Kweel_Nakashyn wrote:

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.

What do you mean total ban? It's not in the game. Not sure what else you're arguing for here.

Asuzu wrote:

Yes, exactly.

The complete replacement notion instead of upgrading/improving is what makes it feel very awkward.

- You have to skip expedition strength and detection simply because the one in era2 is jsut better, and replaces the one in era1

- You have to skip both weapon techs in era1 simply because the ones in era2 are just better replacement, and researching the ones from era1 don't even give cost reduction for materials, like they did in Endless Legend. No, they are completely useless to research.

- Colonization techs feel bloated as hell. Somehow, I have a strong feeling if we know how to colonize tropical planets, we should be fine on Jungle planets as well.

And the worst - in these conditions, the quests giving you a "free tech", which is supposed to be a bonus, actually hurt you and wreck your research order and the techs you wanted, because they count towards those 10 techs max you can research. The worst of them all is getting a "free tech" from era1, when you are in era2, which means you just lost an era2 tech slot, doh.

P.S. Allright, back to Civ VI, see ya chummers.

Yeah, that's another big problem of the current system. A good chunk of it is functionally worthless to take.

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.

You might not need the same components, but I have never heard of any civilization on earth jumping straight past one of those to the more advanced technology. Science is iterative. You're not going to have a sequentially fuel-injected, distributorless ignitioned, VVT engine without understanding the core fundamentals of how an engine operates, which in turn means simplifying the engine to make it. Case in point, if I handed you some gun powder, some lead and a pipe, chances are you could figure out how to build a musket. I'd be more than willing to bet if I handed you some plastics, electronics, a motor, gun powder, lead, brass and pipes, there's no way in hell you're showing me a minigun when I get back.

HaxtonFale wrote:

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.

I have to admit that I haven't a definitive solution. I'm more fond of tech tree, not because it's better, but because I'm more used to it, as it has been this way since 4X started back in 1990s.

But the tech tree has also lots of holes i logic. As I mentioned in a philosophical thread about research, you don't research horseback riding, and then suddenly horses appear (or you research titanium weapons and then titanium appears, to translate in endless games). It goes the other way: you see a horse and ask yourself if you can use it someway.

The logic fail is in both systems.

What you say about engines or weapons, is like this, but the think is that research most of times is interlocked, and there's no clear path. Why you have to research steam engine prior to combustion, but had not to research how to turn petroleum into diesel?

I will prefer a tech tree, but I won't throw this game away for this reason, as it has lots of potential and is still in alpha. Give some confidence to Amplitude. Remember EL EA??

lo_fabre wrote:
I have to admit that I haven't a definitive solution. I'm more fond of tech tree, not because it's better, but because I'm more used to it, as it has been this way since 4X started back in 1990s.

But the tech tree has also lots of holes i logic. As I mentioned in a philosophical thread about research, you don't research horseback riding, and then suddenly horses appear (or you research titanium weapons and then titanium appears, to translate in endless games). It goes the other way: you see a horse and ask yourself if you can use it someway.

The logic fail is in both systems.

What you say about engines or weapons, is like this, but the think is that research most of times is interlocked, and there's no clear path. Why you have to research steam engine prior to combustion, but had not to research how to turn petroleum crude oil into diesel?

I will prefer a tech tree, but I won't throw this game away for this reason, as it has lots of potential and is still in alpha. Give some confidence to Amplitude. Remember EL EA??

I'm not against the era system on principle. I liked the way it worked in EL, as it did not feel entirely out of place there.

In terms of strategics, both EL and ES2 handle this pretty well by showing you the resources ahead of time, but not all at once, to emulate your people gaining enough knowledge to know where and how to look before researching how to use. This is one advantage of the Era system in ES2, to allow you this sort of thing. At the same time, ES1 handled the issue pretty well as well: you did not unlock Resource X by researching what to do with Resource X, you unlocked it by researching the tech to unlock/mine it, and if you had something that required Resource X to be built, then tough luck (again, this can be explained as "We need material with properties A, B, and C, but we know of nothing of the sort - yet").

And to drag the combustion engine analogy further - I never said that you don't need to know how to produce liquid fuel in the first place. In fact, it is (probably) key if you want to make an efficient ICE. Perhaps a sensible approach would be to have both "basic oil refining" and "external combustion engine" as a requirement for "internal combustion engine?"

To answer your more general question, there are two kinds of prerequisite approach in tech trees/webs/whatevers: Any, and All. Tree that asks for Any prerequisite will let you research so long as you got at least one parent tech; the other kind will force you to research all predecessors. Civ seems to prefer latter, while ES went for the former, but that is perhaps because ES had a bit more freedom to imagine things and developments. Neither approach is invalid, really, and each has its drawbacks.

lo_fabre wrote:

I have to admit that I haven't a definitive solution. I'm more fond of tech tree, not because it's better, but because I'm more used to it, as it has been this way since 4X started back in 1990s.

But the tech tree has also lots of holes i logic. As I mentioned in a philosophical thread about research, you don't research horseback riding, and then suddenly horses appear (or you research titanium weapons and then titanium appears, to translate in endless games). It goes the other way: you see a horse and ask yourself if you can use it someway.

The logic fail is in both systems.

What you say about engines or weapons, is like this, but the think is that research most of times is interlocked, and there's no clear path. Why you have to research steam engine prior to combustion, but had not to research how to turn petroleum into diesel?

The logic is perfectly sound, as you yourself just explained. If I can see a metal exists in nature, that doesn't mean it provides me any benefit. Unless I can cut titanium, weld it, mould it and forge it, knowing it exists means nothing to me.

As for your question about engines, as a mechanic, external combustion and internal combustion were not too far removed one another. We started with external combustion, because at the first creation of automobiles, external was the only one that had been developed enough to work. An external combustion engine has less "stuff" to manage and worry about. Given more time, the difficulties in internalizing such a design (Venturis, throttle blades, fuel supply) became surmountable, and the internal combustion engine replaced the external engine for packaging and efficiency reasons. As for the question after, petroleum as a fuel source has basically always been the way it is. We got grease from the heaviest parts of it, oil from the next stage, diesel after that, gasoline after that and finally kerosene at the lightest stage. Without refinement, petroleum was always basically useless to us. The advent of petroleum was the advent of diesel.

I will prefer a tech tree, but I won't throw this game away for this reason, as it has lots of potential and is still in alpha. Give some confidence to Amplitude. Remember EL EA??

I used to have tons of confidence in Amplitude, but this is the first game making me question that. Endless Legend didn't really do anything for me, but it was still the game they wanted to make, and being a fresh entry, was ultimately bound to no conventions. The gameplay didn't really do much for me, but I still loved the game for being what it was. Endless Space 2 on the other hand feels like an imposter. A different game wearing the skin of Endless Space. Endless Space 2 does have potential, but that potential is currently held under the foot of the era system. The tech system is not some small facet of the game: Tech influences literally every one of the X's.

To @HaxtonFale and @Romeo, I made this post about philosophy  under research systems. If you want to read it have in mind I'm not proposing a new system, but only thinking about principles any system should follow, and imo being broken by trees and eras systems.

Also I admitted I'm more fond of tree system, but as I like other aspects of the game, I'm sure actual system can be modified to work well with other game features. As someone remembered me in one of my firsts ES2 posts, Amplitude completely reworked the combat system in EL EA.

In terms of strategics, both EL and ES2 handle this pretty well by showing you the resources ahead of time, but not all at once, to emulate your people gaining enough knowledge to know where and how to look before researching how to use. This is one advantage of the Era system in ES2, to allow you this sort of thing. At the same time, ES1 handled the issue pretty well as well: you did not unlock Resource X by researching what to do with Resource X, you unlocked it by researching the tech to unlock/mine it, and if you had something that required Resource X to be built, then tough luck (again, this can be explained as "We need material with properties A, B, and C, but we know of nothing of the sort - yet")

Good point in last parentheses. Things I would like to see in the philosophy of research thread. I think this can give devs good ideas on how to improve the actual research system, even if they want to stay with eras system.

I used to have tons of confidence in Amplitude, but this is the first game making me question that. Endless Legend didn't really do anything for me, but it was still the game they wanted to make, and being a fresh entry, was ultimately bound to no conventions. The gameplay didn't really do much for me, but I still loved the game for being what it was. Endless Space 2 on the other hand feels like an imposter. A different game wearing the skin of Endless Space. Endless Space 2 does have potential, but that potential is currently held under the foot of the era system. The tech system is not some small facet of the game: Tech influences literally every one of the X's.

Sorry for Amplitude to read this. I'm confident the game has lot of potential and will come with a good game at release. I have any trouble in saying hem what I dislike, but at this stage I think its premature to say that this is an imposter. I said before that my impression is that instead of 1/3 old, 1/3 modified and 1/3 new, they made 1/3 ES1, 1/3 EL and 1/3 new. Probable the tech tree should be from the new third or the ES1 third, but I'm convinced they can modify their initial decision to make this game better. Also Frogsqaudron stated they were looking at this aspect.

A big problem for Amplitude is that they made two good games in a row and something completely new with DotE, with a very active community, so expectations are high and difficult to fulfill everyone's.

lo_fabre wrote:

I used to have tons of confidence in Amplitude, but this is the first game making me question that. Endless Legend didn't really do anything for me, but it was still the game they wanted to make, and being a fresh entry, was ultimately bound to no conventions. The gameplay didn't really do much for me, but I still loved the game for being what it was. Endless Space 2 on the other hand feels like an imposter. A different game wearing the skin of Endless Space. Endless Space 2 does have potential, but that potential is currently held under the foot of the era system. The tech system is not some small facet of the game: Tech influences literally every one of the X's.

Sorry for Amplitude to read this. I'm confident the game has lot of potential and will come with a good game at release. I have any trouble in saying hem what I dislike, but at this stage I think its premature to say that this is an imposter. I said before that my impression is that instead of 1/3 old, 1/3 modified and 1/3 new, they made 1/3 ES1, 1/3 EL and 1/3 new. Probable the tech tree should be from the new third or the ES1 third, but I'm convinced they can modify their initial decision to make this game better. Also Frogsqaudron stated they were looking at this aspect.

A big problem for Amplitude is that they made two good games in a row and something completely new with DotE, with a very active community, so expectations are high and difficult to fulfill everyone's.

Not meant to be needlessly cruel. As I've mentioned all over the place, I had extremely high opinions of Amplitude, and I still love their previous three games through and through. But Endless Space 2 seems to insist on reminding me it isn't concerned with what I liked the first time around. To use your own example, yes, it feels like the game is only a third designed for the original fans. Why Endless Legend elements are even being considered, let alone on the same level as the core game itself, speaks to a fairly major issue with the original game. Let's put it this way: If this was Endless Legend 2 and they were stuffing in a bunch of elements from Endless Space, I'd be appalled, even though I absolutely adore Endless Space. This would be like Ford making the new Mustang with the front end of a Mustang, the back end of a pickup truck and a completely unique middle and calling it the new Mustang. Would there be people that love it? Of course! But it'd be a grievous insult to fans of what the Mustang is, and were hoping to see a new version of the car.

I also know Frogsquadron replied, but the reply was just vague enough to not give a definitive answer as to what the hell we're looking at. Are they just going to tweak the numbers and keep the rest of the system untouched? That will still suck to many of us.

It really, really shouldn't have been an issue, at all. If Blizzard makes a sequel to Starcraft, they don't piss off the fans of World of Warcraft by not shoehorning in MMO elements. They figure out what players liked from the first Starcraft and build a sequel to that. Dungeon of the Endless and Endless Legend are both fantastic games, really great ones. But this isn't their sequel. No part of the Amplitude community should have been upset if they had just focused on Endless Space, and ignored Endless Legend's gameplay elements.

Romeo wrote:

Not meant to be needlessly cruel. As I've mentioned all over the place, I had extremely high opinions of Amplitude, and I still love their previous three games through and through. But Endless Space 2 seems to insist on reminding me it isn't concerned with what I liked the first time around. To use your own example, yes, it feels like the game is only a third designed for the original fans. Why Endless Legend elements are even being considered, let alone on the same level as the core game itself, speaks to a fairly major issue with the original game. Let's put it this way: If this was Endless Legend 2 and they were stuffing in a bunch of elements from Endless Space, I'd be appalled, even though I absolutely adore Endless Space. This would be like Ford making the new Mustang with the front end of a Mustang, the back end of a pickup truck and a completely unique middle and calling it the new Mustang. Would there be people that love it? Of course! But it'd be a grievous insult to fans of what the Mustang is, and were hoping to see a new version of the car.

Mmmm.... believe me or not, I understand you feelings, but don't share it.

I also know Frogsquadron replied, but the reply was just vague enough to not give a definitive answer as to what the hell we're looking at. Are they just going to tweak the numbers and keep the rest of the system untouched? That will still suck to many of us.

Not sure. As @Asuzu said, I hope we'll see int 3 weeks. Or at least devs will tell us something.

It really, really shouldn't have been an issue, at all. If Blizzard makes a sequel to Starcraft, they don't piss off the fans of World of Warcraft by not shoehorning in MMO elements. They figure out what players liked from the first Starcraft and build a sequel to that. Dungeon of the Endless and Endless Legend are both fantastic games, really great ones. But this isn't their sequel. No part of the Amplitude community should have been upset if they had just focused on Endless Space, and ignored Endless Legend's gameplay elements.

I can assure I wouldn't be upset, but for me this elements from EL are not a problem if well implemented and elements from ES1 are still there.

Asuzu wrote:

I honestly doubt we can influence anything anyway, considering not a single dev reply to any of the hot topics. 

Not a single comment.

Games together my ass.

I'm too worried about that. Not sure if this means a change in Amplitude ways or SEGA influence. I hope they can go back to their origins in this.

lo_fabre wrote:

Asuzu wrote:

I honestly doubt we can influence anything anyway, considering not a single dev reply to any of the hot topics. 

Not a single comment.

Games together my ass.

I'm too worried about that. Not sure if this means a change in Amplitude ways or SEGA influence. I hope they can go back to their origins in this.

Surprise! :p 

One of the Devs responded to the: ''Fixing Tech Tree: Ideas Discussion'' thread a few hours ago.

Apparently they are planning to quadrant of the Era system, see for yourself :)

I am refraining from any new discussion on it until we can see this concept more fleshed out.

But at least there is a response on the tech tree, which was needed to say the least. 

Cheers 

lo_fabre wrote:

Romeo wrote:

Not meant to be needlessly cruel. As I've mentioned all over the place, I had extremely high opinions of Amplitude, and I still love their previous three games through and through. But Endless Space 2 seems to insist on reminding me it isn't concerned with what I liked the first time around. To use your own example, yes, it feels like the game is only a third designed for the original fans. Why Endless Legend elements are even being considered, let alone on the same level as the core game itself, speaks to a fairly major issue with the original game. Let's put it this way: If this was Endless Legend 2 and they were stuffing in a bunch of elements from Endless Space, I'd be appalled, even though I absolutely adore Endless Space. This would be like Ford making the new Mustang with the front end of a Mustang, the back end of a pickup truck and a completely unique middle and calling it the new Mustang. Would there be people that love it? Of course! But it'd be a grievous insult to fans of what the Mustang is, and were hoping to see a new version of the car.

Mmmm.... believe me or not, I understand you feelings, but don't share it.

Oh come on, as someone who owns a 1966 Mustang notchback, you can't take a notchback and pair it up beside a fastback.

I also know Frogsquadron replied, but the reply was just vague enough to not give a definitive answer as to what the hell we're looking at. Are they just going to tweak the numbers and keep the rest of the system untouched? That will still suck to many of us.

Not sure. As @Asuzu said, I hope we'll see int 3 weeks. Or at least devs will tell us something.

Eh, we did just get a reply half an hour ago. Sounds like it's shifting back towards Endless Space. How much is anyone's guess, but I'm hoping for "a lot".

It really, really shouldn't have been an issue, at all. If Blizzard makes a sequel to Starcraft, they don't piss off the fans of World of Warcraft by not shoehorning in MMO elements. They figure out what players liked from the first Starcraft and build a sequel to that. Dungeon of the Endless and Endless Legend are both fantastic games, really great ones. But this isn't their sequel. No part of the Amplitude community should have been upset if they had just focused on Endless Space, and ignored Endless Legend's gameplay elements.

I can assure I wouldn't be upset, but for me this elements from EL are not a problem if well implemented and elements from ES1 are still there.

Fair enough, but as I've written countless times before, my issue isn't how well they are implemented, my issue is with eroding the identity of the game. If I take Halo and keep changing it to be more like Gears of War with each entry, eventually it doesn't matter if it looks like Halo, because it stops being that. Obviously this is Amplitude's first sequel, so they aren't going to completely subvert things. But it does concern me that we're already having an issue keeping the games distinct from one another. I'm hoping whatever game they do next plays like it's a part of its own series. If they do Dungeon of the Endless 2, it had better not feel like Endless Space or Endless Legend are encroaching upon it. Same goes with Endless Legend 2.

Romeo wrote:

To be fair. I don't own a 1960s Mustang. I like American cars, and took the image from a used cars web.  Don't mistake here. Just I like this car.

Also happy to see after las dev's post in improving tech treee thread that Amplitude seems to be Amplitude again, and taking community ideas, at least into consideration.

I had typed up a much better response, but a spotty Internet connection today made me lose all of it... rats.

In short, as was mentioned in this very thread by myself last week, the more to the point feedback is, the higher the chance we'll be able to react to it, respond to it, act on it. This applies to entire threads, too. While some of this thread is discussing, especially in the last couple of pages, mostly tech tree philosophy, the topic at hand is mostly one discussing very high-level concepts of the game. This isn't very helpful when our designers are looking for specific itemized feedback on a particular subject.

The choice to implement features introduced or refined in Endless Legend has been announced as far back as our early Game Design Documents, and I believe that Endless Space 2 can only benefit from Quests, an enhanced Hero management, and a more ambitious Tech tree. We're of course changing quite a few things with the Tech tree considering that from our earliest designs, we never felt that it quite captured what we were aiming for, but to get back to my point, it's much easier for our devs to get involved discussing such items in a thread explicitly about this subject than in a tangential that shoots ideas in most directions.

To touch on your impression of us being absent from these discussions: it is true, we cannot participate in all discussions, for simple logistical reasons (there's a lot more of you than there is of us, especially those of us relaying between community and devs). We try to read as much as we can, and pass on what we find useful. If you want specifics as to what's changing, of course, I'd suggest heading over to the updated improve list, or the tech tree discussion.

Hope this helps.

Frogsquadron wrote:

I had typed up a much better response, but a spotty Internet connection today made me lose all of it... rats.

In short, as was mentioned in this very thread by myself last week, the more to the point feedback is, the higher the chance we'll be able to react to it, respond to it, act on it. This applies to entire threads, too. While some of this thread is discussing, especially in the last couple of pages, mostly tech tree philosophy, the topic at hand is mostly one discussing very high-level concepts of the game. This isn't very helpful when our designers are looking for specific itemized feedback on a particular subject.

The choice to implement features introduced or refined in Endless Legend has been announced as far back as our early Game Design Documents, and I believe that Endless Space 2 can only benefit from Quests, an enhanced Hero management, and a more ambitious Tech tree. We're of course changing quite a few things with the Tech tree considering that from our earliest designs, we never felt that it quite captured what we were aiming for, but to get back to my point, it's much easier for our devs to get involved discussing such items in a thread explicitly about this subject than in a tangential that shoots ideas in most directions.

To touch on your impression of us being absent from these discussions: it is true, we cannot participate in all discussions, for simple logistical reasons (there's a lot more of you than there is of us, especially those of us relaying between community and devs). We try to read as much as we can, and pass on what we find useful. If you want specifics as to what's changing, of course, I'd suggest heading over to the updated improve list, or the tech tree discussion.

Hope this helps.

Read those threads.

Glad too see you're responding to the forums. Also I understand that you can't respond to everything for the reason you exposed, and of course Paris games week, holydays and all that stuff.

You're right that some of us posted here discussions that may be confusing and tangetial to other threads, and even about cars... I hope, at least myself didn't made your job harder. I'll try in the future to fit things in more specific threads, as you suggested, but my apologies in advance for those situations that sometimes happens.

RageMcGeezaks wrote:

lo_fabre wrote:

Asuzu wrote:

I honestly doubt we can influence anything anyway, considering not a single dev reply to any of the hot topics. 

Not a single comment.

Games together my ass.

I'm too worried about that. Not sure if this means a change in Amplitude ways or SEGA influence. I hope they can go back to their origins in this.

Surprise! :p 

One of the Devs responded to the: ''Fixing Tech Tree: Ideas Discussion'' thread a few hours ago.

Apparently they are planning to quadrant of the Era system, see for yourself :)

I am refraining from any new discussion on it until we can see this concept more fleshed out.

But at least there is a response on the tech tree, which was needed to say the least. 

Cheers 

Yeah was surprised to see.

Well, at any rate the tech tree changes are not going to make it into the next patch.

We will see what the next update brings, they probably just testing it right now.

Many of us, myself included, have joined the studio because of how impressed/enamored we were with Endless Space. It is still to this day my 2nd most-played game on Steam (second only to another of AmpliMath & SpaceTroll's games, RUSE). A lot of us played the hell out of this game, and I'm choosing this word because understating self-evident truths is one of my pleasures in life. Do not underestimate how important this game is to us, as players.

Moreover, you're not waving the flag for all harcore fanbois of Endless Space, you're waving a flag for people sharing your expectations of what a sequel to Endless Space should be. There is a pretty notable difference and I'd like you to keep it in mind when sharing your thoughts on the matter.

Please browse our forums thoroughly, and from Space Battles, Tech Tree discussion (this is one of several iirc), to the Improve List, you'll find that the immense majority of what you take objection to right now is either not even implemented, or getting changed to make it better and arriving further down the line. If you have specific questions, I'd be happy to help you find answers.

Except, Frogsquadron, it's becoming increasingly clear that where you lack an original solution to a problem for Endless Space 2, your default fallback design decision is to copy (in some cases verbatim) Endless Legend. Whilst I get that from a distance every problem might look like a nail, particularly when you've had a hammer that's worked so very wonderfully in the past, it's not going to work here. The two games, and indeed, the two IP's are collectively very different, and whilst you're looking at this and thinking "Well Endless Legend worked, so we can just use that as plaster for the bits we're not sure about", that's going to end up with a very unpleasant experience because it results in this Frankenstein monster of the two games where you quite definitely have the worst of both worlds.

Endless Space had a very freeform tech tree that promoted exploration and had no "Golden path" that mandated a specific route through it. It didn't punish you for taking divergent routes, and encouraged players to find ways to hyper specialise and play to the strengths of their respective races. The Era System does the exact opposite by forcing every player to research more or less the same thing in order to remain competitive, there's going to be a fixed route through the eras and you will be punished if you deviate too far from that "golden path", worse, due to the way the system increases the sci cost, returning to earlier eras isn't even an option until you hit Era 4 and collect all the "must have" options in that particular era. Endless Legend had ways of dealing with that along with a significantly diverse set of techs in each era, whereas Endless Space 2 -lacks- the diversity and choice needed to have a real input into what route you can take to make the most of your race.

The oversimplification of weapons and weapons types, reducing things to "Rock paper scissors" but with such binary responses on defences (it either works, or it doesn't) destroys the complexity and subtlety of battle, and removes a great deal of tactical thinking from the player, they will invariably go for what best suits their race, and then from that everything flows. There's a deleterious effect on choice and strategy because you're enforcing this top down approach that means "Endless Legend worked well, let's take that and use it for Endless Space 2" except Endless Space allowed you a much more nuanced response in the development of ships and fleet comps. It's a destruction of the kind of nuanced thinking that means that the game falls from being truly praiseworthy to being an interesting curio.

If you claim to be such fans of your original game, then why is it that your sequel bears so little of the Original's DNA, it is Endless Space in name and face only, but it is Endless Legend in design, form and function.

When you have a good and truthful answer to that, maybe you'll stop using Endless Legend as the hammer to fix all problems, even if from a distance all problems look like nails.

While I find Endless Youth's reply a bit on the vitriolic side, the "fanboi" community has definitely, absolutely staked our position on his side of the issue (See: The poll from the thread you linked, the dozens of threads specifically calling out the tech system, the fact the tech system gets brought up in numerous vague complaint threads). He isn't saying "I'M LOUD THEREFORE I'M THE VOICE OF EVERYONE". He isn't a cause of frustration here; He's an indictment of it.

Make no mistake, I adored Amplitude, and while Endless Space 2 was a bit of a slap in the face, I still continue to appreciate Amplitude. However, the game and the handling of community concerns is definitely eroding the trust I once held.