Asuzu wrote:

I have to ask, is the modern population so freakin stupid they really cannot be allowed to push more than 1 button anymore? The horror.

So harsh. Surely you know they can manage two buttons, one for each thumb....

Anyway I hope this game doesn't end up sacrificing itself on the altar of "strategy games can be beautiful too". Maybe the changes to tech and combat will save it, we'll see.

I personally faceroll my way through life qr3ew4r36y5487r79i80yp and use my nose for precision moves.

MidnightSun wrote:

Asuzu wrote:

I have to ask, is the modern population so freakin stupid they really cannot be allowed to push more than 1 button anymore? The horror.

So harsh. Surely you know they can manage two buttons, one for each thumb....

Anyway I hope this game doesn't end up sacrificing itself on the altar of "strategy games can be beautiful too". Maybe the changes to tech and combat will save it, we'll see.

I hope so too man.

But when I read the dev post about Space Combat, and they say: 

"oh, but we don't want you to be Fleet admiral, we just want you to push 1 button in every screen" I am raising my brows really.

If I wanted simplistic game for peasants, I would buy Call of Duty and play it with controller.

I am buying the 4x space strategy game for exactly the reason to stress my brain cells, if any.

So yeah, I need more than 1 button when I set up my flotilla, or land my troops, or manage my Empire.

Asuzu wrote:

All good critique.

I have to ask, is the modern population so freakin stupid they really cannot be allowed to push more than 1 button anymore? The horror.

And I was buying sequel to Endless Space, not Legend.

- So, where the hell is my dynamic tech web and why do I have these "eras" instead?

- All of my combat preparations are gone, I literally cannot decide anything except "hang back" / "stick closer" / "hug the face" and press the play button. 

- Build orders wreck politics apparently. Like, why??? So, if you build with any sense of logic starting from +Production buildings, apparently you are industrialist now. I will remember I am Ecologist next time I go to my refrigerator for some food

- Same brain-dead "cold war" AI hell-bent on invading your territory as soon as they meet you, leaving you literally no choice but to fight. Oh, and you are Militarist now by the way, coz you had to build ships to defend yourself.

- Ground invasion is literally clicking 1 button, the middle one works best it seems. I mean, Civilization at least gave me the courtesy to position my troops...

I don't really want to go on, but the sequel is a major disappointment.

One good thing it did is made me install ES1 again and play some.

Because there is no god.

• All joking aside, the top one I can only assume is because they received a bunch of positive press for the Era system in Endless Legend and (incorrectly) assumed it would be an improve to Endless Space as well.
• Combat prep being so simple is something that's being worked on, thankfully.
• Yes, ALL the political stuff isn't working great at the moment, and at the very least, they've acknowledged it. I'm curious to see how it'll be fixed later.
• Ground invasion is a total heartbreak to me. So much potential, so watered down...

uriak wrote:

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. 

That's true, but it doesn't change the fact that the combat in Endless Space 2 is still painful. I know we're not aiming for Age of Wonders level combat here, but the current system is pretty damn dreadful. I've literally been clicking "yeah, do whatever" on basically every single battle, as there's currently not enough options to warrant doing anything else.

AndreasK wrote:

I personally faceroll my way through life qr3ew4r36y5487r79i80yp and use my nose for precision moves.

This made me laugh way harder than it had any right to.

Long read, but this is an honest critique and addresses much of the shortcomings that I also experienced.

Agreeing with exhibit A,B,C and D. 

For exhibit E, I feel like there was too much focus on the combat system already, compared to the other game elements.

I understand the frustrations with the combat system, but for me it would have been fine if the real focus was indeed empire management.

Sadly there is not much to manage, apart from the race you pick, the game is set in stone.

Essential techs force unwanted politics. Since everybody has to pick those techs, every game ends up the same.

Well like you said basically, it plays itself.

After your analysis, I really feel like taking a sabbatical to ES1 myself, at least I can make some choices and specializations there ;)

So I hope the root of the problem will be acknowledged, mainly exhibit A,B,C and D.

RageMcGeezaks wrote:

Long read, but this is an honest critique and addresses much of the shortcomings that I also experienced.

Agreeing with exhibit A,B,C and D. 

For exhibit E, I feel like there was too much focus on the combat system already, compared to the other game elements.

I understand the frustrations with the combat system, but for me it would have been fine if the real focus was indeed empire management.

Sadly there is not much to manage, apart from the race you pick, the game is set in stone.

Essential techs force unwanted politics. Since everybody has to pick those techs, every game ends up the same.

Well like you said basically, it plays itself.

After your analysis, I really feel like taking a sabbatical to ES1 myself, at least I can make some choices and specializations there ;)

So I hope the root of the problem will be acknowledged, mainly exhibit A,B,C and D.

I placed combat on point E precisely because it's already a subject heavily discused in some very comprehensive threads on this forum and I wanted to ilustrate how the problem is systemic. I do think we should adress the combat system and improve it, but a higher priority should be given to what right now is a flaw that affects every system in the game due to a baffling disconect between adertised goals and actual implementation combined with an unhealthy dose of wrong game syndrome. And adressing this flaw could very well corect all problems in some manner and improve the general quality of the game. This write-up is actualy not anything new or unique, in many forms I have seen critiques brought upon all the points I made (especialy point E as of late), I was not the first to say any of this. But the reason I did it anyway was, as stated, to highlight how this is not a bunch of random small issues inherent in any EA title, but rather a malady that affects the very foundation of the game and that will not be fixed by adding yet more features and things on top of it.

And just to propose a theory to you: perhaps you feel the combat system is given too much attention in the game right now because there is not much else to pay attention to? That despite how barebones and basic it is, it's also the one system that ironicaly gives you the highest dosage of control and demands the most cognizant input, as oposed to everything else beeing an autopilot routine? It would also explain why the combat system has garnered this much attention ...

I think it would be really fantastic if these points were acknowledged and addressed by Amplitude. That said, here are my thoughts in short:

Exhibit A: It really does feel punishing for no apparent reason. It really does have mostly mandatory techs and maybe a few optional ones each Era. And it really doesn't make sense in the context of a space empire that I couldn't feasibly research a lower-tier technology really fast to get on par with my competitors. Have I not already lost enough of an advantage by choosing to forgo that tech for a while in the first place? Depending on the tech that could be a pretty severe price to pay for specializing in another area. But exponential tech costs really just add insult to injury.

Exhibit B: I agree, it would be nice to have more interesting choices for improvements to build or maybe even ways to heavily specialize systems (increase one output at the cost of all others, for instance). Here are some spontaneous ideas: What about an improvement that gave a huge science-boost but blocked any ship production within that system? You might regret that later on but then you could have ship-building specific systems. Maybe they have really poor science/dust outputs but they can create better ships? I'm not saying my ideas are great but they are at least a little more interesting than increasing FIDS for paying upkeep, and building every improvement in every system if you can afford it.

Exhibit C: I like the political system but I also think you are correct that it has many issues. Maybe some of these can be tweaked/balanced to make it better, maybe some of them are just fundamental to the design itself. I'm not gonna make that judgement but I am cautiously optimistic that the political system can in time be a strength of the game and not a weakness. You are spot on when it comes to certain parties always gaining a majority just because of the nature of the game while others are really hard to increase and maintain. Also a minor point on population and political leanings: I think population control would be really nice to have for that purpose. 

Exhibit D: I think Diplomacy is in a terrible place right now and I think that the forced truce mechanic is making matters worse currently. It might come into its place later, if the diplomacy is improved and peace actually becomes an option, if not a necessity in some cases, but currently it just serves as a slap on the wrists for trying to make use of your military (defensively or offensively).

Exhibit E: There is no need to be insulting. That said, I agree with the points made that the current space combat is not very meaningful, intuitive or understandable at all. A more complex system where I had more direct control of the pre-planning would be easier to understand and use than a vague system that makes decisions I can't predict or understand the efficiency of. There have been many great suggestions made on the forum already on how to improve the current space-combat (interact in pre-planning, watch optional cut-scene) and I think most of those would be a big improvement.

And on your last point, I also wish ES2 felt like more of a sequel to ES and not to EL which I have barely played.

Caelie wrote:

 

Exhibit E: There is no need to be insulting. 

I will fully take responsability for the abrasiveness of the rant I preceeded my combat system discusion. I was not meaning to insult, but rather corect falacious argumentation that has no basis in actual reality. It was also ment to make some people reconsider what I consider a too lenient attitude to curently existing problems and choosing not to analyse them deeper. I do apologise if anyone feels insulted by it, but I'm not taking those words back, they needed to be said in some form or another (and I may not be the most diplomatic person ... I prefer the blunt truth to sugarcoated words).

XDAvenger93 wrote:

Caelie wrote:

 

Exhibit E: There is no need to be insulting. 

I will fully take responsability for the abrasiveness of the rant I preceeded my combat system discusion. I was not meaning to insult, but rather corect falacious argumentation that has no basis in actual reality. It was also ment to make some people reconsider what I consider a too lenient attitude to curently existing problems and choosing not to analyse them deeper. I do apologise if anyone feels insulted by it, but I'm not taking those words back, they needed to be said in some form or another (and I may not be the most diplomatic person ... I prefer the blunt truth to sugarcoated words).

I am a fan of phrasing things constructively, but let's not make a big deal from this now.

It distracts from the very valid point that is being made here.

This thread is really addressing some core mechanics that need looking after :)

I read a quote once about how Amplitude design their games. It was along the lines of: they are not afraid of redoing things that don't work, sometimes several times, to get it right even if it takes them ages. I wonder if anyone can help me find it?

The EA is supposed to only last 6 months which will limit how much can be changed, but even so I hope they can recognise that some of these problems are too fundamental for a tweak or balance to fix.

MidnightSun wrote:

I read a quote once about how Amplitude design their games. It was along the lines of: they are not afraid of redoing things that don't work, sometimes several times, to get it right even if it takes them ages. I wonder if anyone can help me find it?

The EA is supposed to only last 6 months which will limit how much can be changed, but even so I hope they can recognise that some of these problems are too fundamental for a tweak or balance to fix.

At this point I would be more dispointed in them if they stick to the 6 month promise and we get an inferior game than if they decide to prolong the wait as much as needed to rework the flaws curently in the very foundation of their systems. I'm not young or hyperactive (anymore) I am well aquinted with the virtue of patience. And I would think 4X fans in general are as well.

Of course something important to consider is that amplitude has recently been bought by SEGA, a publisher with a ... grey reputation to say the least (though in all fairness they are improving lately ... barely, but still). The original pledge of redoing things until they are right is all fine and good when you are quintesentialy an indie dev funded by your fans, but ES 2 is only happening because SEGA fronted the cash. It may in fact be contractualy impossible for Amplitude to rework and delay the game. And I would be more understading of them telling us this fact than sticking to their guns with broken systems and not adressing them. As I said: more features on a flawed foundation will not fix things.

But let us not derail the topic with speculations. Amplitude are in my eyes still a competent team and I think those 6 months would be suficient for them to try and fix the problems curently in the game, but they must do 2 things: admit to those problems AND crucialy focus on fixing them instead of trying to rush new features.

P.s. :I dissagre with everything except your criticism of system colonization.

Willpurge4dust wrote:
Man, instead of thinking how to make a constructive comment about the subject of this thread i can only think how obnoxious and know it all you come off,
especially considering that you could have significantly shortened the wall of text if only you would have focused on presenting your criticism crearly instead on the rant itself. 

You know how you sound like, you sound like you think you know the game better than the developers, and, in my opinion, you do not want to sound like that to people who you are trying to supposedly help.

P.s. :I dissagre with everything except your criticism of system colonization.

1 paragraph of ranting and 1 paragraph of introduction. With the rest of the message beeing argumentation and examples from the game. Yes I did waste too much time with that. And it would be nice if you could actualy present arguments for your position instead of wasting 90% of your message with pointless chatter. As for how I sound like: I do not care how I sound like. I'd rather be blunt and honest than try to disguise criticism. Especialy since as I mentioned in the original message none of my points here are actualy new, they have been made over and over in separate threads, I simply combined everything in one post to ilustrate the underlying curent of the player beeing striped of agency in this game.

I can see what you are saying and most of it I guess I can sort of agree with. The main problem I see is one that is plenty common to most early alphas. People just expect too much too fast. We do not know how many other features the devs have on their hands. The ones we see are just the ones they most likely know would not crash the game or be super inconsistent because it might be enabling god mod for all we know. 

I do think it is nice to see people who are passionate about trying to make a game the best it can be, but one also have to appreciate that there is a framework which have most likely taken a long time to put in place, which cannot just be changed. We as "testers" should try to focus on what can be done inside that framework and come with suggestions based on that.  

That means that just because we do not like the combat system, one does not just say.. tear it all down and do something else entirely. That is not constructive, and it is most likely never going to happen because it would extend production time way too much. We have to accept the limitations and present some gameplay options we would like to see in such a system that would make it interesting. 

Now on to what I understand as your general criticism.  You think that several of the core systems in place are just too bland and boring and removes the significance of player input. 

I agree with you on some level. BUT if you look at it, most of the systems are just the barebones one you find in any turn based game. Yes they are not polished, and yes the AI could be playing instead of us at the current stage. But it shows basic systems that offer a lot of customization, and a lot of options for people to come with suggestions for. 

I will try to take them one at a time. 

Science:

There is not really anything wrong at the base level with an era based system. It has been done in other space empire games, and it worked. However the current idea that all basic gameplay mechanics should rely on a tech is bad, and it will most likely not survive to release.. but it is a quick and basic way to implement features to the game for people to test out. Also on the positive side it means that if you do not want to test out A you can simply not research it and it will never be an issue for your gameplay. 

Example: The other day I was testing out FIDS development in the mid game... no trade modifiers .. so I do not research trade and I know I never have to deal with that for the duration of my testing. 

The science system is so very crude atm. It is not good, and anyone who play the game will see that. It does not allow for interesting replayability, it does limit more than expand options. It is in short just a placeholder for features atm. BUT there are so much potential to be suggested if you sit down and think about it. 

Construction:

I agree mostly with what you say there, but again this is just a really basic build. In most turn based games all development does is put in flat or % modifiers to output. It is hard to make it much more interesting than that. However it still leaves open options to be suggested. Also I have already noticed that there is going to be an automated AI system that will develop systems for you.. it is just not implemented yet. But let us face it, just about all turn based games have this sort of feature, since ultimately mid and late game you are no longer interested in developing all entities yourself. 

That said there are still plenty of room to suggest unique projects that will perhaps be system, and empire limited, that have strategic consequence. At least it should be easy enough to implement in the game... and considering the lore it will most likely also be really fun for the community to come up with suggestions. 

Senate:

This is the feature that is going to be what set this game apart, it needs to be the one they get right or it will just be... meh. Currently it is very very crude, and I think most can understand just how crude... you do A... based on your population type, party A gets X amount of progress. It is clear that this system wont do, it needs to be more refined, but at the basic level it works and it showcase elections as something that might turn your grand strategy upside down. There most certainly need to be more government types, and a much more refined system in place of how parties get progress. But plenty of options to suggest in this regard. It is very open ended system that I am sure we will get more chance to offer input on. 

Diplomacy:

This is always hard to get right.... since it ultimately depends on how well they make the AI. The only reason I still play and enjoy gal civ 3 is because it has the one of the best AI in the genre, it can do things you just do not see in other games. And this also means the developers of that game have made the diplomacy accordingly. 

But yeah I am worried about this, but I am also a bit optimistic, since there are options to include senate modifiers, as well as special resource control into the mix. It is too early to tell in my opinion... since the system is basically just ... cold war or war atm. 

Combat:

Yeah it is already being debated in so many other threads, but again I am going to say.. give it a bit more time. Based on what we see here there are still plenty of suggestions possible to make it interesting. The system is not fundamentally flawed... unless you expect something else entirely, like a tactical simulator. 

There are still so many features we have not really played with.

Hope some of that made sense, and again I can see your frustration, but try to see the options the current system offers, instead of only the limitations. 

"Now on to what I understand as your general criticism.  You think that several of the core systems in place are just too bland and boring and removes the significance of player input. 

I agree with you on some level. BUT if you look at it, most of the systems are just the barebones one you find in any turn based game. Yes they are not polished, and yes the AI could be playing instead of us at the current stage. But it shows basic systems that offer a lot of customization...." 

This thread is partly born out of the idea that if we don't speak up about some core issues now, we will be stuck with them.

The way I see it, they are presenting us the crude format they will be optimizing. If there is no reply from the community this will be the game.

That's why I think it is important for people to speak their mind, while staying polite!

In this thread we just try to warn that some formats are flawed, or mildly put; not suited for space.

It would become incredibly hard if one would try to optimize them, if not impossible.

As you already say here, re-playability is an issue. This is a serious problem I'm having at the moment.

The game is beautiful, ship-designs, lore, quests and heck I even like the combat :p 

But I just can't imagine how the Era system in this format, will keep me occupied for more than a few games. 

Science: 

There is not really anything wrong at the base level with an era based system. It has been done in other space empire games, and it worked. However the current idea that all basic gameplay mechanics should rely on a tech is bad, and it will most likely not survive to release.. but it is a quick and basic way to implement features to the game for people to test out. Also on the positive side it means that if you do not want to test out A you can simply not research it and it will never be an issue for your gameplay. 

Example: The other day I was testing out FIDS development in the mid game... no trade modifiers .. so I do not research trade and I know I never have to deal with that for the duration of my testing. 

The science system is so very crude atm. It is not good, and anyone who play the game will see that. It does not allow for interesting replayability, it does limit more than expand options. It is in short just a placeholder for features atm. BUT there are so much potential to be suggested if you sit down and think about it. 

We really disagree here, the way I see it, the Era system is the reason why the game is not working as it should.

How can you specialize and satisfy your political niche if you can't even specialize your empire.

If this design is fixed, I think a lot of pieces will fall in its place and the game would have tremendous re-playability;

Can you imagine how different and ecologist Lumeris empire would look like, compared to a industrious Lumeris?

Or playing the Sophon science game, but putting a crazy amount of focus in economy, would that work? 

This is the type of re-playability and flexibility I was expecting from ES2, because these were aspects that made ESI a great game.

RageMcGeezaks wrote:

But I just can't imagine how the Era system in this format, will keep me occupied for more than a few games. 

Can you imagine how different and ecologist Lumeris empire would look like, compared to a industrious Lumeris?

Or playing the Sophon science game, but putting a crazy amount of focus in economy, would that work? 

This is the type of re-playability and flexibility I was expecting from ES2, because these were aspects that made ESI a great game.

In every playthrough of ES1, I took a different path through the tech tree. And I played that game for thousands of hours. Then I think about Endless Legend, which in contrast I have played for only some hundreds of hours.

In ES2, as it stands, I can imagine that there will be one or two optimal paths per species, and if you like playing on hardest like I do, any deviation will be too detrimental to win. The looming burden of escalating costs will stifle experimentation. And as we know, experimentation is the wellspring of replayability.