Wintermote wrote:

I've been reading more and more about the game over the past few days, trying to get a hold on what the design direction is. I've been posting quite a bit expressing my own thoughts on what I've seen as I've come across bits and pieces of the game. Now I've got a pretty good idea of what this game is.

And I'm shaking my head. I've been reading snippets in Amplitude's design documents where the author(s) have completely missed the point. Gameplay is being modeled around the assumption that people don't want to play it. It's baffling - like this game is being made for people who don't like videogames.

The combat design document stands out because it describes how important it is for people (clearly not players) to watch(!) the combat. EVERY effort is spent to design the combat system around being simplistic, deterministic, and boring, because god forbid the players have to make a decision about something. No; instead it has to be quick and simple and easy, with very little time spent thinking about what you're doing. Awful!

This thread sealed the deal for me: I'm no longer interested in Endless Space 2. The issues are with the developers themselves; I've seen this play out too many times to count - rather than stepping back and admitting mistakes, egos push through their 'visions', and ignore everyone telling them they're doing it wrong. There's too much wrong with this game. It's making the same big mistake I saw in Endless Space and Endless Legend - oversimplification. And I absolutely do not expect anyone at Amplitude to step back and say, "Okay, you guys are right. We need to re-work this and focus less on simplifying things." I don't like ES1, but I did like Endless Legend, but that game was good in spite of, not because of, its oversimplifications. Amplitude is now on their third try to get it right and they are still over-simplifying and dumbing their games down too much. The design documents read like someone trying to make a game for morons.

I'll be back in a year or so to see how things have panned out. I do not think anything will be different; I don't think gameplay systems will have been changed; I don't think fundamental design will start focusing on making a game for gamers with a focus on interactivity and player decisions, rather than - what I guess could be described as "watchers". This feels like a videogame being put together by people who didn't realize they actually wanted to write a book or direct a movie. Videogames are interactive for a reason.

So far it's a waste and I'm disappointed.

Feel free to make me eat crow, Amplitude. I'll check back in a while and let you know.

Well said and sadly it seems true. 

But nowadays it seems all things are designed with morons in mind, long are the days that videogames put out some decent fights without the AI having ten times as much stuff as you have.

The OP is also basically right I don't really feel like I am in control and the space battles are the worst I ever saw in any x4 space game.

This is Alpha (or so they say) there is time to change and to evolve, please do so.

Finally ask yourselves: is there any major gameplay change from ES to ES2 (like form Mo to MoO2) ? Or is it the same stuff with different pixels ?

@ OP - all good points and I'm glad these critiques are coming up while the game is in alpha EA. Otherwise, what is the point of players buying the game in alpha EA?

There is always the whisper of "but it's alpha EA and a lot of content is not in the game yet...". For example, comparing the tech tree to EL - it does seem incredibly sparse and lacking in meaningful choices but EL has had the benefit of full release and multiple expansions. We can only hope the devs are paying particular attention to the constructive criticism and can place it in context with their overarching development plan.

cjfoster1960 wrote:

The tech tree has come under a lot of critic, however it is mandatory and real because of it.

A stone age tribe must master fire in order to survive. A space fairing species must master some type of warp drive in order to leave it's home system. This is an example of mandatory techs. No choice but common survival tools. I agree that the tech tree needs to open up in other areas. Faction specific choices in the tech tree do this. 

The way the tech tree is presented is ultimately a question of preference. The era system works as all techs are not and cannot be available until sufficient understanding is achieved. In reality it is no different to any other tech tree in any other 4X game. You still have to develop the same systems if you wish to survive. Web tech tree or era tree makes no difference. They have same limitations and for good reason. You cannot developed nuclear techs if you are still in the middle ages. Uncomfortable as this might be it seems to be a universal rule, a delusion of choice if you like. ES2 is drawing from our history and what has to happen to survive in a hostile galaxy. Forced options are inevitable in any 4X game. Show me any game design that does not have this.

You are confusing artificial restriction with realism in a tech tree, also you are wrong when you say it's not different than any other tech tree in any other 4x, ES 1 can be a prime example of why. Your argumentation does not start from a wrong place,  but it does end in one by trying to justify how restrictive exactly the era system end up beeing. In comparison to a game like ES 1 that permited a logical progression through needed tech to a specialized tech you wanted to get at any given time, only to then permit you to return and grab something from a different branch for no extra punishment than the time it takes to research it and it's prerequisites, this era system in place here like the one in EL sufferes from the "There's no going back" syndrome I'm starting to think it's a staple of such era based systems. You are actively punished for getting the mandatory techs by beeing striped away the ability to specialize and vary your gameplay experience due to the exponential across the board increases in tech costs and the arbitrary 10 techs per era limit. 

Furthermore, you can't get the tech you want by getting it's prerequisites because there are no prerequisites. Getting advanced titanium based weapons doesn't need the basic ones to be researched and understood, it can very well count a number of colonisation and food production techs as it's prerequisites. And that's why it ultimatly fails to live up to your argument, because there is no logical progression here, it's arbitrary.

No, forced options are not inevitable. To a greater or lesser degree every 4x that uses a progression based tech tree/tech web will let you do both specializing by following a logical set of research to an adavanced tech while also letting you at any time choose to follow a different avenue and eventualy master all aspects of it. The difference is it does not actively punish you, not does it actively demand you to research unconected, unneeded tech like the curent era system does. You fail to graps the issue here and seem to asume my/other people's problem is that the tech tree does not let you research any tech at any time. Far from it mate, what we critique is how this tech tree not only does not follow the good rules of logical progression and corelation of techs, but it also restricts any specialization/unique development path a player might choose to take due to the combination of exponential tech costs increase, arbitrary limit of 10 techs per era and the sheer amount if tech you must research or forfeit the game which usualy results in 1 or 2 techs per era beeing your choices as a best case scenario.

And once more: theme. EL was about the final days of a planet and the struggle to survive them. It made a certain degree of sense such a restriction on tech was in place because there was physicaly not time left. ES 2 is about the first days of a rising galactic empire, there is no reason in hell such a restriction should exist here. We have all the time in the universe to specialize and adapt the way we choose to, more importantly we have all the time in the universe to research everything and anything we want, given a proper infrastructure for this has been established.

Stalker0 wrote:

I also like the argument constructed here.

The only one I'll disagree on is the Senate system. For some of the other subsystems (combat, science) I think a mechanics change may be needed, but for the Senate I think this is a scenario where the controls are in place....they just need to be tuned. For example, the fact that building military improvements gives the militarists an advantage is fine. The fact that you get a bonus to militarists for each ship you build is too much. Also, I think the efforts you spend in guiding an election don't reveal enough payout. But those mechanisms are fine...just their impact needs to be adjusted. 

I also agree that the UI for the Senate needs to be adjusted, as understanding why your political parties shape up the way they do is too vague.

Lastly, wanted to note in your post you said no modern 4x game lacks tactical combat. Galactic Civilizations 2 and 3 are examples that contradict your statement. Pure strategic combat, you build the fleets and slam them against each other. Whether that is good or bad is debatable, but still present none the less.

Hmm. Sliped my mind. Now that I remember it I also remember why I droped GalCiv (besides the bugs and crashes) ... it was trying to do something interesting and for the most part got it right, but it just didn't do enough. It was nice that each ship followed it's role to try and act like a ship of that size would act in a fight, it just resulted in massive mosh pits of ships with no rhyme or reason and that kept the combat from developing any actual depth as a planning driven combat system. If anything I'd use GalCiv as an argument to why you should not do non-interactive battle systems because those games devoled into giant "who brought the biggenst guns and wins" competitions and fleet composition didn't really matter. Granted the rest of the game has good systems, but this one is not one of them.

And the only active improvements ES 2 has over that are in the graphical department and the path based system preventing the mosh pits, at the cost of striping away logical ship behaviour due to the automatic flotila placement.

Could be it's a case of clearing up the UI and tuning down the randomness of how parties gain power will solve things. That is essentialy what I wanted to be the start of fixing the system. I still think we need good old fashion population control options though. Like telling my cravers it's dinner time and have them nom on those pesky sophons I just took over and are too darn pacifist to try and integrate in my glorious galactic empire. Or doing some religious purges for those heretical dust stealing lumeris as the vodyani. The migration system they announced is a step in the right direction, but it is just that: a step. More are needed imo.

I'm on board with the majority of these points, Endless Space 2 has a long way to go before I feel like I can even really call the game 'good' even in this mostly conceptual state. Kinda feels like there're too many mechanics being applied to factions that are too different. Sophons and Lumeris seem to be working fine since they're more of a standard type of faction and the Vodyani are do-able but the Cravers just feel flawed down to their core, their thematic principles being contradicted by the game's mechanics.

AndreasK wrote:

A lot of people, including the devs will have a hard time reading your feedback presented here. Not because it is long or harsh, but because of the formatting and the length of some of the sentences. You really should look it over. 

• Break down long sentences into smaller ones.
• Avoid the long clarifications and comments in parenthesis. Especially the ones in the middle of a sentence. They break the flow! 
• Add more line breaks where it feels natural. You can add them after you have finished one argument and start the next or when you move from one issue to the next.

I myself, am guilty of some of the same offences when I am writing. But if I want to be understood and heard I try to but in some effort into this part of the process to. Otherwise everything I write was for nothing because its one big brain aneurysm inducing text block no one understands. Not that I always succeed at rectifying this problem ;)

The original comment was written late at nigh on a tablet after I had to ship my PC to the service for it's routine maintenance and clean-up. I've not had a chance to come back and properly update it yet until today when the rig came back. On the plus side: hooray I can play again, and I went back to clean-up the original post as much as possible. It's still a massive wall of text, but I think it's cleaner and easier to follow now. 

I agree with most of the things OP mentioned save for the senate system even if it isn't fully realized yet.

Tech tree- agreed.  ES1 had a good tech tree IMHO. Locking up basic 4x abilities between tech is rampant and really limits player choice.  Being able to do end-arounds on war techs makes T1 weapon/armor techs pretty terrible.

Improvements -agreed.  We definitely need more interesting choices here.  Once past the very early game it just becomes "build everything."  No bueno.

Combat - I'd like to see how it looks with more flotillas before making a final assessment.  But up through turn 125, it's really basic.  I basically take long range lasers and pick stay at range and that seems to just chew up the AI.

NeroRAWr wrote:

Yeah, many posts are quite similar in this section right now.

That's a nice list of possible fixes.

The influence skill for minor faction heroes is indeed insane and approval seems way more important right now than food improvements.

The combat system will be updated with more meaningful options for us to make meaningful decisions.

I don't really know how to tackle politics because military ship production simply outshines the other ideologies in the long run for most of my playthroughs.

Approval is way more important than Food is (Currently). Too much Food can actually screw you, but there's no such thing as too much Approval.

Cronstintein wrote:

I agree with most of the things OP mentioned save for the senate system even if it isn't fully realized yet.

Tech tree- agreed.  ES1 had a good tech tree IMHO. Locking up basic 4x abilities between tech is rampant and really limits player choice.  Being able to do end-arounds on war techs makes T1 weapon/armor techs pretty terrible.

Improvements -agreed.  We definitely need more interesting choices here.  Once past the very early game it just becomes "build everything."  No bueno.

Combat - I'd like to see how it looks with more flotillas before making a final assessment.  But up through turn 125, it's really basic.  I basically take long range lasers and pick stay at range and that seems to just chew up the AI.

Agreed on everything (Except the improvements). But like you, I question how many of those are due to the systems not being fully realized yet. Tech system is unsalvageable, and needs to be dropped like a bad habit.

XDAvenger93 wrote:

I Don't let this become yet another Beyond Earth scenario.

Dear XDAvenger93,

Your ardent speech made me understand how significant some problems of the the current game design are. I will highly appreciate if you have a look at some my suggestions on how to address the issues you brought up.

However, I have to warn that I don't consider hero recruitment and battle basics. 

https://www.games2gether.com/endless-space-2/forum/66-game-design/thread/21737-making-the-game-be-played-by-yourself-tech-table-suggestion-and-a-bit-more

I don't think it is the case at all that Amplitude has an ego about their design.  They've discussed, in quite a bit of depth, a change of direction on the combat system (still using pre-battle planning but adding depth to it).  They had certain assumptions about what players would want, that was limiting the systems potential, and we challenged them to change that assumption.  It appears they are now considering rather big changes. 

Likewise on the force truce mechanic - we pushed back and they have proposed some reasonable changes. 

More recently - they said they are looking into changes to the tech tree, which is significant because it affects the overall pacing and arc of the gameplay. 

I think amplitude is attempting to do what I've been hoping for for a long time, compressing down a 4X game a little bit greatly enhancing the ratio of meaningful, big strategic choices.  The game isn't there yet - but they are many compelling and interesting systems.  We just need to hold them to their own goals and encourage them to push the iteration on these systems so they can be all they can be.  The combat system is a great example of this - and it needs to continue. 

Even if I kinda share this pessimistic view point, I don't think this is about a conscious or unconscious direction to deprive us of control in the game. It may be a misguided attempt at adding more intrisic parameters in the world, without weighting all the consequences in the process of playing the game itself.

You wrote about combat : the issue is not the cinematic/pre planning aspect on itself. The issue is how the ship design and usage itself doesn't lend itself to much interesting planning beforehand in practice. 

As mezmorki said, they may be reviewing the science system, and we ought to wait what this could mean, because the technology  based constraints in the game are the source of most of the frustration in the game imho. 

The tech tree has come under a lot of critic, however it is mandatory and real because of it.

A stone age tribe must master fire in order to survive. A space fairing species must master some type of warp drive in order to leave it's home system. This is an example of mandatory techs. No choice but common survival tools. I agree that the tech tree needs to open up in other areas. Faction specific choices in the tech tree do this. 

The way the tech tree is presented is ultimately a question of preference. The era system works as all techs are not and cannot be available until sufficient understanding is achieved. In reality it is no different to any other tech tree in any other 4X game. You still have to develop the same systems if you wish to survive. Web tech tree or era tree makes no difference. They have same limitations and for good reason. You cannot developed nuclear techs if you are still in the middle ages. Uncomfortable as this might be it seems to be a universal rule, a delusion of choice if you like. ES2 is drawing from our history and what has to happen to survive in a hostile galaxy. Forced options are inevitable in any 4X game. Show me any game design that does not have this.

The exploration/colonization part is a bit different (but ought to expanded imho) 

I feel the ship design is more interesting (it's consequences are something else) 

The population types, their output and political influence are brand new (but the system needs works of course). 

I think it's unfair to brand their approach to "dumbing down". It's far more likely that they are trying to add more variables without weighting exactly if they give or remove options from the players. The pre fight system is seemingly streamlined and give us less choice than in ES1. But the issuelays with the weapon/defense options and the general usage of fleets imho. In most games you simply send a unit against another, granted in this case it's an group of units. The decision to engage a fight is just the end of the process of researching their tech, producing, moving and grouping these units. If those  steps are interesting, I don't really care about the last one. That doesn't mean the current direction is perfect, far from it. But we ought not presuppose what is the intent behind it. 

uriak wrote:

The exploration/colonization part is a bit different (but ought to expanded imho) 

I feel the ship design is more interesting (it's consequences are something else) 

The population types, their output and political influence are brand new (but the system needs works of course). 

I think it's unfair to brand their approach to "dumbing down". It's far more likely that they are trying to add more variables without weighting exactly if they give or remove options from the players. The pre fight system is seemingly streamlined and give us less choice than in ES1. But the issuelays with the weapon/defense options and the general usage of fleets imho. In most games you simply send a unit against another, granted in this case it's an group of units. The decision to engage a fight is just the end of the process of researching their tech, producing, moving and grouping these units. If those  steps are interesting, I don't really care about the last one. That doesn't mean the current direction is perfect, far from it. But we ought not presuppose what is the intent behind it. 

Dumbing down isn't the right word, and anyone who sincerely believes that isn't using logic. You're also correct in saying combat was never the focus of Endless Space, I agree with that wholeheartedly. I also agree with your top three points, I actually like those those, as they were all improvements.

For what it's worth, I'm currently not crazy about the current battle system (The GDD about it definitely implied we'd have more control than we do though, so we'll see how it goes).

Ground invasion in ES1 was literally pressing the "siege" button... And you just had a number of turns info without much knowledge of any underlying element. Do you expect a tactical screen in a game where whole planets are considered a single element ?

The combat preparation in ES1 were barely more interesting once you had a fixed fleet design. The combat lacks more factors to offer interesting tradeoff in ship design/production/usage. Either they go the multi flottila tactics route with options offered to us or they don't treat each fight as context- free encounter. 

The politics are not working well atm. The issue is you ought not restrict yourself to building something because of politics, ideally this kind of impact would be because you overdo something. Currently the only kind of thing you can produce over and over are... ships hence militaristic . (though it's not illogical to end up militaristic amid a war.

Tech tree or eras is not the question, rather are they interesting, I find both implementations in ES lackluster though the tree at least provided more variety in early game. 

Hiding any diplomatic contact behind an era II tech is a gross design error, ihmo. It makes as you said early interaction with the AI very repetitive. 

There is no point arguing that ES2 is functionnal right now. ES1 of course is but I'd rather play others 4X again than delve back into it.