atejas wrote:

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

I wasn't going to interact in this thread originally; your post made me giggle so now I'm inclined to respond.

I'm really excited about ES2, ES1? I acquired it recently, mainly thanks to how much I've enjoyed ES2 (early-access), I'm not interested in learning the tech-tree in ES1, I love how natural and effortless it is to get ES2 figured out, the UI delivers lots of information effectively, and makes it easy to identify awkward issues; such as why would I ever use different ship compositions besides small-flak ships escorting medium-lasers, starting at medium-range and ending at short range.

Literally zero diversity to optimal combat conditions, but hey the developers have stated their intentions with combat and how they intend to improve it, so I'm content.

I'm most interested in as few repetitive administrative-tasks as possible. Having a tech-tree which is not an eye-sore is nice. And honestly, if I wanted to play a card game I'd go play poker, so no idea what the fascination about cards is, especially when combat is so incredibly and extremely one-dimensional currently; even more-so when flak-escort ships counter missiles alongside strike-craft.

atejas wrote:

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

BWA HA HA HA. Yes, I managed my ships basically the exact same way, except I clicked the crap out of pewpew lasers instead. =P

Asuzu wrote:

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

Problem is, with such an open-ended system, there was no way to balance without making making everything the same. It didn't matter if you were playing as Cravers, Amoeba, Harmony or anyone else - one method of building a ship worked basically across the board, give or take a weapon or two. At least the new system offers options to how many weapons a particular race's Battleship can field. It also helps clarify roles beyond "Hey, you can stuff 10% more weapons on this one". I have plenty of issues with Endless Space 2, and wouldn't argue with a combination of the current system and tonnage, but I think the ship designer is miles ahead of the previous example in terms of decision-making.

I'm not seeing any clear convincing case being made for why the tech system or ship designer we have in ES2 is only "appropriate" to use in a land based 4X and why specifically that is then a problem for ES2.  I think mechanics are mechanics, and they either work or not.  The argument here is basically people saying "the tech system was from EL, and EL is land based 4X, therefor that tech system is not appropriate to use in a non-land based 4X".  That's about the flimsiest line of logic.  

mezmorki wrote:

I'm not seeing any clear convincing case being made for why the tech system or ship designer we have in ES2 is only "appropriate" to use in a land based 4X and why specifically that is then a problem for ES2.  I think mechanics are mechanics, and they either work or not.  The argument here is basically people saying "the tech system was from EL, and EL is land based 4X, therefor that tech system is not appropriate to use in a non-land based 4X".  That's about the flimsiest line of logic.  

The only potentially convincing argument I read was "Due to having a final Era, Era system fits EL with its finitude of Auriga history, while in Space we have endless future without any lore-based final point of scientific development" (what a twist of the tongue). It did not convince me much though :)

Sotnik wrote:

mezmorki wrote:

I'm not seeing any clear convincing case being made for why the tech system or ship designer we have in ES2 is only "appropriate" to use in a land based 4X and why specifically that is then a problem for ES2.  I think mechanics are mechanics, and they either work or not.  The argument here is basically people saying "the tech system was from EL, and EL is land based 4X, therefor that tech system is not appropriate to use in a non-land based 4X".  That's about the flimsiest line of logic.  

The only potentially convincing argument I read was "Due to having a final Era, Era system fits EL with its finitude of Auriga history, while in Space we have endless future without any lore-based final point of scientific development" (what a twist of the tongue). It did not convince me much though :)

Yeah, except the tech tree ended in ES1 at some point anyway as well.... so yeah, not convinced either on thematic grounds.

But more over, from a mechanic standpoint, there is absolutely nothing about the era system that says it's incompatible at some fundamental level with a space game.  Nothing at all.  Personally, I think that the basic idea of the era system is far more compelling from a game-play standpoint and I'm really not sure why people feel that it is so fundamentally flawed.  It provides more choice and more ways to navigate between technology without having to follow the literal path each time.  I've shared my thoughts elsewhere on how I feel the basic era system could be improved, but count me among those who prefer the era approach over the old tech trees.

Likewise for ship design - the decisions aren't really fundamentally different form ES1 to ES2.  Except now I don't need to click a 1000 times and mindlessly balance my weight limit to get to the same point.  I much prefer the slot based approach.  And this type of approach has been used in a lot of space games already (Stellaris, MoO: CTS, Starbase Orion, Sword of the Stars, etc...), so it's hardly incompatible with a space 4X game.

The reason I (and perhaps a few others) prefer the tech tree approach in ES over EL's eras in space is due to a slightly different scale of events involved. EL has introduced tech cost inflation "back" to Endless games, which made sense in its own context of very limited time and resources. You only have a few decades to make some relatively basic scientific breakthroughs and learn to leverage the Endless legacy as best as you can.

In Endless Space, however, it's all about a growing interstellar empire, with the sci-fi background giving a lot more spread between techs signifying the steps to apparent godhood. Research cost inflation based on the number of techs researched makes little sense - "Because you have spent so much time researching advanced economy and industrial processes, inventing slightly better basic weapons will be seventeen times harder."

On top of that, the way eras are implemented in ES2 is annoying/hampering/shoehorned. Each era is split between must-haves and fillers, with more and more basic functionalities gated behind techs you simply must research because it's hard to play a game without the ability to buyout or extract basic strategics - which are split between separate techs for no apparent reason, other than it seeming like a holdover from ES

There's also the issue of tech bundling, which I can only guess is a another holdover from ES1, where a sprawling tech tree allowed things like colonisation and research buildings to be separated. Nice idea in theory, ties neatly with the fact that a scientific breakthrough is likely to impact multiple areas, but it feels like goading a player towards a specific playstyle.

Eras themselves also seemed tied to some common milestones each civilisation goes through - starting at medieval/renaissance-esque, picking up the pace and moving towards heavy industry. There is little such thing we can point to in space, lest it feels too artificial, but this particular argument is very subjective - it's all up to design, really.

All in all, the era system feels like it's heavily goading players into a specific way of playing and taking away a hefty chunk of flexibility I very much enjoyed having in Endless Space.

It's a little hard to put into words why does the Era system, or at the very least the way it's implemented, feel out of place in ES2. I hope it was clear enough.

HaxtonFale wrote:

The reason I (and perhaps a few others) prefer the tech tree approach in ES over EL's eras in space is due to a slightly different scale of events involved. EL has introduced tech cost inflation "back" to Endless games, which made sense in its own context of very limited time and resources. You only have a few decades to make some relatively basic scientific breakthroughs and learn to leverage the Endless legacy as best as you can.

In Endless Space, however, it's all about a growing interstellar empire, with the sci-fi background giving a lot more spread between techs signifying the steps to apparent godhood. Research cost inflation based on the number of techs researched makes little sense - "Because you have spent so much time researching advanced economy and industrial processes, inventing slightly better basic weapons will be seventeen times harder."

On top of that, the way eras are implemented in ES2 is annoying/hampering/shoehorned. Each era is split between must-haves and fillers, with more and more basic functionalities gated behind techs you simply must research because it's hard to play a game without the ability to buyout or extract basic strategics - which are split between separate techs for no apparent reason, other than it seeming like a holdover from ES

There's also the issue of tech bundling, which I can only guess is a another holdover from ES1, where a sprawling tech tree allowed things like colonisation and research buildings to be separated. Nice idea in theory, ties neatly with the fact that a scientific breakthrough is likely to impact multiple areas, but it feels like goading a player towards a specific playstyle.

Eras themselves also seemed tied to some common milestones each civilisation goes through - starting at medieval/renaissance-esque, picking up the pace and moving towards heavy industry. There is little such thing we can point to in space, lest it feels too artificial, but this particular argument is very subjective - it's all up to design, really.

All in all, the era system feels like it's heavily goading players into a specific way of playing and taking away a hefty chunk of flexibility I very much enjoyed having in Endless Space.

It's a little hard to put into words why does the Era system, or at the very least the way it's implemented, feel out of place in ES2. I hope it was clear enough.

Your point is crystal clear to me.

There a plenty of threads and users that would agree that the Era system is not 'suited for space', so to say.

At least, that is what I experienced in several discussions on this topic. 

Endless Space 2 made me realize why I did not play Endless Legend as much as Endless Space 1.

The root cause being the 'irrational feel' of the Era system.

Aside from a brief comment from one of the Devs last week; 'planning to improve the Era system', no new information has been presented. 

If you stop hearing critiques on the Era system in a while, its probably because ES1 fans, including me, gave up on it.

HaxtonFale wrote:

The reason I (and perhaps a few others) prefer the tech tree approach in ES over EL's eras in space is due to a slightly different scale of events involved. EL has introduced tech cost inflation "back" to Endless games, which made sense in its own context of very limited time and resources. You only have a few decades to make some relatively basic scientific breakthroughs and learn to leverage the Endless legacy as best as you can.

In Endless Space, however, it's all about a growing interstellar empire, with the sci-fi background giving a lot more spread between techs signifying the steps to apparent godhood. 

All of the above are lore / thematic justifications - and one could easily create a justification for technological eras in a sci-fi space settings... but let's move on.

Research cost inflation based on the number of techs researched makes little sense - "Because you have spent so much time researching advanced economy and industrial processes, inventing slightly better basic weapons will be seventeen times harder."

Yes, there have been plenty of concerns about tech cost escalation raised in other threads.  I don't think the era system requires tech costs to escalate as they do, and there are certainly ways of changing what drives the escalation beyond merely how many total tech's you had.

For example, you could have costs escalate within an era up until the next era is unlocked, and then all the costs remain fixed and don't escalate further within the old era.  That would be a simple fix to this concern and I'd support something like that.

On top of that, the way eras are implemented in ES2 is annoying/hampering/shoehorned. Each era is split between must-haves and fillers, with more and more basic functionalities gated behind techs you simply must research because it's hard to play a game without the ability to buyout or extract basic strategics - which are split between separate techs for no apparent reason, other than it seeming like a holdover from ES

Yes, this is also a point of criticism that others have brought up.  I totally agree that there are too many essential required techs gated behind tech's, and that this should be changed.   But again, this issue isn't a symptom of the era system itself, it a symptom of what specific technologies have been created, and you could have the same problem in a traditional web.  In fact in ES1 many of the more diplomatic options (for example) were gated behind certain required technologies, and you were forced to go down the social branch in a specific way to get them.

There's also the issue of tech bundling, which I can only guess is a another holdover from ES1, where a sprawling tech tree allowed things like colonisation and research buildings to be separated. Nice idea in theory, ties neatly with the fact that a scientific breakthrough is likely to impact multiple areas, but it feels like goading a player towards a specific playstyle.

Yes, another point of criticism.  Also can be addressed by splitting techs back apart so that each field in an era has maybe 8-10 techs instead of the 4-5 we have now.  Again, the problem isn't specific to the era system itself.

Eras themselves also seemed tied to some common milestones each civilisation goes through - starting at medieval/renaissance-esque, picking up the pace and moving towards heavy industry. There is little such thing we can point to in space, lest it feels too artificial, but this particular argument is very subjective - it's all up to design, really.

I agree that it would be nice to have something more thematic mark the shift from one era to the next - but not sure what that would be specifically.

All in all, the era system feels like it's heavily goading players into a specific way of playing and taking away a hefty chunk of flexibility I very much enjoyed having in Endless Space.

It's a little hard to put into words why does the Era system, or at the very least the way it's implemented, feel out of place in ES2. I hope it was clear enough.

I feel you.  But here's the thing..

The era system, in theory, should give players MORE flexibility to progress through the technologies than a branching tree system.  You can research a bunch of social stuff in one era, and us that to leapfrog into era 2 military technologies, without having to quickly research a bunch of lower tech military tech's you'll never use anyway.  In theory, it can provide much more flexibility than a fixed and ridged tree.

The problem, as you point out up above, is that too many technologies are required, because they unlock essential gameplay mechanics (diplomacy, trade, movement, etc.).  So in practice, the era system as implemented is not really accomplishing what it should be because players are forced to take the same technologies 90% of the time.

So, the problem isn't the era system itself - it's all the specific issues with it's implementation that you (correctly) brought up.  We don't see/feel the flexibility that the era system should provide because we have to take too many of the required techs.  Likewise, there aren't enough other techs filling an era, and with only needing 10 techs to move from one era to the next, these other non-essential techs are kept out of reach (due to escalaing tech cost).

All of the specific issues with the era system (escalation cost, required techs, too few techs) can be fixed IMHO while still keeping the era system intact - which can in turn provide the flexibility you're looking for.

That was long, but I hope people think about it.  I'm glad you pointed out your specific problems with the era system - because I agree they are problems too.  But I think these problems can be addressed while retaining the era system. 

Generally a lot of fair points! I did consider the possibility that it's more of a problem with the way eras are implemented, and I agree that many problems are not specific to the Era model.

mezmorki wrote:
The era system, in theory, should give players MORE flexibility to progress through the technologies than a branching tree system.  You can research a bunch of social stuff in one era, and us that to leapfrog into era 2 military technologies, without having to quickly research a bunch of lower tech military tech's you'll never use anyway.  In theory, it can provide much more flexibility than a fixed and ridged tree.

Hm, yes and no.

I never felt the research cost of nearly obsolete military techs to be a problem, possibly due to the way I play - double down on colonisation and / tree, which gives me a lot of research (playing Sophons or Vaulters tends to help, although it's not crucial), and rapidly research massive amounts of techs in military tree whenever necessary. I suspect also that the tech cost scaling on tree tiers also played a nontrivial role, if you grow your  at a decent pace catching up should be pretty quick.

Another (thematic) argument in favour of tree over eras in ES2 is that (usually) techs tend to be improvements over existing ones. How could you jump straight into claiming gas giants if you don't even know how to colonise a desert planet? How can you develop highest tiers of (say) Hyperium-based lasers if you have no military science to speak of? Or even the Era module advancement - having researched a bunch of colonisation techs, learned about diplomacy, and been taught to buy things, you now possess the know-how needed to build a better laser! In EL it made a little more sense because "better swords" or "better bows" is not so much of a challenge as "better guns whose diameter is measured in metres". 

A single tech tree might seem rigid, because it oftentimes is, for trying to capture the complex interplay of technology dependency imitating the history/real life to some limited extent. However, the ES system did not feel as rigid because it decoupled technologies into separate trees and let you specialise, save for strategics requirements.

I think my biggest beef would be the fact that you get late-game rewards in some areas basically for nothing, not even token effort. With late game infrastructure in ES1 you can easily research the bottom half of the military tree in one turn, then rapidly catch up up to maybe 2/3rds, but it still won't give you all the final items - these take time. Same about all the other areas, although only my MilTech tree tended to be severely underdeveloped.

That is a problem again not quite with the Era model, but the combination of Eras and the scale of advancements in Endless Space compared to Endless Legend. "Late-game perks" in EL are better stockpiles, better FIDSI production, more military variety (rather than bigger, heavier units). "Late-game perks" in ES are the ability to colonise harsher planets, bigger ships, terraforming into better types of planets, the ability to remove harsher anomalies. As a side note, they seem to be removing ship versatility in favour of hulls with specific roles and hull-specific modules; I hope that the role thing will be changed up later on, so we aren't left with just two combat vessels and everything else being utility of some sort.

mezmorki wrote:

I'm not seeing any clear convincing case being made for why the tech system or ship designer we have in ES2 is only "appropriate" to use in a land based 4X and why specifically that is then a problem for ES2.  I think mechanics are mechanics, and they either work or not.  The argument here is basically people saying "the tech system was from EL, and EL is land based 4X, therefor that tech system is not appropriate to use in a non-land based 4X".  That's about the flimsiest line of logic.  

Wow, so that was a strawman and a half. The issue isn't that such a system can't fit in space. The issue is that it doesn't fit in Endless Space. Imagine if Halo suddenly took the cover system from Gears of War. There's no reason such a system wouldn't work in a sci-fi environment, but it would completely inappropriate for the title in question. The same logic applies here. To use a system that constricts empire choices at basically every level does not fit within the gameplay of Endless Space, which was all about providing options and choices to the player.

HaxtonFale wrote:

I never felt the research cost of nearly obsolete military techs to be a problem, possibly due to the way I play - double down on colonisation and / tree, which gives me a lot of research (playing Sophons or Vaulters tends to help, although it's not crucial), and rapidly research massive amounts of techs in military tree whenever necessary. I suspect also that the tech cost scaling on tree tiers also played a nontrivial role, if you grow your  at a decent pace catching up should be pretty quick.

Another (thematic) argument in favour of tree over eras in ES2 is that (usually) techs tend to be improvements over existing ones. How could you jump straight into claiming gas giants if you don't even know how to colonise a desert planet? How can you develop highest tiers of (say) Hyperium-based lasers if you have no military science to speak of? Or even the Era module advancement - having researched a bunch of colonisation techs, learned about diplomacy, and been taught to buy things, you now possess the know-how needed to build a better laser! In EL it made a little more sense because "better swords" or "better bows" is not so much of a challenge as "better guns whose diameter is measured in metres". 

A single tech tree might seem rigid, because it oftentimes is, for trying to capture the complex interplay of technology dependency imitating the history/real life to some limited extent. However, the ES system did not feel as rigid because it decoupled technologies into separate trees and let you specialise, save for strategics requirements.

This post exactly sums up why research in ES1 was better than in ES2.

HaxtonFale wrote:

The reason I (and perhaps a few others) prefer the tech tree approach in ES over EL's eras in space is due to a slightly different scale of events involved. EL has introduced tech cost inflation "back" to Endless games, which made sense in its own context of very limited time and resources. You only have a few decades to make some relatively basic scientific breakthroughs and learn to leverage the Endless legacy as best as you can.

In Endless Space, however, it's all about a growing interstellar empire, with the sci-fi background giving a lot more spread between techs signifying the steps to apparent godhood. Research cost inflation based on the number of techs researched makes little sense - "Because you have spent so much time researching advanced economy and industrial processes, inventing slightly better basic weapons will be seventeen times harder."

On top of that, the way eras are implemented in ES2 is annoying/hampering/shoehorned. Each era is split between must-haves and fillers, with more and more basic functionalities gated behind techs you simply must research because it's hard to play a game without the ability to buyout or extract basic strategics - which are split between separate techs for no apparent reason, other than it seeming like a holdover from ES

There's also the issue of tech bundling, which I can only guess is a another holdover from ES1, where a sprawling tech tree allowed things like colonisation and research buildings to be separated. Nice idea in theory, ties neatly with the fact that a scientific breakthrough is likely to impact multiple areas, but it feels like goading a player towards a specific playstyle.

Eras themselves also seemed tied to some common milestones each civilisation goes through - starting at medieval/renaissance-esque, picking up the pace and moving towards heavy industry. There is little such thing we can point to in space, lest it feels too artificial, but this particular argument is very subjective - it's all up to design, really.

All in all, the era system feels like it's heavily goading players into a specific way of playing and taking away a hefty chunk of flexibility I very much enjoyed having in Endless Space.

It's a little hard to put into words why does the Era system, or at the very least the way it's implemented, feel out of place in ES2. I hope it was clear enough.

As far as I see at your post, the key problems are:

1) inflation

2) basic functionalities gated behind techs you simply must research

And I absolutely agree with you. Without them, the Era system is likely to become good.

I must admit that I agree with many of the sentiments expressed by those in this thread concerning the tech tree.  

While I enjoy the era system, I can see its flaws, both thematically and mechanically.   I understand the idea of a story that begins with the rebirth of the great space civs after the events of the first game and Endless Legend, then meanders to the epic conclusion of the return of the Endless.  What I don't get is how that story can be divided into specific Eras.  In Endless Legend, the end of the game was also the end of Auriga as we knew it.  In both Endless Space games, we see the incredible result of Auriga's rebirth and destruction (a lowly barren/icy world).  

I never really liked ES1's tech tree.  It was inflexible, and a science victory was an achievement indeed due to the sheer amount of tech needed.  The interesting thing about it, however, was the way it used science production as a natural barrier to excessive tech advancement.  Yes, you could charge headlong down the military tree for the biggest guns, but it would cost you in the long run.  You'd be behind in every other area of the game.  The artificial barriers present in EL worked well for that game (multiple reasons), but because there are so many constrictions in this space-based 4x, it comes off as restrictive and stale.

I don't really want the ES1 tech tree back (still makes me yawn) but it fits the game thematically and mechanically.  Perhaps a new tech tree?  I was thinking a 3d branching tech tree with cost increasing by the number of colonized systems and population size, but that might be too radical.

I vote for a total ban of the Tree system.

I like the Era system, but I think each Era should be broke into four independant Fields which are the actual quadrants of the tech screen, like what Mezmorki proposed on the other thread.

I think that idea is great, and could work with the storyline and the ergonomy the Era system provides over a tree system.

I do think that some techs should have hard prereqs (strategic/luxury resource related ones) but mostly I prefer the era approach because it leads to less accumulation of useless tech.

A good middle ground solution overall I'd advocate is for each slice of the pie to fill up independently, and for that to give discounts in subsequent eras. So if you've researched 4 out of 6 military techs in one era, you will have an easier time researching military tech from the next era, but you can still jump to researching diplomatic tech without any previous investment in it (though it will cost more). This can also get rid of the inflation problem by replacing it with incentives in the form of research discounts.

atejas wrote:
I don't need to understand how to assemble a steam engine before I learn how to make a combustion engine. Nor do I need to build a musket before I can start manufacturing assault rifles.

The problem is that a modern rifle has not been designed entirely from scratch. Decades of iteration and invention took us from muzzle-loaded flintlock guns holding a single shot to rifles that work with magazines or ammo belts. We found and invented better materials, better mechanisms, more efficient means of storing ammunition, more reliable ways of firing ammunition, better gunpowder, different types of bullets - if you want to get to "assault rifle" from "no weapons" in terms of manufacture, you can't just assume the knowledge will magically appear over time. You might be able to skip some of the most primitive steps, but if you want to build a modern weapon without any knowledge of weapon crafting you are likely to have to reinvent at least a couple wheels.

The same can be said about engines, really. A design of an internal combustion engine did not appear out of thin air, it was an iteration of many ideas invented prior, and we're still trying to drive its efficiency even further. The steam engine might not be a direct predecessor to an ICE, but I'm fairly sure they share a lot of ancestry.

atejas wrote:
I don't need to understand how to assemble a steam engine before I learn how to make a combustion engine. Nor do I need to build a musket before I can start manufacturing assault rifles.

I do think that some techs should have hard prereqs (strategic/luxury resource related ones) but mostly I prefer the era approach because it leads to less accumulation of useless tech.

A good middle ground solution overall I'd advocate is for each slice of the pie to fill up independently, and for that to give discounts in subsequent eras. So if you've researched 4 out of 6 military techs in one era, you will have an easier time researching military tech from the next era, but you can still jump to researching diplomatic tech without any previous investment in it (though it will cost more). This can also get rid of the inflation problem by replacing it with incentives in the form of research discounts.

Yeah, I like this idea too.