Hi all



Saw some trailers of Endless Legend, seemed an interesting game, after a little research found Endless Space and since this one came first from the same producer/lore setting (plus seemed an ok game too), went to try it, as I'm sure many people pick games this way, not just by "grabbing the last title".



Been playing Endless Space for a few days and would like to give my feedback to Amplitude, in hopes it helps to further improve their future games and/or patches.





This is strictly my viewpoint and please correct if anything is wrong, also sorry for my English!! xD

(delved into the game mostly this last week/weekend, intend to play more and update this post if necessary)





I could praise for everything the game does right, however that does little good IMHO, suffice to say it has merits or I would not give the time here to write.





Lack of a campaign with some storyline to it, coupled with the very (VERY!) faulty/bad AI, dealt a serious blow to my enjoyment of this game.

Theres also the added factor of no tutorial or "how-to", just a few tips that pop-up at each section. Most of the gameplay has to be learned through search&read internet texts/posts or watching lengthy videos :/





The Artificial Intelligence the game uses to play itself is pretty bad and seems incredibly stupid/illogical in some factors (like trade), but extremely good at sustaining military, for example.



The interface has issues too, sometimes queueing missionary ship or colonize in same system halts pop growth, sometimes it doesn't. I did 4 deals with a race to "steal" their techs, by cancelling each deal right after it was done (in same turn), still they would be at only -100 attitude (deal break) instead of -400 (not to mention stealing their techs should not be allowed).

Also, Sowers -50% on planet approval didn't change in the "Empire Factors" listing as I researched the techs required for each colonization type.

Those are the things I can rememeber right now.





Being a 4x game it appeals as a single player experience, these can't afford faulty AI. Surely there are people who go multiplayer, but I would assume it doesn't comes close to single players. Not that its the games fault, multiplayer focuses towards RTS action such as Starcraft or DotA/LoL, deep strategy games tend to bore in multiplayer due to the slow nature.

Theres always room for single player strategy and we need great games at it, but gotta do it right, bad/cheap AI compromises the whole experience.





Other than that I will comment about 2 other major flaws IMO:



- Even if there was a proper tutorial or guide, some specifics of the game are hard to understand, many players don't quite get how it works. The more complicated ones could have a small circle with an ? for a full explanation about how given mechanic works. Examples: Diplomatic Victory or the Pilgrims Factory Missions 'hide feature'.

To further complicate, some values are not updated real time?? Example: a skill that gives hero +20% bonus on trades, I go check trade values and its the same as before picking the skill, need to "advance a turn" and check again to see new/updated values, this makes it increasingly tiresome as the game requires lots of comparing values for decision making.



- The heroes. Its a facet of the game that could make it greater, but doesn't because of the way its implemented. Theres no reason to limiting the heroes so much. First, they are scarce, trying to find an specific hero (because a player likes his portrait, background story, abilities, or whatever) is nearly impossible, gotta make do with whats "thrown" at you. This is bad, heroes should be relatively easy to find and match to player tastes. Take for example "Heroes of Might and Magic" games series, heroes at random but in a pace/number that makes it possible to find & develop the ones you like. Second, the hero limit is unecessary, it should be possible to recruit as many as you can pay for, but at cost/upkeeps increasingly higher, and have techs to easy it up.





Well guess thats it for now, thanks to all who took the time!



I'll play ESpace a little more as the game has some charm, but I read on a few places that the AI also cheats(?) by having better taxes or extra resources to spend. If thats true, makes the AI problem even worse =X

Nonetheless, will sit back and try to get more info on Endless Legend before buying it, really dislike inconsistencies coupled with bad AI scripting/mechanic.



Wish all the best to Amplitude and its supporters, and may I come here to complain again and again! =] As that means I'll be playing and caring about the games \o/

M34, since you like heroes so much, I suggest you play Horatio. They get five heroes relatively early. Later on, they get three more heroes along with three more clones for a total of eleven heroes. Very powerful.



For the rest of the races, I think the hero limits are just fine. It forces you to make some tough decisions with hero assignments and deciding when to push for the techs that give you more heroes. In other words, there would be a lot less strategy if heroes were cheap and plentiful. Incidentally, if you make a custom race, you can spend points to ensure you get a certain type of hero. For example, most of my custom races spend 3 points to ensure I get a pilot.



Personally, I have little interest in a campaign game and never have for my 4X space games. But that's just my opinion; your opinion is a valid as mine.

Coyote, I've no particular like or dislike for the heroes, just pointing how hero system in this game is kinda bad... theres a huge difference between cheap and plentiful, being exactly right, and being few and scarce of choice, which happens in this case.



Campaigns are the way to go in introducing the game, its story/lore, the basic to advanced gameplay, and in special to keep players entertained/amused for a while.



To enjoy a game for what it is (in this case faulty AI and many inconsitencies IMO), I feel a mix of envy and pity. Its hard to keep people interested in a game nowadays, specially in my case I guess, been playing games for like 20 years, I expect a lot from games that come nowadays, gets me disappointed and bitter whenever theres a lot potential going down the drain due to a few misconception choices.

M34an1ngl3ss wrote:
Its hard to keep people interested in a game nowadays, specially in my case I guess, been playing games for like 20 years, I expect a lot from games that come nowadays, gets me disappointed and bitter whenever theres a lot potential going down the drain due to a few misconception choices.

Well. As another person who's been playing games for like 20 years (or, to be honest, as I've been playing computer games since I got an Apple ][+, more like 35 years?), allow me to turn the question back on you. Endless Space is an incredibly gorgeous game, runs well on multiple platforms, and is being maintained fairly well (something to which I can attest, as an important Mac bug was fixed just last week). It has a wonderfully well-thought-out backstory, and an array of alien factions with interesting and unique histories, philosophies, and gameplay features. And it has economic, military, political, and technological engines, and a galaxy map generator, that manage to provide enough complexity to make the game interesting, yet simple enough to maintain a high level of playability. All in all, from what I've seen so far, this is the first game to really be in a position to take the place of MOO/MOO 2 as the premier space 4X game. (And yes, I do still play MOO 2 from time to time.)



The complaints you've given seem to me to be not so much "this game has flaws", as "this isn't the game I wanted to play". For example, campaigns are not, in general, a feature of 4X games: MOO has no campaigns. Civilization has no campaigns.



You point to the system used by HoMM for heroes; of course, HoMM is built _around_ heroes (as you might expect just from the name). But HoMM is not a 4X game. ES includes heroes to a depth I haven't seen in any other space 4X game, perhaps more than is really healthy. I think the game would play just fine without them, myself...



Yes, I'd like the AI to be a tad more cunning. But so far, it's been adequate for my interests. (Oh, and the AI "cheats" by having more taxes and more resources? Allow me to let you in on a little secret: the AI cheats this way in EVERY 4X GAME. MOO's AI cheats that way. Civilization's AI -- the best I've ever seen in a 4X game -- cheats that way. It's the only way they manage to keep up with human players.)



Anyway, I'm just wondering if you're trying to shove a square peg into a round hole here. ES fits fairly neatly into the classic 4X game genre; you start with a single base on a randomized unexplored map, and strive to take control of the whole world (or in this case galaxy) from there. That's it. What else do you really need?

When providing opinion about something, I always try to refrain from my personal view and look at it in a more general sense. It is however impossible to please everyone, take Diablo 3 for example, is/was a bad game in general, but some people loved/love it.



That said I can't speculate for everyone as well, what I can is provide tips that, from my experience, helps bettering the game.

To be honest I'm not much of a 4x games player, which doesn't means this type of game can't change to please more people (seems the smart choice anyway, no reason not to). From the trailer, Endless Legend has a campaign I take it?



No need for an AI to cheat. AI on hardest should only do the best possible on each turn and thats it. If the player wins with little challenge, then the fault probably lies within a faulty system/mechanics (or bad scripts, AI that needs to cheat wasn't planned correctly..), there isn't merit in winning or losing versus opponents that use a different set of rules. Its like we're both playing different games, no point sharing the same field.



HoMM is a bit older then ES but the whole random hero find/hire/manage is handled better, mentioned as example to adapt around ES system, its wiser to benchmark than be original but lame. 3 heroes from a pool of no idea how many in total, having to stick with them unless research X/Y or pick Z race wait N turns (and neither option "fix" the issue only lessens it) is by no means entertaining or well thought.. hoping to pretty much speak for everyone and not as in "don't fit my tastes". Dunno how it was when the game first came, but surely there are/were better options to handle it.





Something that happened another day and is upsetting: A race declared war on me, we both have fleets in one of my colonies. Every turn I attack, they retreat (strangely with no damage taken) and they come back the next turn, I got to the point of sending another fleet to cover their back, still they just keep going back and forth, and I had to keep ships stationed there a while :/





Its amazing when a game has lots of complexity, but its bad to try and fall short into poor design, having half of it broken or unwise to choose. From mentions in initial post, the stealing techs blew my immersion/logic/challenge: Was bordering a race, at peace but no open borders, intended to wage war on them. Before going war, in the same turn, kept trading my luxuries + strategic resources in exchange for this race researched techs that I didn't possess.

Cancel the deal right after its done, get the techs permanently (blue in my three), and as deal is cancelled the resources never left me. Also, did this many times in same turn and still declared war and moved my fleet at them. They could as well have surrendered into peaceful submission after being so stupid/naive.



Has this exploit always been so??? Its as poor maintained as it gets. There are many different ways in which this abuse could be handled, my take: can't break a deal in same turn it was made, and breaking deals like this (in which case one side got the most out of it), the other side feels 'outraged' and asks for a compensation right away (after deal broke and in player turn if need be): a solar system, an expensive tech, xxxDust value or combinations of those based on the size of the 'outrage', refusal to pay leads into war with a bonus 'approval per x turns' to the wronged side, afterall they were provoked into war.



Anyway, these are all simple takes and suggestions, as previously my aim is just to have the game (edit: most likely Amplitude future games as ES seems done for) improved in a general sense (hopefully). But even when something has potential but ends up poorly done, there are those who will like it, as per the Diablo 3 example. Just can't let the easy to please crowd be vocal majority.

Hell I don't even like using the heroes.



But I if don't the AI kicks my ass, even when it does act derpy.

There's a faction even for those who don't like heroes: Harmony. (Requires Disharmony add-on.)

coyote303 wrote:
There's a faction even for those who don't like heroes: Harmony. (Requires Disharmony add-on.)

Ironically, im not the biggest fan of some of the additions in the expansion (And I seem to be chronically bad at the game, which is weird when im fairly legit at civ.)



But yeah, the Harmony are cool, as you don't need to pay for upkeep.