of ES1. I don't have strong feelings about tonnage; at times I found it mildly frustrating to min/max the build I wanted, but I appreciate some people like this level of micro. As long as there is sufficient variety in the types of modules we can install, I'll be happy with drag and drop. Might have to wait a while, though, since this is Early Access after all.

Thing is, with tonnage gone, and slots given - they took away any sort of freedom on how to fit our ships.

Now it is as dumb as it can be (as it was in EL).

Drag and drop. 

"We allow this much weapons on this hull, and this much defenses on this".

Every ship is limited on modules, but you have no idea which ones on what until you research them and try fitting them.

I know exactly what all ships in the game fitting and how much.

Feels awkward and lame.

Awesome ship designer of ES1 butchered into drag and drop fest for mentally handicapped.

I guess it's a Sega requirement to have only drag and drop, and 1 button for tactical deployment decision, so their console peasants are not feeling awkward trying to use the muscle where the brain should be.

I loved the strategic depth involved in clicking long-range kinetics over and over again until a bar filled up.

I'll reiterate my opinion that Endless Space 2 is a perfectly acceptable name and the game design, while different in many ways, is still very much in line with the spirit and feeling of ES1.  Some people seem to be advocating that a sequel needs to be 90% like the first game with things just tweaked/enhanced/updated.  I can't think of many strategy games at all where mechanics weren't changed in significant ways from one game to the next.  Civ-series?  MoO-series?  Sword of the Stars?  Star Drive?  Practically all of them bring major changes.  See he comment above on the 33/33/33 rule.  

Quite honestly, I feel like people are using the argument that "ES2 isn't enough-like ES1 to warrant being called a sequel" as a way to say they just don't like the change in the direction.  That's fine.  But a lot of energy is being expended on this line of discourse where it might be better served for simply advocating for specific changes to mechanics you'd like to see in the relevant threads.   

atejas wrote:

Asuzu wrote:

N.N.Thoughts wrote:

As others have said, mechanically it's closer to Endless Legend at this point.

I play EL a lot and in all honesty can't see many similarities that take away from ES2's gameplay. So far, I saw two things mentioned: the tech tree and the drag and drop of modules in the ship design window. The first one is being re-designed so I think we should reserve judgement until we see the next iteration (which might not be perfect, of course). As for the drag and drop, I think devs mentioned they had to do it due to how the cinematics of the battle are calculated. Personally, I don't think it's intrinsically worse than the tonnage system of ES1. I don't have strong feelings about tonnage; at times I found it mildly frustrating to min/max the build I wanted, but I appreciate some people like this level of micro. As long as there is sufficient variety in the types of modules we can install, I'll be happy with drag and drop. Might have to wait a while, though, since this is Early Access after all.

Thing is, with tonnage gone, and slots given - they took away any sort of freedom on how to fit our ships.

Now it is as dumb as it can be (as it was in EL).

Drag and drop. 

"We allow this much weapons on this hull, and this much defenses on this".

Every ship is limited on modules, but you have no idea which ones on what until you research them and try fitting them.

I know exactly what all ships in the game fitting and how much.

Feels awkward and lame.

Awesome ship designer of ES1 butchered into drag and drop fest for mentally handicapped.

I guess it's a Sega requirement to have only drag and drop, and 1 button for tactical deployment decision, so their console peasants are not feeling awkward trying to use the muscle where the brain should be.

I loved the strategic depth involved in clicking long-range kinetics over and over again until a bar filled up.

That wasn't a ship designer issue, that was dumb balancing.

Now, wanna hear something funny man?

Exactly same crap works in ES2.

Fit all your ships with kinetics.

Engage anything.

Always pick "Sniper" long-range option. Don't bother that it says 0%, just do it.

Gz you won the game.

In regards to the ''Sequel effect'', I just want to point out that having a 2 or not at the end of the title isn't what matters. What matters is having Space after Endless. Most of the anger against Legends mechanics imported into ES2 takes its root not in a fear of change or resentment towards Legends itself, but rather in the type of mechanics that were imported and how they are used. People compare game series like Civ or MoO in terms of resemblance between sequels, evolution of mechanics or big changes between X and X+1. This is a false debate because you're comparing game of a similar vein togheter. All Civilizations games are Land-based 4X. All Master of Orion or Galatic Civilizations are Space 4X.

The real thing here is : ES2 has an identity crisis because it's a Land 4X in the body of a Space 4X. Useful comparisons here should rather be Civ VS MoO, not Civ VS Civ or MoO VS MoO.

The thing is that most of the core mechanics brought in from EL are mechanics typical of Land 4X, not Space 4X. Limited unit design, research pacing are generally the stuff of Civilization-like games, not Space 4X. Meanwhile, I don't see many people complaining about how ES2 should not have minor Civs or Quests, because these features fit both styles. It doesn't matter right now if ES2 is 1/3 ES1, 1/3 EL and 1/3 new content because we got the wrong thirds of each game. Even if the tech tree was the only thing brought in from EL, it would still feel wrong because it's not just meant for another game, it is meant for another GENRE of game.

Imagine if EL2 kept almost everything from EL but ditched the battle system in favor of one where you can't control your units at all, they just blindly charge one another on a flat featureless map every time. Or better, if it replaced the turn-by-turn system with RTS style mini-battles requiring extreme micromanagement. Would you say those changes are creative, innovative and well-thought in the context of a game advertised as a turn-based strategy Civ-like? At the very least, it wouldn't be what one would expect after release. I'm not saying it can't be done well, but such a massive style-merge has to be a central design feature around which others will revolve around. Putting it as a secondary, out of the spotlight thing is bound to create confusion.

Slaunyeh wrote:

Right now ES suffer from a great problem that is called Lack of 3D perspective.

As in many space games out there, including ES1 we do not have a galaxy.

We have a monopoly board with colors and picture of space.

This could be manageable... IF the developpers clearly were thinking 3D, but unfortunatly they haren't. The dev aren t in space, they are still on Auriga...-> Flatland ->2D mentality. Not 3D mentality as a space game would require.

 This plainly show up on the universe, obviously 2d, on the combat with its total 2D mentality.

Lets get some reasoning. I have a ship with rotating guns above my "wings", and the body of my ship block a certain amount of degrees and latitudes of my firing possibilities. Now lets consider the left and right guns + the ones on the "dorsal" of the ship that can swivel anywhere on a half sphere. 

If i am attacked and am defending my life why would i not totate the dorsal of the ship toward the ennemy fleet and present all my weapons to them why woud i loose an entire section of weaponry staying exactly like 2 cars at each other side ?

It is also noticeable by the fact there no "ventral" weaponry leaving the ship as a fish or dragon...weak skin on the belly.

But there s no risk there because ennemy can only attack me by one side , left or right, not up not down not front not rear... and they will quite remarkably level to me during all combat, nice doggy. Multiple angle attack ? hah!! impossible...Noone is that smart.

This locked 2D mindset also show up in the tech tree, flattened mind on full display.

Instead of thinking "what can we do and what haven t been done before and would be cool"  Its OMG we don t know what to do lets copy what has been done.

What i liked in ES1 tech tree was the fact that there seemed to have a logic in techs order in the tech tree. It wasn t inovative but it was diferent from EL (i layed EL first and ES after but i know the release order is otherwise). 

My suggestions would be: Strenghten the cause-consequence of the techs but instead of making 4 totally separated tech, try to link some tech from branch A to branch B, C or D and so on.  

Instead of spreading out totally separated branches you could have a cone shaped tech tree that you would rotate (3D artist needed here) and when viewed from above you would have ramification crossing the inside space of the funnel shape.

Not sure i was great trying to build a mind picture on you people, so i will join a bad drawing to a bad explanation...

Black, Red, blue an green are the kind of tech (afaik number of diferent techs could be 4, 3, 6, 2 whatever)

Those are linked the way they were in ES1 indicating reshearch possibilities.

But as they are not spread out in a 2d space but rise as a glass of.... wine, whisky, vodka, beer (choose your kind), they can be linked togheter in 3d space...

As an example a blue tech can be necessary to acquire some red tech, or could be another way to reach it. So black (who should be the nearest perspective in the drawing, can link to a blue one (fartest) as well as a green could link to a red, blue or black one.

Second point:It could be interesting to create, as option, a surprise factor and so booster replayability. Lets have a randomize skill tree option.

Example:

On the vanilla tree, lets say that to acquire AP (armor piercing) Missiles , a red tech,  you need to know how to colonize (blue tech) or industrially explore**** (this is another subject - Why the hell have we to colonize an entire planet to acess its ressources, even parcially? Does all diamond or gold mine have a full fledged city near it ? Or just the kind of infrastructure that is needed for the workers? Can we have Exploitation split from colonization? At least for some case like Icy/thundra/boreal whatever Planets. Sorry long rant) ****kind X planets to be able to collect Material Z that only exist in these kind of planets and, let say, you would also need the knowledge on propellants (black tech) to create enought speed  to be able to pierce ennemy armors.

Now, on second run, as you now, know the tech tree by heart, you decide to increase the emotion calling some "discover" factor.

You press a button called "randomize tech tree" and now to build the same missile, you don t need Icy planet but lava planet, and doesn t need a specific propellant anymore.

This way we have many effects on the game:

Basic:

1) The techs requirements are scrambled (at least part of them)

Advanced:

2) Tech requirements can expand or shrink in numbers of pre-requisites to be reached

3) Some tech will exist on some random trees and not on others.

And i would add another optional feature: The mystery tech tree.

Basic:

You don t see the whole tree, only the techs avaliable to you with what you have discovered, but you see, the kind of tech (color) and what you will find (the tech per se)

Advanced (and quite masochist):

You don t know for sure what you will find but you know the kind of application it can lead - You only see the tech color not the exact result it will produce.

Disclaimer:

1) If you missed the word "optional" somewhere add it at will.

2) Critics mode on i m here to take flaks, those are just ideas to play with.

3) I m obviously aware that this lead to a rethinking of the tech tree concept and can take time and be frustrating at the end. BUTT, AFAIK, and i can be very wrong, if people ever thought as far, nobody never displayed it in a game. AFAIK i m pushing some boundaries there, and there can be some tech constraint(but i highly doubt it, this is almost as simple as a pool of questions to simulate an exam), what is needed here is an individual techonology examination to see what can be randomised and how deeply, what remains interesting and what is too static. Design thinkers, double diamond is prossibly necessary here. (those who knows, knows) 

4) Doesn t need to be 100% random, just what is plausible, but as an example: why the hell Icy planets are always for any kind of civilization harder to be colonized than thundra ones...or than boreal with high radiations level. Why the hell Material X is always harder for any kind of civilization to extract and be used and always result in more damage agaisnt any kind of tech than tech Y. 

Fueur Fir!!!

Are you attacking the art style of the game or its design? I really can't tell.

Because if you're saying the game design lacks depth because its elements are displayed in 2D panels, that's like saying flaming stickers make a car go faster. A 3D tech tree is still a tech tree, you could always display it on a flat screen by adding extra lines for the 'circular' dependencies; a prerequisite will still be a prerequisite. Making it look fancy doesn't mean its well-designed.

Also, what does it matter if the ship design is 2D-esque right now? It's not like you can choose where your ships are placed during battles anyway; having 3D paths for flotillas would only make it visually more confusing to tell who's firing on who while changing nothing to the inner workings of the battle system. Same for star systems, they'll still be linked by straight lines, making them leap out of the plane would only make estimating distances more confusing, not to mention all this would be a terrible drain on the dev team.