Simple can be fine; there's nothing inherently wrong with it.



I recall several years ago watching a video about Halo: Combat Evolved. The video was about the developers talking about the game, what they liked, didn't like, and a few philosophical opinions here and there. One of the developers had a very insightful comment. He said that first person shooters are really just 30 seconds long repeated over and over again: You find a group of unsuspecting victims, lob in a grenade, open fire guns blazing, and clean up the stragglers as they run away in terror. Despite all the fancy graphics, super features, fancy guns and abilities, if that 30 seconds isn't done well, you won't have a good game.



I've noticed in my years playing several games, that concept holds true. Every genre seems to have a defining core that makes that genre great. If that aspect of a game isn't done well, the game will suck, despite what kind of glitter and sparkles it has.



Endless Space is on to a great start. It can only get better from here.

PolytheistGoat wrote:
If you want a huge variety of combat, please go pick up a copy of Sins, or Sword of the Stars (One, I hear two is... Less than good), or Gratuitous Space Battles. Some of us have been waiting ages for a game that looks as if it'll focus more on strategy and exploration than combat

Now now now... lets refrain from sending each other to ~other places~.

There is already an auto upgrade button in ship designer and an auto battle when battles occur. Feel free to use them if you dont want emphasis on combat, but jut because you dont, please dont look down on how other people want to have their fun.

... Combat is present in every. Game. Around. Now.



If you want a huge variety of combat, please go pick up a copy of Sins, or Sword of the Stars (One, I hear two is... Less than good), or Gratuitous Space Battles. Some of us have been waiting ages for a game that looks as if it'll focus more on strategy and exploration than combat - which, in my personal opinion, is the same in every game ever created; whomever gets there with the fastest and the mostest wins. You can dress it up all you want, but if I'm playing a game, I'd rather have new things to think about and act on every turn... Not spend an increasing amount of time and processing power dealing with something that - regardless of weapon type, manner of engagement, etc - basically boils down to whose rock is bigger. I realize a lot of people feel differently, and that's cool - but there are plenty of games out there that I think fill the niche you're looking for; I cannot think of a game that has felt as promisingly 4-X'y for some time. The last one I played that truly had that feel was MOO3 and it had... Er, problems.

it is an old school jewel at the state of the art right now. it can expand but even right now is just.. perfect.

make sure you save a copy of the "original" should you implement more ideas.

DuddBudda wrote:
1) how do differently named weapons of the same function deepen a game?

Let me answer with a question: Why would we need 3 different type of weapons in ES when we could have one that fills the function (of destruction) just fine?

My answer to you is choice.

When you see a room full of weapons you know that all serve the same purpose and result, but the means... oh the means are something entirely different.

You get guns from chain to manual load revolvers, throwing weapons, explosives, rocket launchers, poisons, traps, swords, blunt, sharp.... anything you have ever seen and more.

Do you wish to tell me that this is actually worse than breaking down a branch from the next tree and using it as a weapon?



There are several fun factors you can play along when you get enough possibilities and choices:

1. Visuals and power: Show me the biggest and flashiest gun of em all.

2. Flow: What is the ultimate combination of weapons that tops everything inside that room?

3. Self-knowledge: What do i think that suits me the most, and what in reality does actually suit my play style?

4. Diversity: Each weapon differs a bit from the other. Why and how, and how can i utilize that?

5. Re-playability: would i do better with a different weapon?

6. Extended game mechanics: every type of weapon creates its own rule and with that its own exploitation, just like right now in ES: long range, medium range and melee with rockets winning at range, lazers at medium and kinetic at meele.

Its what you make of it.



This is all i can think of at the moment, but either it satisfies you that you can choose, or it doesnt. I imagine there are people who would take a branch from the next tree instead of breaking their heads over means to destroy and dominate.

The conclusion is always the same: Why do people play different games when you could have a single game for the entire population?

Cause we differ, and so does our taste in everything.



Adding more choices means only that more people will find what they were hoping for. Nothing keeps you from going through the entire game with 1 type of weapon either.

DuddBudda wrote:
2) I wouldn't judge as 'great' any space-faring 4x that has shipped since Twilight of the Arnor - imo SOTSII had the design ambition to be a great game, and I have my fingers crossed that expansions will make it so, but without it... neptune's pride is the highlight, but more for facillitating vicious diplomacy than any mechanical brilliance

Well... TotA was released in 98. MoO2 was released in 96 so.... both of our statements can be true at the same time, but even if you are choosy about it, it still (once again) tumbles down to taste and choice.

I do not have time to answer fully right now, but I will make two points



1) how do differently named weapons of the same function deepen a game?



2) I wouldn't judge as 'great' any space-faring 4x that has shipped since Twilight of the Arnor - imo SOTSII had the design ambition to be a great game, and I have my fingers crossed that expansions will make it so, but without it... neptune's pride is the highlight, but more for facillitating vicious diplomacy than any mechanical brilliance

DuddBudda wrote:
I share your tastes, and love most of the games you cite in your blog post - I see ES's minimalist design as complementary to the industry-standard 'tweak all the things' approach to 4x



apologies if I have offended you by singling you out as a sparring partner, largely I was motivated by wanting to answer your second post in this thread, happily you are outspoken in representing the complexity camp and since I do not have the time to answer every poster I may as well go for the cheerleader

That logic is acceptable.

DuddBudda wrote:
to refer back to post #30 (and answer some of post#29), the designer is not about personalising a unique fleet, it's a pure and functional model of any arms-race wherein each side works to find the edge on their opponents technology time and again



so while you accuse me of not wanting to understand you, I will accuse you of not understanding the game

Well, on this note you are wrong.

You can find your minimalist design inside all and every game if you look hard enough.

In MoO2 almost every weapon is a different category. They have different animations, different traits, different colors, names.... and so you would go on, but you forget that behind this, they all use the same system to measure damage. A simple laser does 5 points of damage. A stellar converter does 400. They are extremely different, both in explanation, research amount, damage and animation, but they both use the same system to describe the amount of damage they do.



That being said. This is a fine example on how minimalist design and diversity can ride one and the same car, so its not a necessity to have the entire game dumbed down to 10 items/ship, and to be absolutely honest, i still cant understand the essence of your argument.

You like simplicity... fine, but i find this somehow completely misplaced in ES. Simplicity is minesweeper or solitare. Seeking that sort of thing in a 4x TBS game seems for me to be weird at best.

DuddBudda wrote:
on your blog I said ES should not be a clone - clone was the wrong word, I apologise

what I intended by 'clone' was that ES ought not force itself into the same tweaker's market as every other 4x game and that it satisfies different urges



I can see why you would call ES a clone of, since it is a distillation of 4x tropes through the ages

the product of that distillation appears to your eyes merely water, but on my tongue it's vodka

Thing is that if the market happened to be full with games like MoO2, then 80% of the people who preordered the game, wouldnt be here today.

The reality is quite the opposite. Albeit the recipe for a good game is there for everyone to see, few know how to use it in the right way.

ES even in its alpha state, has the potential to flash the fangs and claws of the genre once again, cause even tho the market has a lot of 4x games to offer, none can cut the level of a 16 year old DOS based 4x game like moo2 or for the same matter imperium galactica and ascendancy.



To put it bluntly, not even i would be here playing as "cheerleader" if i could pick a good 4x game on every corner.

combat still needs to require actual player involvement :/ but overall a solid game

the diplomacy could use more depth like civilization (if you can think of one better you welcome to say so) talking other races into going to war with each other and creating peace and alliances between two races and cause diplomatic incidents between two races who are your enemy and cause them to fight each other

Let me rephrase then - I don't look down, I just feel (like everyone here, I suppose) a rare gem, and as such am terrified of the thought if it becoming - to my eyes, and my eyesight is notoriously poor - another click-based game that involves a lot of time spent 'optimizing' and little time spent 'playing'. I love strategy in combat, and I understand very much how it can enhance a game; perhaps it would be better to say that I just don't want it to expand to the point where it is an unavoidable part of gameplay; where it becomes something so monolithic, that the player is forced to spend large chunks of time optimizing, or suffer for it. Better?

Need more, but somehow keep it simple and interesting.

First off, what you're doing right.



I really really really love the part where the battle is divided into time frames. It gives a little more strategy than just attacking. That's the kind of thinking that gives this game an edge.



Second, what is shallow.



The battlefield terrain. (Granted it's space.) Why aren't there star systems that have nearby anomalies that hamper the effectiveness of shielding or energy weapons. Or star systems with such high gravity that kinetic weapons lose a bit of accuracy or hulls lose integrity a little faster.



If battles took place in an asteroid field, I would imagine the smaller faster ships would be okay but large slow cruisers would be practically useless. Suddenly your tactics are all different. Long range bombardment is impossible because of the cover. Melee is now king.



*EDIT* Changing these things would also give me a reason to actually plan out ship design rather than click auto upgrade every time.



-----



The game is gold.

Aerensiniac wrote:
So... you seem to have a taken a nab on me Budda, and im 95% sure that this is cause im threatening your own personal ideas and wishes about how the game should be looking like.

There is nothing much i can do about that. You have your own taste. I have mine.



As for the rest:

What i said was self explanatory. If you call it straw-manning it means only that you do not want to understand it.

If you want to have a detailed about the "finer grain" of ship design, feel free to refer to the link in my signature. Albeit, you already have seen it.

I share your tastes, and love most of the games you cite in your blog post - I see ES's minimalist design as complementary to the industry-standard 'tweak all the things' approach to 4x



apologies if I have offended you by singling you out as a sparring partner, largely I was motivated by wanting to answer your second post in this thread, happily you are outspoken in representing the complexity camp and since I do not have the time to answer every poster I may as well go for the cheerleader



to refer back to post #30 (and answer some of post#29), the designer is not about personalising a unique fleet, it's a pure and functional model of any arms-race wherein each side works to find the edge on their opponents technology time and again





so while you accuse me of not wanting to understand you, I will accuse you of not understanding the game





on your blog I said ES should not be a clone - clone was the wrong word, I apologise

what I intended by 'clone' was that ES ought not force itself into the same tweaker's market as every other 4x game and that it satisfies different urges



I can see why you would call ES a clone of, since it is a distillation of 4x tropes through the ages

the product of that distillation appears to your eyes merely water, but on my tongue it's vodka

if you keep in mind that the game still has a way to go before release, and that the development team seems interested in taking feedback and working to make it better, i think it'll be just fine.

DuddBudda wrote:
ship design is al dente strategy, as is the research process that takes you there



apart from saying 'I want more things because a lack of things is bad' you haven't once explained how finer grain ship design, or any other area, will develop a more strategic game than we have now



which is why the current form is a success - it takes the core engagements of features like weapon choices (ie escalating RPS standoffs) or 'city'-building (industrial/etc arms race) and emphasises the key considerations of their application, not the min-maxing of a thousand atomised variables

So... you seem to have a taken a nab on me Budda, and im 95% sure that this is cause im threatening your own personal ideas and wishes about how the game should be looking like.

There is nothing much i can do about that. You have your own taste. I have mine.



As for the rest:

What i said was self explanatory. If you call it straw-manning it means only that you do not want to understand it.

If you want to have a detailed about the "finer grain" of ship design, feel free to refer to the link in my signature. Albeit, you already have seen it.

Aerensiniac wrote:
straw manalogy and demands for moar jazz

ship design is al dente strategy, as is the research process that takes you there



apart from saying 'I want more things because a lack of things is bad' you haven't once explained how finer grain ship design, or any other area, will develop a more strategic game than we have now



which is why the current form is a success - it takes the core engagements of features like weapon choices (ie escalating RPS standoffs) or 'city'-building (industrial/etc arms race) and emphasises the key considerations of their application, not the min-maxing of a thousand atomised variables

Meru wrote:
how is the ship design/combat "truly strategic" O_o? and most seem to want a revamp, only 12 for "the system is ok" and while those 12 are entitled to their opinion, its ok to be wrong.

strategy is about making decisions - there is decision making inherent in Endless Space's every mechanic



3MA often discuss the vital strategic value of clear-cut decision making and deride the farting around with granular mediocrity that most strategy forumeers mistake for 'strategy'



I won't put words into their mouths and I don't want their much more complete understanding of strategy gaming to be mistaken for my amateurism, but I advise you listen to their podcast - particularly any wherein they discuss Civ Rev, because CivFanatics disdain it, but 3MA regard it as brilliant design

one word:



Mods

Slar wrote:
I agree with most, the game has a nice core. but needs to grow.

indeed it does

I need smarter AI. I'd like to see the AI at least match Master of Orion 2.

It'd be nice to be able to do more than just blockade an enemy system. Orbital bombardment similar to MOO would be nice and simple. Same with ground warfare.