Nosferatiel wrote:
We cannot accept lists in the proposals section

I still think that's a mistake, since it spreads out player advice (and makes it difficult to sift through). If I may ask, is there any chance you could talk to some of the developers and change their minds about that policy? I'd rather not get banned for spamming the suggestion forum lol.



@LadyAthena

You bring up some good points. I have a similar thread which attempts to fix many of the same problems, but in different ways. You're more than welcome to read through it (it is much longer than your post) and discuss which approaches are superior (in either thread).

Ganpot wrote:
oO How did I not see that....

vyolin wrote:
Trees and forests and such

And exactly that is the reason why I don't want lists anywhere else.

Trees and forests and such

vyolin wrote:
There is already one out there and stickied.

oO How did I not see that....

There is already one out there and stickied.



Edit: /#/endless-space/forum/28-game-design/thread/13096-updated-summary-of-suggestions-ideas

Nosferatiel wrote:
Well, but keep in mind that most posts in the proposal sections basically are "+1"-kind of posts or elaborations of ideas. The idea for the proposals section as it is now is to have only one thread for a suggestion, but in that one thread a lively discussion about variants and applicability, so the devs have a full pool of possibilities to explore on the one hand and also some hint at how well received that proposal would be on the other.

We are essentially approaching the system from two different perspectives. I prefer to identify problems, then look for solutions. My approach is (IMO) better suited to a list approach. You prefer to hear suggestions, and use those suggestions to fix existing issues. That probably is better suited to a multiple-thread arrangement. I guess what I'm really asking for is a complete listing of all the developer recognized shortcomings/issues in the game at the present, so that users can brainstorm in a more organized manner.

Well, but keep in mind that most posts in the proposal sections basically are "+1"-kind of posts or elaborations of ideas. The idea for the proposals section as it is now is to have only one thread for a suggestion, but in that one thread a lively discussion about variants and applicability, so the devs have a full pool of possibilities to explore on the one hand and also some hint at how well received that proposal would be on the other.



To that question: Generally only proposals in the proposal section do count. I'm just aware of the names in e.g. this trailer: http://endless-space.amplitude-studios.com/Media/%28video%29/17730

Nosferatiel wrote:
You can try and appeal to e.g. skamaks in a pm, but I'm fully for banning lists from the official proposals.

You can have a look at the blog entries by me to get an idea how much work it was to bring any semblance of order to the design and proposals section.

Okay, I'll go bother skamaks then . I read through your blogs, and since I've been a forum moderator before, I feel your pain. But it sounds like the vast majority of your problems with lists are actually problems with repeat threads. I wasn't aware that the original suggester needed to be named in the credits (most of the time, a developer will just "borrow" the idea, and the thanks is implied). What happens if the first poster of an idea in the proposals section got that idea from someone in a different section of the forums? What if different people come up with different solutions, and the developers implement parts of both?



There actually is a compromise which I think might work: have developer-controlled threads about each area of the game in the proposal section. Within theses threads, users could submit ideas or fixes in a list format, and the developer in charge of that thread would compile all the ideas and eliminate impossible or already rejected ones. Then users could discuss and vote on the remaining ideas/fixes. That way, the forums have the best of both worlds: you guys don't have to keep cleaning up lists all over the proposals section, and users are free to suggest fixes to smaller issues which don't merit their own thread.

Ganpot wrote:
I still think that's a mistake, since it spreads out player advice (and makes it difficult to sift through). If I may ask, is there any chance you could talk to some of the developers and change their minds about that policy? I'd rather not get banned for spamming the suggestion forum lol.

You can try and appeal to e.g. skamaks in a pm, but I'm fully for banning lists from the official proposals.

We had lists at first and it didn't work out, since it actually seemed to encourage a lot of people who entered the forums to pose his personal wishlist, sometimes having 30 points or more, not taking into account any of the summary threads.

The developer team has a manpower of about 15-20 people. The forum has almost 30.000 users. It is just not realistic to want them to read through lists of 10 suggestions on average, each, and remember on the one hand, who has suggested it first (since he/she's to be named in the g2g-vote or the credits) and on the other hand keep up with the comments regarding the one idea they'd like to follow.

There is no single developer just for the forum section, employed to search through it 8 hours a day. When the forum was still in that sorry state of frequent doubleposts and wishlists, it came very close to a discontinuing of the devs visiting the suggestions and looking up the threads interesting for the fields in the game they're responsible for, since it was simply unmanageable.



You can have a look at the blog entries by me to get an idea how much work it was to bring any semblance of order to the design and proposals section.



TL;DR

I'm dead against allowing wishlists in the proposals section.

This is a thread I started on Steam found Here

SlOwH4nD suggested I move it here, so here it is



*Bigger Maps



*AI able to use your own custom races + Additional options for how the AI plays your race (I.E. Are they evil, good? do they focus on diplomacy, military?, etc.)



*Toggle for which planets you wish to have trade focused on



*Planets which have gems, etc. being marked as higher priority for trade over other planets



*Bigger Research Tree (Possibly break some of the researches apart into seperate ones)



*More customizations for ships



*Custom planet AI. The default tends to build things that you really don't need, and it'd really speed things up if you could at least tell it what NOT to build.







Fixes/Changes(things that are in the game but need to be fixed or changed):



*Stream-line turns (Explained below)



*Fix Cold-War Status between factions



*Battle alerts in Multiplayer. Just some way of being able to tell if a battle is taking place so they know why the turn is taking so long. I've had people leave games a lot because of this.







==========================



My reasons for my changes/fixes/wishlist



*Bigger Maps: Just because It'd be cool, even the biggest maps feel really small for what I'm used too.



*AI able to use your own custom races + Additional options for how the AI plays your race: Speaks for itself



*Toggle for which planets you wish to have trade focused on: This would help many aspects, 1) minimize trade routes being broken during war, and also have a planet which is out of the way, focus on trade away from your front lines. 2) Helps lower the waste of Dust by creating trade on planets which cannot get trade.



*Bigger Research Tree: (Possibly break some of the researches apart into seperate ones), Just to help extend the game more, Again even the slow setting for research, etc. seems to be to fast. I like slow games, other people like fast games. I enjoy games that take me days to finish, or even weeks (though it doesnt need to be that extensive). A bigger research tree also opens up more choices and more paths.



As it stands right now, there is really no choice, you rush planetary stuff to populate your planets, then get the worm hole, pump a little into the industry and trade stuff, then focus on military when needed. There is no real "focus" its just.. bleh..



If you were to break each section up into parts. You have the 4 "MAIN" parts, which are already there, but you could also break those into sections as well.



To take the Military into consideration, you have the Military (top section) of the research tree, you could then have that split into groups as well -Defense Tech- -offense Tech- -Planetary tech (Planetary attack stuff)- -Hulls- -Support-



Heck you could even break that into sections too

multiple diff laser techs, shield techs, etc. And thats just all the possibilities of Military... That way, you can focus on what you want more easily, how you want your ships to fight, it would also allow you to really customize the fighting style of your ships.



Breaking the tech tree up into multiple things would help slow down research, allow you to focus more on on customizing how the research goes or is focused on in all 4 of the main areas.



*More customizations for ships: Just more would be nice, perhaps change the color of the ships, or have diff hull shapes for each race that you can choose for each hull size. I.E. 2-3 Destroyer hulls to choose from for each, etc.



*Stream-line turns: Possibly the only real turn off to this game for me, and the one that needs to be fixed imo, for anything else to be implemented or added.



I dont know how many times the turn was over, I'm now in control again, a few notifications pop up on the right side, I look through a few, oh a new tech, a few things got done, open a few up, oh look! my Hero got a new level, lets open that as well, now I have that screen up, and I'm choosing what upgrade I want for my Hero.. All the while, a random battle starts without my knowledge and the timer winds down without telling me, and I find I lost my ships due to poor Auto AI.....



Random Single Player battles shouldnt have a timer period, imo.



Secondly, their needs to be stream lines and checks during the turn phase, To get cheated out of a fleet and possibly losing an entire war because the battle timer pops up at a random time because of the delay in movements, etc. just isn't working.



I feel the whole delay is the game itself, sometimes it takes a few clicks to get things to go, etc. Feels like it lags sometimes, even in single player games.



That being said, turns need to be stream-lined. You click End Turn. Research is calculated First, Planetary stuff second, whatever else background stuff I have no idea is going on is third, fleet MOVEMENTS fourth, This is both your ships and the AI ships who are queued to move. Then Battles, these battles happen in order, and you dont get full control of anything until these battles are up. Once everythings gone through, then you can start moving ships again and managing your planets, etc.



This way everything is focused and clean, you know whats going on, and there is no sudden surprise attack due to glitchy/laggy game mechanics.



Fix Cold War Status: As it is, during Cold War, you can attack or be attacked, without declaring war. I find this kinda iffy. Now, I do know irl the Cold War between Russia/America there were shots fired at recon planes, etc. There were even some heated stand offs between military ships out at sea a few times when Russia blamed U.S. for crossing international waters into their territory.



As it is right now.. It doesnt work. Atm in my game, I have a fleet stuck in a nations space, who has their planet on defense so I cant move, we are at a cease-fire (due to my ally calling off the war), So we are offially back into a cold-war status. However, they keep attacking my fleet, over and over, without letting me move out because their on defense stance. To top it all off, I cant declare war because we are on a cease-fire... /sigh



So here's my idea for a change.



* Make military vessels be able to lock down a system, like they already can via the defense stance so nothing can move in or out, however, make it so military vessels cannot shoot on each other without a few things happening..



1) It gives the defender the right to declare war against the aggressor without penalty to any other faction, and regardless if you are on a cease-fire already or not.



2) Add "spy" ships into the game, these ships can by pass blockaded/defended systems that military ships cant, They can be detected by upgrading the sensors of systems (which is already in the game). These ships can also be killed even during Cold-War status, without penalty, and will not cause the defender the ability to go into full war again.

Moved to the discussion section and renamed to become a discussion.

We cannot accept lists in the proposals section, but here we can refine on such a list to find out, which things have not been proposed and probably should be submitted in the desired one suggestion per thread-format.



I've already seen:

• Bigger ships
• AI able to use your own custom races
• Bigger Research Tree
• More customizations for ships
• Custom planet AI. The default tends to build things that you really don't need, and it'd really speed things up if you could at least tell it what NOT to build.
• Battle alerts in Multiplayer. Just some way of being able to tell if a battle is taking place so they know why the turn is taking so long. I've had people leave games a lot because of this.
  
  

defekt wrote:
Yeah, exactly: the SotS Way(tm), as has been echoed in a number of threads.

Right, sots is great, but 95% of it wont work in this game, I fully am aware of that, however, this turn thing, would be nice, and it would fit and work, and kill 2 birds with 1 stone.



Edit: I enjoy this game more than sots, because its not sots. I'm not trying to make it sots either <3

Yeah, exactly: the SotS Way(tm), as has been echoed in a number of threads.

defekt wrote:
Yes, thanks, I did read it all and the implication that the turn sequencing changes should be SP only is there. If that's not what you meant then fair enough, I agree with you.



Within these fora there seems to be a meme bumping around that the turn sequencing (re movement and battles) only buggers up the SP game, which clearly isn't true. I can only surmise that most of those who say this haven't tried to invest much time in PvP MP.

oh I see, and yes I did mis lead, I'm sorry. I meant all forms, both SP, and non SP. My Whole idea is to be spun together, that there should be phases to turns, and why. 1 reason being that many times the battle comes up and u got other windows open, and you just got ninja'd cuz of a rogue battle you were not expecting.



This is why I thought if you move all ships who have movement as queued to go, then do all battles which are queued, it will be alot easier for players to know whats going on.



This would also fix the "no battle indication" many players are having in Multi-player, where a turn is taking forever and they dont know why. If its on "Battle Phase" of the turn, then they know its because of a battle. Its my fix for 2 problems.

Yes, thanks, I did read it all and the implication that the turn sequencing changes should be SP only is there. If that's not what you meant then fair enough, I agree with you.



Within these fora there seems to be a meme bumping around that the turn sequencing (re movement and battles) only buggers up the SP game, which clearly isn't true. I can only surmise that most of those who say this haven't tried to invest much time in PvP MP.

defekt wrote:
If you'd left out the 'single player' caveat I'd be in full agreement with you.



Consider this: there are many situations where there is an advantage in moving last but when one human players seeks that advantage over another, what happens? Yup, the game grinds to a halt and if one player doesn’t voluntarily give up that advantage for the sake of keeping the game going everyone has wasted their time.



This is only one example (there are many more) of why simultaneous moves in a 4X game doesn’t work and do more to lengthen turn time than reduce it. It’s not just ruining your SP game, okay.

You need to read the whole thing, right after I said that, I gave a way to fix it. By stream lining the turns, and having "Battle phases" after all ships have moved. This way all players know that a battle somewhere is taking place, and those involved know, they are taking place, and wont have 100 other screens up due to delayed battles.

LadyAthena wrote:
Random Single Player battles shouldnt have a timer period, imo.

If you'd left out the 'single player' caveat I'd be in full agreement with you.



Consider this: there are many situations where there is an advantage in moving last but when one human players seeks that advantage over another, what happens? Yup, the game grinds to a halt and if one player doesn’t voluntarily give up that advantage for the sake of keeping the game going everyone has wasted their time.



This is only one example (there are many more) of why simultaneous moves in a 4X game doesn’t work and do more to lengthen turn time than reduce it. It’s not just ruining your SP game, okay.

Slowhand was right, great feedback! Welcome to the forum, LadyAthena!