Like I've already said, they want us to decide how far to push back some features and how soon to add others. Like my previous example, last vote the community wanted the diplomacy improvement instead of auto-battle, but this vote the community is deciding they want the auto battle.

Shivetya wrote:
I would normally agree with you, but since selections repeat from vote to vote it implies they are not worked on unless they win. If this were a simple, we are working on these three things next, which is most important? then your interpretation would be correct

Just because selections repeat doesn't mean they *only* work on choices that win. Auto battle is a feature that kind of HAS to be in the game, really. It's not even a choice of whether or not it's a necessary feature; it's practically required. However, if the fans feel that something else is more important (for example, trading system) the devs give them the option of showing that interest. Last voting round, the fans were more interested in having improved democracy and gameplay than in having their auto battle. This time, you can say you've done enough waiting and want the auto battle feature. Or, say you can wait a little longer if that's how you feel about it.

Nosferatiel wrote:
We'll see. I've actually got quite a bit of Fal'Hadei backstory still in my head, just no time to write it down.

About double the amount of story already provided, I'd estimate.

Yeah, I need to get about writing down my race's stuff...I keep meaning to, and then I either get sucked back into 40k stuff or I freeze up on realizing classes start in four days for me...Yay for another year of trying and failing to know Latin...

Shivetya wrote:
I would normally agree with you, but since selections repeat from vote to vote it implies they are not worked on unless they win. If this were a simple, we are working on these three things next, which is most important? then your interpretation would be correct

There's a difference between them saying it will eventually be in the game, and them currently not working on it. You're right, if it's being voted on multi times, maybe they aren't working on it right now. Maybe they just have some unfortunate coder/programmer chained to a desk, only allowed to write one line of code for each feature per day, until a topic wins.



But we are getting all of these eventually. If it takes a while, it takes a while, so be it. I think I saw a moderator mentioned in another thread that some features that were in early votes, that lost those votes, have been implemented in recent patches. We'll get all these things, it's just a matter of time. Will the game be better if it had them sooner? Yes. But as it is, the game is fine and fun. We have our slice of cake and we get to eat it. No need to keep demanding more when Amplitude is already cutting us new slices.

FinalStrigon wrote:
I think I saw a moderator mentioned in another thread that some features that were in early votes, that lost those votes, have been implemented in recent patches.

Do the health bars count as fleet composition status? If yes, that one's included, now.

The removal of items from the research queue without canceling everything has been added, I believe.

Also, just look here: /#/endless-space/forum/28-game-design/thread/11569-g2g-votes-follow-up



The "Non-Winners we implemented anyways" section more or less proves that they don't only implement winners.

Fenrakk101 wrote:
Also, just look here: /#/endless-space/forum/28-game-design/thread/11569-g2g-votes-follow-up



The "Non-Winners we implemented anyways" section more or less proves that they don't only implement winners.

Good catch.

Fenrakk101 wrote:
Also, just look here: /#/endless-space/forum/28-game-design/thread/11569-g2g-votes-follow-up



The "Non-Winners we implemented anyways" section more or less proves that they don't only implement winners.

Well, it has always been stated on the Games2Gether page: "Choose one of the next Game Design Features that will be included in the game. The other features will be added later". Some people seem to forget we are only 15 people and have a limited budget: the G2G vote is here to help us prioritise improvements that need to be brought to the game.

Steph'nie wrote:
Well, it has always been stated on the Games2Gether page: "Choose one of the next Game Design Features that will be included in the game. The other features will be added later". Some people seem to forget we are only 15 people and have a limited budget: the G2G vote is here to help us prioritise improvements that need to be brought to the game.

I dunno, you all are doing so well that some people even doubt the whole few people and small budget thing



But yeah, this is why I've never worried about the G2G votes. I simply vote for what I'm the most interested in. If it wins, yay! If not, oh well, it'll get into the game eventually.

Steph'nie wrote:
Well, it has always been stated on the Games2Gether page: "Choose one of the next Game Design Features that will be included in the game. The other features will be added later". Some people seem to forget we are only 15 people and have a limited budget: the G2G vote is here to help us prioritise improvements that need to be brought to the game.

Then why do items carry over from vote to vote if they will be added later?

I think its for us to decide what's to be added next and in what order.

Shivetya wrote:
Then why do items carry over from vote to vote if they will be added later?

Yeah, they're being added later. And as Igncom said, by recycling them into new votes, we can keep picking what we want the priority to be on. And as far as I've noticed, the Auto-Battle Cards option is the only idea to have been recycled in again so soon, probably because a lot of people were still calling for it/the voting was really close in the last poll.

Chibiabos wrote:
Be sure to mention the new vote when you are in the lobby of new MP games.

These votes need to be on the main forum or at the top of the forum list whenever one is being voted on.

Apparently, the community is deciding to go with a fairly pointless UI addition (which just happens to be the easiest to implement). Hmmm...

Insolentius wrote:
Apparently, the community is deciding to go with a fairly pointless UI addition (which just happens to be the easiest to implement). Hmmm...

If you're referring to Auto Battle, it's been moved to second place.

And Auto Battle isn't pointless. Sure, it's not the most needed addition, but it would help a lot of players. As people said, you won't need to enter a two-minute battle when another player wants to save every single scout ship that comes under attack.

Fenrakk101 wrote:
If you're referring to Auto Battle, it's been moved to second place.

And Auto Battle isn't pointless. Sure, it's not the most needed addition, but it would help a lot of players. As people said, you won't need to enter a two-minute battle when another player wants to save every single scout ship that comes under attack.

autobattle is probably the most important item they have placed next to improved AI yet. It will fix one of the worst aspects of MP games, where everyone wants to save their scout

Fenrakk101 wrote:
If you're referring to Auto Battle...

I'm not. When I posted, trade routes' sum-up was winning.

Insolentius wrote:
I'm not. When I posted, trade routes' sum-up was winning.

Which, while it may be a simple UI thing, a lot of people were crying for some kind of summary/overview of all trade a while back. I'll agree that it probably isn't as important as the Auto-Battle Cards, but if it's what the people want...

Insolentius wrote:
I'm not. When I posted, trade routes' sum-up was winning.

Sorry for that, then. I hadn't been stalking the G2G vote, and when I checked them Trade Routes was only winning by ~2000 G2G points, so I figured it might have only just taken the lead.

Battle actions or razing systems...I pick battle actions. I conquer slowly and selectively and I keep what I gain and redistribute population if needed. The trade rout one is nice, but it is more of a convenience thing.

I really don't see the point of the trade route sum-up ... trade routes are generated automatically when you build a building. The battle cards for auto battles are direly needed.

Chibiabos wrote:
I really don't see the point of the trade route sum-up ... trade routes are generated automatically when you build a building. The battle cards for auto battles are direly needed.

The point is to know how it works out. Do you have an idea how much +25% trade route distance bonus gives in dust and science to a minor (8 pop - 2 routes) system? What about +40% trade route bonus (NOT distance bonus)? Which one to build first?



I don't know all that, and I'm working on a guide on trade since beta. The number-grinding work to check how trade gains get calculated is excruciating. Nobody is interested in trade routes, at least not enough to check its mechanics. Many discard trade as useless from lack of information. Others assume it's worth it, just as I originally assumed Xenotourism was always useful, even with only one applicable planet in system. Then I found out about tax rates multiplier...



If you think you know everything about trade, then please, PLEASE post in the Trade routes thread in the Strategy guides section. In the meantime, I vote for trade summary.

I do want the trade route stuff personally, but I want the auto Battle MORE.



Its not the saveascout thing, its just the ability to give some basic battleplans to my fleet no matter whether I watch it or not..



Especially as the current combat system seems so appropriate to have exactly that option.

Shivetya wrote:
I give, when voting I know which I vote on because of the check mark. I had assumed that the crown denoted the winner but I see than even though Razing systems was crowned it didn't win a previous vote.



Frankly I have only seen one group of items put for a vote that looked interesting, most of the votes seem to be deciding what we want the dev team should have done anyway. As in, its like picking which limb do you want us to save after a horrific accident... and the answer should be "duh, all of them?".



The auto battle option would so relieve problems in MP. Still trying to figure out how hard it could be to code razing a system. LOL.

Just because it doesn't win the vote, doesn't mean it's not going to be implemented. The G2G voting system is only intended to direct their efforts, not to eliminate features from the game - meaning, the improved diplomacy may have won the vote, but that only means they're going to try to work on it first, not that they're going to forget the auto battle system. It's still possible for them to complete and release the auto battle system even though the diplomacy won the vote; they're not legally bound to the results or anything, it's just meant to be an indicator of the fans' interest in upcoming features. The only time the vote would actually 'eliminate' the other options is in the earlier votes when we had to choose faction logos or heroes to be added.

It's fine to voice your opinion, but isn't that vote already over?

If elected, Battle Actions in Auto will create jobs, help the economy, cut the deficit, and ...



Oh, sorry, wrong vote speech. XD

Nice.



Back to the main point, I voted for this as well. I think this issue was one of the main reasons I stopped playing ES as soon as I did. I felt like every time there was a battle I'd be unable to play the game for a minute, before long you're spending more time watching battle sequences than playing, the battle sequence is always the same, and this is in single player. Can't imagine what it must be like in multiplayer. Apparently, however, some people find their time is less important than an improved A.I...

I fully agree with you people, and voted the same but eh ... votes are votes.

I even went to the facebook of endless crying out about those non choices proposed, as we all want the whole pack, in fact. The only hope we can have is that, as they said, those votes are only there to prioritize their dev, and that they will enventually implement all of the proposed stuffs.

Aiseant wrote:
The only hope we can have is that, as they said, those votes are only there to prioritize their dev, and that they will enventually implement all of the proposed stuffs.

It is not just a hope, since they have included stuff that didn't win past priority votes, already.

Well, I agree they did.

However, I always saw that as a luck, because they had time and the improvement wasn't too heavy. If they have to do heavy work on the AI, we cannot be sure they would have time for the rest. And as the community is ... quite active and prolific ^^, there's a lot of ideas to work on.

Not saying they would not implement "loosers", just that they prioritize.

As far as I'm aware they have hired 5 new programmers and split the team into a team for new content and one for bugfixing/patches/improvement.

Wow oO I would say that's good news for us.

Nosferatiel wrote:
As far as I'm aware they have hired 5 new programmers and split the team into a team for new content and one for bugfixing/patches/improvement.

If that is the case that is great news. Perhaps they should have issued two messages concurrently then - one about the new expansion patch and one about improvements being considered for free release. Then that might have shut me up - doubtful, but there is a a remote possibility.

nats wrote:
Perhaps they should have issued two messages concurrently then - one about the new expansion patch and one about improvements being considered for free release.

That's one of the points I agree about, with you.

I give, when voting I know which I vote on because of the check mark. I had assumed that the crown denoted the winner but I see than even though Razing systems was crowned it didn't win a previous vote.



Frankly I have only seen one group of items put for a vote that looked interesting, most of the votes seem to be deciding what we want the dev team should have done anyway. As in, its like picking which limb do you want us to save after a horrific accident... and the answer should be "duh, all of them?".



The auto battle option would so relieve problems in MP. Still trying to figure out how hard it could be to code razing a system. LOL.

PLEASE vote for "Battle Actions in Auto!" While I acknowledge the Alliance victory could use rework, and certainly the AI could use improvement, I argue that Battle Actions in Auto should be a priority over those other two issues because of how hindered multiplayer especially is by being forced to use "Manual" battle mode -- which is costly in terms of turn time (potentially depriving a player of being able to fully use their turn given how long it takes to load a battle, initiate, use Retreat, and await conclusion) -- just to retreat a scout, and turns could go much quicker overall in multiplayer (which I hope all agree is a pressing priority!) if players could use battle cards without having to enter those slow Manual battles.



If elected, Battle Actions in Auto will create jobs, help the economy, cut the deficit, and ...



Oh, sorry, wrong vote speech. XD

Shivetya wrote:
I give, when voting I know which I vote on because of the check mark. I had assumed that the crown denoted the winner but I see than even though Razing systems was crowned it didn't win a previous vote.



Frankly I have only seen one group of items put for a vote that looked interesting, most of the votes seem to be deciding what we want the dev team should have done anyway. As in, its like picking which limb do you want us to save after a horrific accident... and the answer should be "duh, all of them?".



The auto battle option would so relieve problems in MP. Still trying to figure out how hard it could be to code razing a system. LOL.

In addition to what Frenrakk said, auto-battle is even up again in the polls. I voted for it this time around, but currently the trading summary seems to be winning.



But, I don't quite get your accident analogy...It's not choosing an option that is kept, and the others discarded. We're only choosing the priority that the devs focus on them for inclusion into the patches. This has been said many times by now. ^^;

FinalStrigon wrote:
In addition to what Frenrakk said, auto-battle is even up again in the polls. I voted for it this time around, but currently the trading summary seems to be winning.



But, I don't quite get your accident analogy...It's not choosing an option that is kept, and the others discarded. We're only choosing the priority that the devs focus on them for inclusion into the patches. This has been said many times by now. ^^;

It would be like the doctors saying they'll try to save both of your infected arms, but if (focus on 'if') they could only save one, are you a righty or a lefty?



As for the votes, I voted for battle actions in auto, and now that seems to be the winner. I'll keep an eye on the polls for a little while; usually after a few hours or days one of the votes will gain a massive lead, and it's usually the one that ends up winning in the end.

Fenrakk101 wrote:
It would be like the doctors saying they'll try to save both of your infected arms, but if (focus on 'if') they could only save one, are you a righty or a lefty?



As for the votes, I voted for battle actions in auto, and now that seems to be the winner. I'll keep an eye on the polls for a little while; usually after a few hours or days one of the votes will gain a massive lead, and it's usually the one that ends up winning in the end.

Yeah, usually. But you never know, we could be in for another tooth-and-nail race like the create-a-faction competition vote was.

FinalStrigon wrote:
Yeah, usually. But you never know, we could be in for another tooth-and-nail race like the create-a-faction competition vote was.

About 2% difference...

Nosferatiel wrote:
About 2% difference...

The vote's only just started, so I figure many of these votes are coming from people who camp the forums more than they play the game. Once everyone takes their weekly break from ES and peeks in at the vote [Ihope] we'll see a larger input of votes for the auto battle.

Nosferatiel wrote:
About 2% difference...

Don't worry Nos, you'll get it next time Maybe. Unless my dragon race of awesome takes the prize (but it probably won't...).

Fenrakk101 wrote:
The vote's only just started, so I figure many of these votes are coming from people who camp the forums more than they play the game. Once everyone takes their weekly break from ES and peeks in at the vote [Ihope] we'll see a larger input of votes for the auto battle.

Hey, I don't camp the forums. I just...have nothing to do at work.

Alright, now I'm starting to get a little worried by the vote. The trade vote is keeping a steady 2-3 votes ahead (I'm measuring using ~1000G2G votes) which sort of scares me.



EDIT: Well now the balance is tilting in favor of auto battle. The other two are still pretty close, but it's nice to see that auto battle is in the lead, at least for now.

FinalStrigon wrote:
Don't worry Nos, you'll get it next time Maybe. Unless my dragon race of awesome takes the prize (but it probably won't...).

We'll see. I've actually got quite a bit of Fal'Hadei backstory still in my head, just no time to write it down.

About double the amount of story already provided, I'd estimate.

Be sure to mention the new vote when you are in the lobby of new MP games.

FinalStrigon wrote:
In addition to what Frenrakk said, auto-battle is even up again in the polls. I voted for it this time around, but currently the trading summary seems to be winning.



But, I don't quite get your accident analogy...It's not choosing an option that is kept, and the others discarded. We're only choosing the priority that the devs focus on them for inclusion into the patches. This has been said many times by now. ^^;

I would normally agree with you, but since selections repeat from vote to vote it implies they are not worked on unless they win. If this were a simple, we are working on these three things next, which is most important? then your interpretation would be correct