Hi,



I thought this topic would perhaps be worth a thread of its own. I think it is really difficult to decide the strategy using in one battle because the timer window tells me where the attack is but most of the time I have no idea where this system is on the map. So do I go for a retreat strategy or would I end a siege I want to continue with that? The timers actually don't give me the possibility to look up the situation.

You are definitely right. Also, it happend to me couple of times, that some info popped up, I was reading it and meanwhile the battletimer was running (the battle popped up after the info). Of course I didn't notice the battle and it went to autoresolve by default.

I automatically dislike "quick, deal with this or else" when I'm playing a turn-based game. Generally I'm playing turn-based to be able to relax and think about what I'm doing. Having only a few seconds to make a decision clashes with that.

GAShebert wrote:
I automatically dislike "quick, deal with this or else" when I'm playing a turn-based game. Generally I'm playing turn-based to be able to relax and think about what I'm doing. Having only a few seconds to make a decision clashes with that.

Well said! Indeed, the battle timers are a bit too fast, I'd prefer Battle-Notifications (without a Timer).

GAShebert wrote:
I automatically dislike "quick, deal with this or else" when I'm playing a turn-based game. Generally I'm playing turn-based to be able to relax and think about what I'm doing. Having only a few seconds to make a decision clashes with that.

I quite agree. I understand that there's some design philosophy behind this but I'm not convinced that it's added anything to the game.

/signed



I've posted about this numerous times so I won't ram it down anyone's throat again but suffice to say I believe that TBS games absolutely should not conflate real-time and turn-based mechanics on the strategic layer; this is TBS 101 stuff, guys.

Amen to the above. I love Endless Space, but this is one of those design decisions that just plain did not work. I'm guessing the intent was to keep multiplayer running quickly. In practice it feels like you have the flaws of RTS and TBS without the benefits.



ES is a 4X game. That may seem like an obvious statement, but when looking at game design every decision needs to come back to that fact. Part of the definition of the 4X TBS is you play at your own pace, taking time to think and micromanage if you want, even stepping away from the computer for long periods if needed. That's what I want, and I'd venture to say that's what most people looking for a 4X TBS want (except DURING battles, which is another story). If I wanted the computer, not me, to dictate the pace of play and to constantly have to watch for fear I would miss something, I'd play an RTS, of which there are many excellent ones to choose from.

BadHorse wrote:
Amen to the above. I love Endless Space, but this is one of those design decisions that just plain did not work. I'm guessing the intent was to keep multiplayer running quickly. In practice it feels like you have the flaws of RTS and TBS without the benefits.



ES is a 4X game. That may seem like an obvious statement, but when looking at game design every decision needs to come back to that fact. Part of the definition of the 4X TBS is you play at your own pace, taking time to think and micromanage if you want, even stepping away from the computer for long periods if needed. That's what I want, and I'd venture to say that's what most people looking for a 4X TBS want (except DURING battles, which is another story). If I wanted the computer, not me, to dictate the pace of play and to constantly have to watch for fear I would miss something, I'd play an RTS, of which there are many excellent ones to choose from.

This here!



If I had it my way the battles would be turn based too - some of the wildest fun I've had with games was turn-based... definitely don't enjoy the feeling of being rushed to make decisions.



As a multiplayer game it makes more sense, though. What if they implemented a choice in the settings for those of us that play singleplayer?

At least to progress between the battle phases by ending turns?



Let's see what the new expansion pack will do with the battle system...

Hi there, first post...



I want to give my voice to this thread because i agree wholeheartly. I dont like to be rushed, especially not i a turn based game. So, if possible, i would like to disable such timers. I understand the purpose in multiplayer, but not in singleplayer.



Just posting to keep this thread alive, and hopefully be heard by the devs!



Thanks!

lordAugustus wrote:
This here!



If I had it my way the battles would be turn based too

I completely disagree here. In the late game I have had a turn of 10 battles. If each battle took me 2-3 minutes to complete... my goodness. A half an hour turn? ouch. I know I could do auto but the current model allows me to have control and be done in 30 seconds. Much better in my opinion and adds variety to the game. Though I could see a benefit in the options for 'quick animations' in which you select battles cards and it tells you how well that phase went.

I think the timer is made for multiplayer... but the combat system is not. Its awkward.



They need to have combat timer as an option (or removed) for the singleplayer part. Also needs to have strategic map manual card selection combat for multiplayer implemeneted.

There are a number of things that were implemented for multiplayer that simply don't work for single player and vice versa. The devs should really consider tweaking the gameplay for both single player and multiplayer separately.

Interesting idea that, but not sure they'll go for that because it would be a lot of work etc

I'm not a programmer (unless my graphing calculator counts) but I don't think it would be too difficult to change a couple of gameplay rules for single and multiplayer games. Quite a few games I know of do this. However, if I am wrong then sometimes significant work is needed to fix problems that need to be addressed.