Yes I have had the same issue with gameplay.  

Playing on hard as UE it was way to easy to become master of a section of the galaxy by turn 80.  Many factors need to be addressed and it is not the fault of the AI.  

First off economy.

To easy to have everything to quickly.  Map design and marketplace are hampering this.  Map design is my biggest concern.  To fair and balanced system layout.  Need to fight for resources at every turn.  This can only happen when the map is not so fair in its distribution of assets.  AI Strategy needs to be centred on taking and preventing players from getting high end resources.  The market place undermines this by allowing players to just buy resources.  Primary 4X playstyle ought to be conquest.  Players and AI must fight to survive, not just become passive and let the game play itself.  

Map design.

Not a fan of procedure map design, rather have hand crafted maps that play to game style strengths.  Worm hole hubs and unique planets in choke point systems.  The AI can then be programed to acquire and hold these systems.  King of the hill type systems, hold them for a time to get bonuses.  Movement penalties in certain map areas.  

Diplomacy.

AI Alliance and federations  need to be formed when a player becomes to strong in the game.  Temporary alliances to be formed based on specific tasks, other AI suppling fleets to block advancing player.  Targeting a players key system.  

Ship building

Shipyard production based on planet type.  To easy to get every ship class.  To generic in its approach.  I believe that multi player philosophy is preventing imaginative game play based on maps and techs not being equal to every player. Space is not fair or equitable. 

Technology.

Some techs need to be acquired through occupation.  In fact the tech tree would be better served as when you get something, like take a system, then the tech choices are given to players as options.  This would allow for different races to develop quite differently from one another and no two play throughs would be the same.  Tech based on environment and exploration, not a tree as such.

At the moment this game is playing the same after you survive the first 60 turns.

Hi,

Answering about the AI - we're currently developping it, and we're at the very early stage of diplomacy. The intention is definitely for the AIs to band against the player if he gets too strong, but ! Not at the cost of lore (well, this is something that we'll have to iterate on with the community to find the right balance).

Militarily, we're also striving to teach it to attack/defend key systems ; for now the economic value of the system and its connectivity ("is it a chokepoint?") are the main factors to measure that.

THe techtree has to be like es1. es2 will always be a bastard untill then.

tech tree is not like es1.  es2 will always be worse  than es1

Expanding on what Jhell said, most of what you're mentioning, both Mezmorki and cjfoster1960, is already on the roadmap for implementation or improvement, or simply the result of balancing (Influence, economy, etc.).

Diplomacy is indeed in its infancy, and while you're mentioning it being important that the system holds together when playing on Normal, until properly implemented, Normal AIs will pose little in the way of a threat (unless artificially propped up like they were in Endless Space), especially if you know how to play (and considering your activity around these parts, I'm willing to bet you've sunk a few hours into the game already).

Late game crises are part of the global storyline, which is coming for the release update.

Overall, and to make it short: the mid to late game feels lackluster because what the game will be building towards in late game isn't in yet, and because the AI can't make up for the lack of a challenge in its current state. But it'll come.

ES2 Update 1: Overall Concerns & Feedback

I realize that many of the gameplay systems are only partially in-place (e.g. migration, minor races), and that others are due for major reworks (e.g. tech tree, combat systems).  There are of course still major balance issues to work out - but I don’t think it’s too early to start talking about the overall arc and pacing of the game.  Afterall, how the overall experience hangs together is going to make or break a game’s success.

So I’ll be blunt: I’m worried about how ES2 is coming together.  On paper, ES2 has a great assemblage of mechanics.  But how these make for an interesting strategy game - I’m not so sure.

In my current game:

• I’m playing the United Empire:
• It is turn 145
• Medium galaxy
• 5 AI empires
• Normal difficulty.  NOTE: I’ve played on hard in other times, but I think it’s important to test “normal” since that’s what most players will use.  Hence pacing “normal” well is important.
• I control 12 star systems (7 over the soft cap of 5).
• My dust income is about +4,000 per turn
• My influence income is +1,800 per turn.
• I’m first place by more than double the score of the next highest empire (Cravers).
• Empire happiness fluctuates between ecstatic + content depending election results and what policies are in effect.  Strangely my two leading parties are militarists and pacifists, and either allows me to get a huge approval boost depending on which laws I enact and whether I am at war or not.

So here’s the problem - after about turn 60 or 70 the game basically started playing itself.  I was in a strong enough position that nothing threatened me and I was able to take over and hold a large part of the galaxy with ease.  The Vodyani kept trying to leech my people, so I wiped them out in about 10 turns after rush building a fleet practically from scratch since my economy was so strong.  In total I had about 4 fleets with 13 fleet cap maxed out and just steam rolled them.  The Yodyani are easy pickings too because you can just quickly settle the vacated systems with your own species/settlers.

Since then, the last 60 turns or so, I’ve had zero threats or pressures of any kind come my way.  Understandable, I suppose, since any AI would be suicidal for attacking me at this point.  BUT …. Why then aren’t other AI’s joining up or something to put pressure on me?  I haven’t had a quest event in about 50 or 60 turns which might give me something to do.  I just keep rampaging through the tech tree (halfway through Era 4) and insta-building whatever new improvements I get on all of my colonies since I have 30,000 dust and 20,000 influence in the bank with nothing to spend it on otherwise.  I have about 7 leaders, all level 8+ at this point.

I’m not really sure where to start on addressing these issues. Here’s some hypotheticals…

• It could be that your economy snowballs way too quickly, resulting being flush with resources and never worrying about upkeep costs and balancing the books.  If this is the case, why is the AI not doing the same? If you just build everything, everywhere, you’ll be swimming in resources before you know it.
• The diplomatic / military AI is too passive and not really interested in giving the player a hard time.  Maybe?  Or did the AI decide I was to powerful to bother attacking?  If they AI have all gone home - why then doesn’t the game just end?  Maybe the AI should concede defeat immediately at that point?
• The technologies in the tech tree don’t make for a particularly varied gameplay experience.  You’re going to follow 85% the same tech path in every game, regardless of empire, due to the nature of required technologies.  The other 15% are off picks that are not game defining in any interesting way.
• Internal politics don’t seem to apply any interesting pressures or dilemmas on the player.  So in the absence of any foreign threats, I just sit there totally unhindered in my actions.

The above issues go beyond the specific implementation of many of the games mechanics (many of which are slated to be reworked as it is).  Rather, they are about the overall challenges and obstacles that are placed before the player.  Once you get through the opening phase of the game and get into a strong position - there are essentially zero challenges left to the player.  Which is a big problem.

In prior games, playing on hard difficulty with the 100 turn limit felt a little more challenging, since the AI’s score tended to be closer to mine as the quicker end-game trigger approached.  But obviously that style of play isn’t going to appeal to most players.  Players don’t want the game to end in Era 2 technology at 100 turns.  The want to go 300+ turns and get to mess around in the late-game technologies.  But if there is nothing to keep the player engaged, there’s going to 200 turns of tedium to get there.

I know may come across a bit harsh.  There are a lot of interesting discussions in other threads with ideas for improving the mechanics, player feedback, and player control in the game.  BUT … attention also has to be paid to other side of the equation, which are the challenges and obstacles outside of the players control that they have to deal with.  If those are underwhelming or absent - the best mechanics in the world are going to feel devoid of merit.

Sadly I didn't play it with the DLC. The system sounds interesting indeed, but we are trying to avoid having a game system specifically designed for the AI - the player should be able to use it also with other humans.

What I can tell you is that each AI will have a behaviour towards you as a player ; this behaviour will depend on the AI's personality and of course your past actions against/with it. It's more precise and allows more control than a numerical value, but takes more time to implement as it is heavily content focused.

@mezmorki we are working hard on trying to get the feedback system for the AI for the next update, so that you can start getting a feel on what the AI remembers and how it reacts to it.

jhell wrote:

Sadly I didn't play it with the DLC. The system sounds interesting indeed, but we are trying to avoid having a game system specifically designed for the AI - the player should be able to use it also with other humans.

Really, give it a shot, pleeeease. :D Someone at Amplitude must have it, I guess. xD Diplomacy in BE without the DLC was really horrible in comparison to Civ5, imo.

Anyway, it's true the BE DLC diplomacy system works rather with AI than with players, so I understand your struggle to provide a system which is good for AI and players. 

What I can tell you is that each AI will have a behaviour towards you as a player ; this behaviour will depend on the AI's personality and of course your past actions against/with it. It's more precise and allows more control than a numerical value, but takes more time to implement as it is heavily content focused.

When you say behaviour towards a player, does this mean that an AI will react to you as a player differently than to an AI when the same things would happen? Anyway, a complex behavioural system seems nice, if  it is made clear to what action has caused which behaviour.

@Kweel_Nakashyn: Yeah, that's basically how it works.

Anyway, there are some nice ideas there. I especially like the diplomatic traffic lights, although I don't think they need to be implemented in any screen.

Kweel_Nakashyn wrote:

Well, the problem is you make modifications in a lot of screens :/

Just under the "end of turn" button could be a good place for this stuff.

Oh, by the way, there's allready icons for opponent empires there ! This should be the place ! :)

True, but only some actions do truly have a big impact on diplomatics imo: e.g. outcome of a senate vote, changing government type, diplomatic actions, war declarations and system ownership change (through colonization or conquest).

Things like building ships and system upgrades are too minor to have an impact and are usually represented by something of the above, anyway.

One of the issues that I have with most diplomatic systems is they depend on some assumption of "like-ability" to determine how much you get. Realistically though, global politics don't work that way. You make deals based on your state's need.

I'm always annoyed by the "hey I like you, so I'm going to give you that tech really cheap!" Negotiations are negotiations, diplomats always try to get the most they can for their state....that's the job. Now, if you can get the same thing from two people, picking the one you like more certainly makes sense. But if you need the goods, and your enemy has got it....you'll deal if you can get a reasonable offer.

it depends you wouldn't want to make an enemy stronger through trade either ...