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