It's hard to make the distinction between what is the stuff that is not done yet, and the stuff that is not supposed to be added, to be honest.

For instance, the main thing for me would be to know what is the scale the devs consider as their target for empire gestion. Are individual systems stuff people should nurture and spend time on, or is the midgame target rather a dozen systems in scope, in which case, total FIDSI ouputs throughout the empire are the most relevenat metric ? Thought it sounds like a simple difference of numbers, it could mean a lot in terms of "grounding" the gameplay into the story. Are the kind of colonized planets just elements of total fidsi output, ou do they bear more significance on the society we are administering ?

It's the same with the combat. They certainly have decided what are the basics of their systems and the numerous addition possible for it. I dunno what are their conclusions about the criticism of the first ES formula, though... seems giving more orders with more effects is the current direction. 

As we discussed on my main forum, one element that creates the malaise is no fault of Amplitude themselves. By design, such a spatial 4X features only pockets of usable locations, and much "emptiness". Thus right from the start, you lose most of the complexity of exploration, "city planning" and tactical warfare of any land based games.  How can you make up for that is the open ended question. 

I ain't going to quite and address each point (Don't wish to clutter the page with two extremely long posts in a row), know that I agree with this assessment big time, especially the stuff towards the end regarding gameplay focus.

Someway agree. As I wrote in a previous thread, gameplay shold correspond to lore. This way Lumeris should be a ble to buy more things than build, while UE will be the opposite. And you should be able to win following differents paths for factions.

IMO there aslos should be some little punishement if you're playing with a faction aginst its "nature", as an example IMO the idea of Cravers depleting planets and forcing you to continuously conques and leave the depelted planets is a good one, but still ahven't tryied them and can't say if works as intended.

uriak wrote:

 

About the cravers, the issue isn't really about their current shortcomings, in part created by a still to be refined political and happiness system. They will be sorted out eventually. Rather than that, I hope that ultimately, the cravers will convey a different feeling : playing them shouldn't entail doing a sort of benevolent dictatorship with a military preference, but rather a giant system geared toward planetary invasion without concern about it's own population and assets (long terme develoement) . What I mean, is for at least some faction, the factors that would be a hindrance for most empires ought to be ignored in some ways. Stretching out their empire beyond reason as an ever advancing horde for instance, with a miserable population could have some appeal. Somehow, I'm a bit weirded out by the rather similar way they develop. Should each system be held for long and overcome the resource penalty ? Or could the player choose to suck dry some areas and don't bother holding them for long ? Think about the horde system in total war : these guys don't bother with their legacy, but rather fuel their ever advancing war machine. This is something I'd like to see possible in some ways.

Not Cravers fan. To be honest they are the faction I like the least, but understand why they're in this game and why some people love them.

Said taht, a +1 here. There's exactly that one would expect from them.

This should be also rethought to other factions. to say: Lumeris should be buying almost everything: more buying fleets and improvements than building them, buying techs through diplo, as they should be able to pay any needed dust, bribing minors (and not wasting time in other ways), hiring mercenary ships, and so on. Of course worried by happines, but fot them, again money should solve it.

think same for other factions, except Vodyani, who IMO now has a very different and special gamplay.

Also, the bigger the difference to other factions, the better. A science bonus to undiscovered techs for Sophons fits, but is not that game-changing, imho. On the other hand, UE in ES2 feels pretty good with spending influence on actually nearly anything. The emperor wants it, and he wants it now, so it gets done instantly. Feels good. On the other hand ES1's UE had also that nice feature where industry would go up the more taxes you collected. That made the UE differ very much from other factions and it felt very empire-ish.

Also, I wish there were far more faction-unique techs, even more than in ES1. I'd have no problem if all factions only shared 50-60% of all techs. The specific techs wouldn't need to differ that much, but would make one feel more like playing a certain faction than just a faction with a single special trait.

A faction that goes entirely without dust, like the Harmony of ES 1, would be another good example.

More faction traits like in ES1 would surely help, too.

mixerria wrote:
My thoughts on this subject: Having a more unique way to play this game for each faction seems like a real good idea. The Vodyani are a pretty good example, I think.

Also, the bigger the difference to other factions, the better. A science bonus to undiscovered techs for Sophons fits, but is not that game-changing, imho. On the other hand, UE in ES2 feels pretty good with spending influence on actually nearly anything. The emperor wants it, and he wants it now, so it gets done instantly. Feels good. On the other hand ES1's UE had also that nice feature where industry would go up the more taxes you collected. That made the UE differ very much from other factions and it felt very empire-ish.

Also, I wish there were far more faction-unique techs, even more than in ES1. I'd have no problem if all factions only shared 50-60% of all techs. The specific techs wouldn't need to differ that much, but would make one feel more like playing a certain faction than just a faction with a single special trait.

A faction that goes entirely without dust, like the Harmony of ES 1, would be another good example.

More faction traits like in ES1 would surely help, too.

Yes. All yes. I'm not crazy about Endless Legend, but they did a damn good job making the races feel unique in that. Hopefully "oddball" races like the Disharmony eventually make a show, because the truly unique races are usually the most interesting to use.

This thread is great for ideas on how to improve faction variability. Though we don't have access to all of the information yet (most pertinently full faction questlines, unique techs, battle changes, tech tree changes) that would be necessary to ensure unique gameplay, there's still a lot that can be done.

Perhaps by modifying the way that each faction approaches several core game mechanics we can hit the sweet spot of narrative and mechanical convergence.

Building on uriak's idea here:

uriak wrote:

... I hope that ultimately, the Cravers will convey a different feeling: playing them shouldn't entail doing a sort of benevolent dictatorship with a military preference, but rather a giant system geared toward planetary invasion without concern about it's own population and assets (long-term development) . What I mean, is for at least some factions, the factors that would be a hindrance for most empires ought to be ignored in some ways. Stretching out their empire beyond reason as an ever advancing horde for instance, with a miserable population could have some appeal. 

The variables that determine population Approval, as well as approval bonuses (or their opposite), can be different for each faction, thus rewarding and emphasizing more unique methods of gameplay.

Cravers, for example: The effects of overpopulation, overexpansion, planet type, events, and especially politics on approval should be muted. Instead, it is based on planetary depletion level, whether the empire is expanding fast enough, and bonuses for eating pop/conquering planets/being at war (though part of that can be solved politically). If the Craver's reason for existence is to fight, break opposition, and destroy worlds, then they should be happy when they are doing so, and conversely unhappy when they spend all of their time building up their systems but not fighting. This would represent something of an inversion of current mechanics, and would really influence Craver playstyle in a big and, I think, positive way.

Meanwhile, the Cravers (and every other faction in this scenario) would get unique bonuses for being at high approval. A Happy/Ecstatic Cravers empire could get a bonus to invasion strength, faster Craver immigration to newly-conquered worlds, and higher FIDS from Craver populations. 

I've got some ideas for the other factions, but probably shouldn't clutter up this post or this thread more than is necessary. 

Romeo wrote:

...the truly unique races are usually the most interesting to use.

+1 to that! I'd love for ES2 to have even greater faction variability than was in EL. Hopefully that'll be realized by the time the game is released.

I've been playing again a bit lately, but I don't feel compelled to return to the game, and I've thinking about what is missing that could give me such an incentive. Lately I've heard often a kind of complaint about the endless games as being "soulless" games. It sounds like a contrary opinion when Amplitude is mostly praised for their narrative driven design. This is my personal take into this apparent contradiction.

There is a definitively a chasm between the lore of the game and how it's apparent in the gameplay itself. The factions and universe have an interesting lore, completed by quests and other tidbits of infos, but the mechanics of the game itself don't lend them very well to add immersion. in my opinion. The Vodyani are perhaps the best example of what could be, whereas the other four have let me quite indifferent.

Fortunately, a big part of this malaise steams from what are teething issues in the EA process: things can could work fine with the required tinkering, and balancing, but the way I see it some other core design elements will be an obstacle no matter what without deep alterations. Let's review what I call the inadequacy between gameplay and lore:

Ideally, given the basic lore of a factions, the game would gently shape the player decisions into analyzing things and acting in a way fitting each factions (or perhaps in a variety of ways compatible with one) Think about the way it works in the recent Total War : Warhammer game : when playing the dwarfs or a chaotic horde faction, your basic strength, units, and campaign mechanics really do generate a specific, immersive experience : you may have to defend and tech up into remote mountains while turtling both in campaign and battle, or have to slip between the forces of developed nations, raiding and ambushing vulnerable targets, while you're slowly tainting and rotting the lands from the core when playing dwarfs or beastmen respectively. Those elements are not quest nor lore, they are game mechanics and decision offered to the player. This is what I feel is missing from the ES2 in it's current state, and may still be missing on release.

If we consider Sophons, UE, Lumeris and Cravers, their current traits are mainly bonus into varied aspect of their production and acquisition process: you get more science, dust, influence, or a bit and everything and military power. But while it encourages to focus on a given production, the current choices we are presented with as a player are still basically the same, both in terms of empire development and warfare. The only exception are the Vodyani, whose core Ark mechanic is so different that it deeply impacts the way you consider expansion, the suitable locations, and your attitude towards other factions (minors and majors)

Now as I said before, a big part of this steams from a lack of options or at least coherent options. Many techs still unlocks underwhelming system upgrades, such as the "get a +5 bonus unless you have a very specific planetary type" if you don't happen to have a swamp/forest/veld available, they don't offer much bang for you buck. Instead, the logical steps is mostly to get an larger/happier population, which is achieved in the same way for most of the factions. There have been many threads about the current tech pools (some by myself) and it's no use beating a dead horse. But still, a narrow path common to most factions doesn't lend itself for much immersive and "fun" gameplay. The two worst offending elements are, as far as I'm concerned the colonization/planet outputs and "basics" locked behind techs : you can't really skip many "core technologies" and while in theory you'd want to settle on very specific systems to get nice planets, we are in a kind of "beggars can't be choosers" situation in early game. If you happen to find planets that can be colonized by era I, there is no real reason to skip them. and... you can't do anything at all about all the other types 'till it's time.

If we simply take science, for instance, if you want more of it (and who doesn't) well, besides using the planetary exploitation and a couple basic improvements, that's it. I you happen to find nice cold planets, go for it too of course. (BTW, the whole science as planetary output, even if it's a mechanic existing since ES1 is weird when you think about it : cold planets are just sciencing things up ! anomalies I could understand, but well...)

In any case, in most of runs, I've hit a "production wall" whereas all the stuff that was relevant to a system was quickly done. Maybe because of some dust/influence buy up that sped things, up, but mostly because unless you start pumping ships there isn't much to do after the unique/wonder upgrades are done. Thus most systems ends up with similar makeup, with only planetary exploitation varying. And no, playing different races didn't alter profoundly my experience. A big part of your output is purely passive : (egg you native population does stuff ) It's entirely possible that by era III onwards it gets more varied and big decisions emerges, but I kinda like setting myself some direction in the early game too, before most systems are owned.

Now the core element that for me breaks the most the believability of the game is warfare. I doesn't need to be the core of the game of course, but whereas all factions have neatly distinctive spaceships, the way they are using them is essentially the same, in opposition of what exists in many scifi settings. This is partly an issue of EA current state, with each ship having similar stats and bonus, but even when this won't be the case anymore, I'm afraid, the core tenet of fighting in ES2 won't lend itself to something really fun and asymmetric. It's of course easier and kinda logical to have everyone use similar hull designs and weaponry and a convergence state of efficiency (think about modern weaponry ) but even if all factions have access to the same stuff, ought not to mean that they have to use them in the same way.

What are the two main warship designs? ships designed to kill other fleets, and ships design to support invasion. The former may be diverse, and you could in theory craft long range vessels, assault cruiser and support ships but realistically, one is going to a powerful fleet mix with a unique design objective: winning encounters that don't have real external parameters. Two fleet meet in neutral space ? One fleet ends up in a blockade? one fleet tries to raid a system ? This is currently treated in the same exact way. Now if you think about turn based 4X in a land settings, you'd have powerful defensive units, units designed to assault cities, other designed to thrive in forest/mountains, artillery, and other disruptive units. and when picking technologies and producing them you, the players, would clearly prepare for different scenarios of usage : deterrent, defensive, conquest, raiding... and... Different factions would clearly offer you incentive to adopt some of these strategies because of their different doctrines. We come full circle. In ES2, whatever faction you play, you'll end up using your army in the same way, with power tied to numbers and tech level.

In a ideal world, you'd have Cravers swarming blindly, ignoring losses that would be ultimately recycled to get their new lebensraum, fanatic/coerced UE masses fighting a war of attrition, reluctant Lumeris using guile and many many third party assets to prevail, Sophons gleefully sending/testing dangerous prototypes against their opposition (and not too keen to fight a losing battle)... but that would require currently non existing fight parameters. I may be proved wrong, but my theory is whatever you do about weapon/defense types and ship modular design, it won't settle to really distinctive playstyle if the fight context itself unique and neutral. Because even with different ship roles, the fleet usage on itself will stay the same. If we consider our real life navies, you'd hardly consider flattops, AA destroyers, attack/strategic submarines and cruise missile lobbers to be designed to perform the same strategic duties. This is possibly what is missing and could give use more flavor with different factions, because they would be more or less adepts at doing different things (and not let's say just having better beam/missiles/armor)

A very possible outcome could be of a balanced 4X game lending itself to interesting multiplayer for instance, but this is not the kind of experience everyone expect. Every part of the game is a kind of abstraction of course, but it can mean more... let's take the simple example of minor factions: technically you spend a cash load of influence to make them your buddies and part of the empire in one single turn. It is balanced maybe (after all you have to store that influence) but it hardly conveys the feeling behind said "influence".... this is what is meant when calling a game "soulless"

This may sound quite like a rant, because it ultimately is. There are many others elements that acts like little obstacles to a more immersive experience imho. such as anomalies/resources tied to planetary type (and that would drive decision making beyond just adapting fidsi output), a different way to cope with happiness/morale : influence is supposed to be part indoctrination in the UE case, but still you have to make them happy with the same levers as anyone else, and don't start me about the current state of Cravers... There is quite a lot of work behind making a usable and enjoyable game and I don't want to minimize this, but still this complaint has been coming back for the endless games so far, and I've tried to explain how there is some truth to it. The way it works, I feel adding quest and heroes content is a bit like the extra steps for the narration, but the gameplay itself and especially the decisions offered to the player are the core element that can make or break it.

What you're describing (player rankings, "ELO", and god forbid, the notion of pro gamer) are way out of scope here. We're designing and balancing (somewhat) around an immersive, compelling experience. League of Legends & CS:GO certainly aren't.

wilbefast wrote:

The comparison is not entirely fair given the TW:Warhammer has level-design and ES2 doesn't. You'd be surprised how much a hand-crafted start-location, with choke-points to defend or wide open expanses to escape across, contributes to the feel of a faction.

I believe they were more referring to the fact that every one of the core races in that game plays very distinct from one another. The undead are all about tanking in a spot and spreading corruption when invading (And also about fearing the Dwarves because you have zero ranged options). The Orks need to constantly spread out and fight - if you stop to rest, they'll destroy themselves. The Dwarves are kings of the slow, tanky advancement, and might need to fight someone they didn't want to in order to appease their grudges.  Chaos cannot ever build a city, they're forced to constantly "wing it", while being forced to fight to build their armies and tech. The Empire is boring.

In that manner, they're all extremely unique. While I positively adore the first Endless Space, many races could be played very similar; Trying that in TW:Warhammer is a one-way ticket to defeat.

We want ES2 to work as a competitive game, so it needs to be more or less fair. If we abandoned this rationale entirely there would be less need to balance the factions against each-other, so we'd be more free to push their asymmetry. Our player-base is not a monolith though: different people play for different reasons, and while we can't always please everyone we do need to make sure that nobody feels utterly abandoned by our design decisions.

Again, I suspect their point is that your singleplayer community will always want asymmetry, and your multiplayer community will want symmetry. They (And many more of us) are simply asking for singleplayer to be all it can be, as I'd bet the overwhelming majority of your playerbase never even touches a multiplayer match. Ashes of the Singularity had been pushing for months to show how good of a multiplayer game they are. As of December, 3% of the playerbase had even bothered to hit the multiplayer button (http://forums.ashesofthesingularity.com/480685). That's for an RTS, which typically has more of a multiplayer community than 4X.

Long lead-up, but my point would be not to let yourself become beholden to multiplayer considerations - they're typically a small fraction of your community. If the choice comes between something unique and balance, the majority of us will be fine with balance being a little off.

Frogsquadron wrote:

What you're describing (player rankings, "ELO", and god forbid, the notion of pro gamer) are way out of scope here. We're designing and balancing (somewhat) around an immersive, compelling experience. League of Legends & CS:GO certainly aren't.

Thank god for that. Helps keep out the insufferable "l33t gamers" that accompany such a thing.

Mathyas wrote:
I disagree that the game should be balanced for noobs.  Being a noob is temporary, and the game should be balanced for when everyone is playing it well.  ... ... ...

My opinion is that that's a dangerous path to take. For starters, it shouldn't even be mutually exclusive. There's a once-popular game that took this philosophy to heart called Starcraft 2 (lower your pitchforks!). It was as hardcore and competitive as you could get for a strategy game, with a massive skill ceiling and steep learning curve that most (casual) players never breached. I remembered that in its early days, when the playerbase was much bigger, there was a lot more complaints and grief over the prevalence of cheesy strategies (cannon-rushes, timing all-ins, stealth/air rushes, proxy barracks, 6-pool etc.). These strategies were for the most part easily shut down by experienced/elite players because they knew what to look for, had the correct build orders and had the reaction speeds (the almighty APM!) to counter. 

But for the vast majority of players, especially casuals and newcomers, it made the game grossly unenjoyable. Every time they lose in a humiliating way, they feel cheated and demoralized, and it usually remained that way over multiple loss streaks until they dedicated a bit of time to reading up on basic strategies and build orders. As the game was designed from the ground-up to cater to pro-gaming, these concerns were never sufficiently addressed, and it showed from the declines in player and viewer interest, and ultimately resulting in smaller prize pools, pro-teams disbanding and popular streamers/youtube personalities ending their involvement. In short, the game got less popular.

Now as is custom, I have to present my Starcraft achievements to have any credence (or risk getting a barrage of "git gud scrub") so I say this as someone who made it to low Platinum in 1v1 and Diamond in all team categories playing as 'Random'.

Elite players will always be a minority, and catering to them exclusively can have costs. I don't personally believe that balance has to suffer when the game is designed to be user-friendly to newbs as long as it's done smartly. As such, I wholeheartedly support the current approach. Endless Space 1 was already a not-too-accessible game given the amount of knowledge needed to get started (I remember seeing all those big text-boxes during the tutorial and thinking that it was like reading a book).