Not everyone will love it and thats just a fact. Different tastes afterall.. I still cant belive ppl like sportsgames for instance but that doesnt mean the ppl that does dont exist.

Lets trust the dev team i feel they know somthing about making the game

That they do.



But fact is, if I want to play Battle at Antares, I can do it still today.



So I guess this game shall bring something totally new to the fore, to make us geeks sufficiently happy.

Sharidann wrote:
That they do.



But fact is, if I want to play Battle at Antares, I can do it still today.



So I guess this game shall bring something totally new to the fore, to make us geeks sufficiently happy.

QFE! - I mean if its all old stuff we can just take the old games and play.

well the bigest problem is that reason the old games where so fun was that they where farly simpel byt yet very complex.

So the trick is to introduce more without complicating things too much
TNF-20141021-Final.zip

Exactly and to remember that sometimes, more can be less.

Sharidann wrote:
Exactly and to remember that sometimes, more can be less.

So right you are. Hence why there should be options to turn stuff off.

Or they can add somthing that is so cool we love it

znork wrote:
alder know that that, be also love wiskey;D

Which is why I said wine over whisky



And ofcourse you can learn from moo but that doesnt mean this is about remaking moo.

well you cant pleace the hard core moo players who still only play that game and have moded it will not go out att all becuse moo rules and they start fights withe galciv people on the corner. '



This have to be for people who just like playing games. fanboys can stay fanboys

znork wrote:
well you cant pleace the hard core moo players who still only play that game and have moded it will not go out att all becuse moo rules and they start fights withe galciv people on the corner. '



This have to be for people who just like playing games. fanboys can stay fanboys

Well thats also true, thats the problem with making new games in a already successful series which we have seen at several occasions.

its called endless space not moo4

+1 to focus on the sp experience before mp!

I believe the key to a good 4X game that appeals to the fast paced competitive multiplayer demographic is to first provide a learning curve that isn't analogous to cliff. (AKA EVE Online) but then at the pinnacle of skill can micromanage the heck out of everything to gain advantages over those who are not yet able to but can still play competitively.



Provide Micro for those who micro and provide macro for those who macro.



Suppose ideally you have a setup where you have 5 star systems.



And each star system has between 1 and 14 planets, and between 10 and 60 moons and between 1 and 3 stars.



If each world has its own economy and sovereignty can extend even to individual moons agreed this is going to be a lot to micromanage.



However if you abstract the economy so that you are managing the economy of the 'solar system' overall then we lose detail and immersion.



Maybe we should look at it like how Victoria manages its economy. They have a "lot" of provinces/states each with their own economy and peoples. But the economy often can look after itself.



However the skilled players knowing how the economy works can encourage or discourage it in ways to manipulate it so that the economy becomes better faster or is more focused on producing certain things or providing better stuff for armies etc.



Different government types followed different economic models, capitalist vs socialist etc which changed the amount of direct control you the player wielded over the economy.



Crusader King's had decentralized research, research originates from a province and then spreads.





So maybe instead of doing what previous 4X games did, which was that you either had full control or let the AI handle things in a subpar fashion, we have a more laissez faire model where each world has its own needs and production of a varied list of resources and will build stuff on their own and then you, the player helps direct it through tax policy, decisions, tarrifs, subsidies, warship orders, etc.



You could have "corporations" do the building, taxing them for income and subsidizing them when you want them to do stuff.



This way you avoid having too much micro but also avoid having too much bland macro. The system so long as it always trends towards equilibrium will be able to handle itself even if your busy managing fleets.



This way you have a system that works equally as well for both single player and multiplayer.

Salazar, I daresay in the event of not having played it already, you'd quite like Distant Worlds...given your preference for the 'laissez faire' model. Much of that game is working with AI 'corporations', so it has a great hands-off economy.

Ideally both MP & SP should give the experience of the game that it is intended by design. A player being able to play SP if they wants to play SP or MP if they want play MP should have no bearing on the quality of the game experience for what ever he chooses, I personally think. A good AI opponent is good thing for both SP & MP if there is to be multiple opponents. A good game is fun and enjoyable to play in either and indeed if its a good SP it should be good game to play MP with.

It would be nice as a player to ponder whether - today, do I play SP or MP? Well today I shall continue my SP game until my friends come online. Then I will play MP. Perhaps there is only 1 friend this day and a few AI opponents will be needed.

Agreed with SABA.



A good modern game should be equally enjoyable both in multiplayer and singleplayer (Civ4, SOTS, MOO2 - not modern though, but still great in MP) with no reductions/cut-offs of content for multiplayer (Civ5 as an example of cut diplomacy, animations and simplified AI).



And there is no excuse for the games to be oriented on casual players (be they single players or multi players), simplified to the point where all the strategy is to out-produce or out-research or out-grow the opponent.



What i read about Endless Space reminds me of MO1/2 - the games i love to play till this day. No way both these games had simplified economy and limited strategy. Both had numerous options for strategy and many things to base your decisions upon. Not just how many resources you gather and how many ships you`ve got.



There are lots of ways to reduce micromanagement if you need - turn off options (Civ4 religion, barbs, corporations etc), AI automation (Distant Worlds, Civ workers). No need to cut something from the game only because a part of its future users are hardcore multi-players.

i drink champange just to be clear

/#/endless-space/forum/28-game-design/thread/10980-discussion-what-am-i-searching-in-a-4x-game



/#/endless-space/forum/28-game-design/thread/10980-discussion-what-am-i-searching-in-a-4x-game



/#/endless-space/forum/28-game-design/thread/10980-discussion-what-am-i-searching-in-a-4x-game



Thats three posts from "What am I searching in a 4X game?" relevant to this. I made a suggestion based on using predefined buildorders to speed processes up regarding the micromanagement you are against.

Concerning the battlesystem then stacks are both a pro and con. I dont minding making attackgroups of units instead. Stacks if you will they are a combination of forces.

As for orders during combat. More of a both sides issues orders -> orders are executed -> next turn would speed things up. Its kind of a simultanous turn where you see the result at the end. We however still have not recieved very much information from the devs on the mechanics of space battles

I read those, but I think that the issue is misplaced in the thread, because it's the all-important and decisive one - the first one, if you want to.



I don't see the need for a single-player 4X space game. GalCiv II is still good enough. There is a campaign, there is a tech tree, there is ship design.



That leaves - indeed - a MULTIPLAYER 4X space game, that CAN be played single as well; however, the focus should be on AI for single play, to make it interesting, not on graphics, campaign and all the usual crap that enhances the game only the first time you play it.



"Micro-management" in MP play isn't bad because of itself, but because it costs playing time. The most important thing here is actually the interface. You can try everything provided you get the interface right. The less screens and windows you need, the better it is. HoMM 3 is a good example for a successful MP game, but in that game you do not have many towns and you do not have to do much on the (ONE) town screen - also your movable objects are fairly limited, however, combat may take time each turn. For Homm 3 I'd say that 100 turns per MP game is a lot. For a civ-like space game it wouldn't. There we may see something like 500 turns, and if this should work, you'll have to be able to get a turn in within a minute.

That's not possible, if you have to micro-manage 20 star systems.

Micro management is all well and good as a means for players to "make a difference", but on the other hand it hasn't much to do with intelligent gaming, but more with being used to game and interface as well as experience with the game. In short, it's also not good just because of itself.



If a game like this takes too long, it's better be done as an online game.



Have you played Spaceward Ho!? Anyone else, maybe?



I think that a more radical approach is needed. What I've read so far is too much in the let's play it safe area.

Well I happen to disagree with you.



- GalCivII doesn't appeal to me and I am - at core - more a single-player than a multiplayer, essentially due to time constraints. Hence, I quite see the need for a single-player 4X space game.

- Micro-Management is bad in itself because it makes you take care of decisions no real emperor should have to make. I know, I know, Adolf Hitler used to design the bunkers for the Atlantic Wall and spoke at length with Albert Speer about architectural plans for a new and improved Berlin, but I see him as an exception, good leaders have competent subordinates and know how to delegate. Of course, some people CAN'T delegate, hence it makes sense to leave the option of micro-management open.

- Yes I played Spaceward Ho! About 15-20 years ago, didn't leave a mark in my mind the way MOO and MOO2 did.

- From what I understand, the game is developed as a single-player game with multiplayer option behind, not the other way around.



Frankly, I have difficulties envisioning a strategy game being appealing in multiplayer which does not first seduce in single player mode. One exception I know of being R.U.S.E. where the multiplayer mode was bluffing and got wayyy better reviews than the single player one.



On another level, I totally respect that you look for other things in a game than I do. That is also what makes the richness and depth of a gamer's community - or of any community for that matter.

Sorry I will also have to disagree with you, I dont want to see this game smplified to the point of a bear and prezzle game like Spaceward Ho!

I played Spaceward Ho! long time ago never found it realy interesting always prefered MoO 2,



have you tried 10-min-space-strategy that seems like somethig you could enjoy

.

Yeah... I think Smight is right. And agree with Sharidann but no idea what rhymes with that. Harridan?



I now lean more towards SP with this type of title hoping a modern take on the simple depth and fun of MOO can one day be recaptured.

I don't think I look for other things than you do.



It's just that my understanding currently is, the game should cater to MULTIPLAY first and foremost (it's not what I say, it's what I READ about this game).



Going from that, I currently fear, that it is much easier to make a game that's too long-winded for MP-play and not, umm, RICH enough for Single, than to make a game that's crisp and fast-paced in MP and STILL rich enough in Single.



I cite Spaceward HO! because that game shows how far a game can be reduced and still be a winner, and I cite MOO (the original) as the reference game how much management there should be AT MOST in any MP game.



I also think that "building orders" are terrible - they help, but only when there is already too much management in the first place.



I'd like to add that the main prerequisite for a game appealing in SP is the quality of the AI (MOO had an exceptionally good one). I repeat, I still think MOO is the best PC game ever made, and I still think that their research model is still reigning uncontested.



So if it's about me, I'd say it should be about making Master of Beta Centauri with EVERY management question solved with a view on smooth MP play, which means the most important thing is probably the interface.



I also think that the economy may be too complex currently. I completely do not see the necessity for systemic "Building" (of facilities). What would that be good for? In the end, it comes down to

1) Population -> Taxes -> Money (Dust)

2) spending that money for

a) Research

b) Planetary (systemic) development (to increase population/money gain)

c) Planetary (systemic) development (to increase production capacity/resource gain

d) Ships/Defenses



I don't see any necessity to start building stuff like research facilities, starports, factories and whatnot - it's just about ALLOCATING MONEY AND RESOURCES, the rest is just, well, unnecessary.



That is, if you want to play this with other people.



Now, if you WANT to do that, CONFLICT is way more important than in your run-of-the-mill SP 4X game. You don't want to play three days ending the game with a Research or industrial victory, just because you were slightly luckier with random resources in your system and simply out-produced or -reasearched opponents.

No, armed conflicts should be more common, and consequently, the ECONOMIC/RESEARCH part must not be too overwhelming in comparison with the SHIP-BUILDING/FIGHTING part.

Looking at the known info, it seems that this has already been violated, since we don't know much about that part, even though, when it comes to MP play, it's at least as important.



That's what I'm struggling with.



EDIT:



Seeing the comments on Spaceward Ho!, people you are dead wrong about that game, because it is every which way as complex as every other game - it was made with Win 3 and complex LAN-systems in mind: MP play in that time wasn't possible via the internet, it needed a pretty compley set-up. It was just simplified, but it's still all about the right resource allocation, producing the right ships at the right time and making use of diplomacy as well. It was to be played in Windows, something quite new at the time, and since Win 3 wasn't a big deal, graphically, the game is certainly underwhelming in that sense. The game is pure slaughter and not made for sitting and pondering about whether to boost this or that.

Well jj when you are worng you kinde miss the target be the size of dreadnought. Singel player for this game with a good ai is the most important part for the player who play this games. TO be honest we are old we rember c64, we have jobs kids and a whole lot to do. So when we game its holy houer. We want to sitt down get a nice glace of wine shut the door and play somthing good. Having to chat withe people is not somthing you want to do its you and you pc or mac.



When plan civ or moo you play againsst youreslf, and there in layes the buty of singel player.



Multy player for this game will always be a nice addon. never the main thing

Amen to that, znork!



And not only for the glass of wine.

Hi there.



A couple of people know me, but not in connection with 4X space games. Still I play them - currently GalCiv II - and I still think that the first and original Master of Orion is the best PC game ever.



Anyway, I'm not going to make a big fuzz of it and say right on, that if it's true that the focus for this game should be on MULTI player - a good decision, because complex single player games are there already - then the game, as it is planned right now, is not streamlined enough.



If you ever played Spaceward Ho! - I hope you did - you know what I mean. (By the way, streamlined games have a lot going for single player games as well, since better AIs can be programmed).



To give an example: Building for each SYSTEM separately looks better than doing it per planet - but it's STILL like in Civilization, "Systems" being "Cities" and "Planets" being the tiles of the city, and while it seems ton be limited to 6 (tiles/planets), it STILL means you have to manage a couple of systems. probably a dozen more sooner than later, AND you have to manage ship design regularly, it seems, and more often than in SP games, because in an MP game confrontation should occur more often.



So this design contains too much micro-management to be an MP game.



At least that's my opinion.



Generally, this is a question of the interface (this hasn't been fully understood in M&MH6 either): If you manage to get ALL systems on ONE screen, so that a player can manage all pertinent decisions to all systems WORKING ON ONE SCREEN, it will be right. However, with the amount of Systems and management tasks for each system we are talking about, I don't think, that will be possible.



Which means, I tend to think that FOR A GAME THAT SHOULD BE PRIMARILY MP the management level is one too high.



In the end, isn't it all just a question of a) population, b) money (dust) and c) resources? I mean, no matter how many people there are in any given system, by pumping money into it you can produce as much as you like (robots). So population is in the end only deciding whether a System MAKES money or COSTS money, while the money you SPENT on a system decides a) how much you put into the general "development" of a planet in the areas : a) POPULATION GROWTH (terraforming, happiness and so on) which influences INCOME, b) MINING of RESSOURCES (necessary at least for production); c) PRODUCTION (of ships), "wasting" money and resources

Research is to be done empire-wide anyway.



So why make make it consequential WITHOUT ANY PLANETARY BUILDINGS?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Then second thing is about SHIPS and SHIP COMBAT.



Master of Orion used the same stack-based model than HoMM, and that worked pretty well, since it LIMITED combat. Considering that it's MP - wouldn't that be an option here?



SHIP DESIGN will have to be made very streamlined as well, I think.

To be honest I can see there a light at the end of the tunnel that could make happy everyone.

If this is to be a good single player game, AI have to be good. Making the AI hard only by giving it superb bonuses against human players is not the way to go.

Now, if the AI is good, it means it have to be good in building all of those "Micromanagement" buildings etc. That means the there can be an option for both Single and Multiplayer games when you start it to simply:

Forbid, Allow or Enforce the use of planetary/System AI in a game. If some wants to play and MP game with micromanagement let them play, if someone wants a quicker game enforce the AI.

While AI is used , the systems/planets could have just sliders on what to focus : Research/development etc. The AI would need to be doing this anyway in order for a computer players to be good.



So by making a good single player game, you can also make a better multi-player game.

tkozlow wrote:




So by making a good single player game, you can also make a better multi-player game.

QFE

and a lot other nonsen so this can be posted

To me MP play is totally secondary, frankly I prefer other genres to have my MP fix. Specially FPS and RTS games, 4X TBS games MP games to be long and demanding; I don't have neither the patience, the time not the will to organize my time for such an endeavour. Right now SC2 is my main MP game, it used to be W40K-SM and before that it was COH; will be getting BF3 soon though.

@JJ: Those three posts basically cuts down the time for the game to appeal to a MP-crowd without taking too much time. Premade order-sets are part of your strategy. To evolve that strategy you can do on your own. Simpler than that it wont become. Why issue commands when you just load a template.

It removes what you just say you want gone.



As for focus on MP over SP... they are two different things. Znork is right in his description how ppl casually play and the game has to appeal to those ppl too. The way to mix it is to be able to make the choices on how to play a game.

Focus on balancing MP over SP. That much I can accept since that makes the game playable in MP. Add effects for single play only. Dark Messiah was awesome in that respect.



When it comes to the economy I still beg to differ as we have as of yet not been presented with the gamedynamics to have a valid opinion on the matter. But please keep in mind that there is a huge difference between having an opinion and having an informed opinion.



If you consider MOO the best game ever made then why not just keep playing that. Just saying. We that are here are afterall trying to streamline play without taking away stuff that others might enjoy. If the final result will be a remake of MOO then please remind us that we were wrong when the game is out.

znork wrote:
i drink champange just to be clear

Wine over whisky!... You heathen...

Alderbranch wrote:


If you consider MOO the best game ever made then why not just keep playing that. Just saying. We that are here are afterall trying to streamline play without taking away stuff that others might enjoy. If the final result will be a remake of MOO then please remind us that we were wrong when the game is out.





Wine over whisky!... You heathen...

Two important things her wisky is ok but chanpange is for special ocations like game time



And moo is grate and i agree with jj that its one of the best game ever. So why not learn somting from it And make even bether game.

Alderbranch wrote:


Wine over whisky!... You heathen...

Technically speaking, champagne is also wine. :-)

alder know that that, be also love wiskey;D