I am also for that a coop mode is built in, so you really win together when all enemies are defeated. it's just too bad if you then have to end the game because you have to compete against each other, it would be nice if all players, are rewarded with a victory screen.

Since I moved two newer copies of this thread, I take liberty to push this one. Please refer to /#/endless-space/forum/28-game-design/thread/13072-fixed-diplomatic-status-for-mp for the archived copies.

Yes I think Endless Space should have an allied victory/co-operative diplomatic victory, not only for MP, but for SP too. I don't mean to speak too much out of topic (I don't play Endless Space in MP), but since this is the most relevant thread and a tracked one too, please hear me out:



I'm really new to the game, but not new to 4X games. Yesterday I played a long game, where by turn 300 my civilization of brave automatons in co-operation with the human empire demolished the remaining enemy empires, and suddenly I was the loser. We swore allegiance to each other with the humans since almost the start of the game, and we fought together, conquering the galaxy - and then the humans won by the expand victory condition. I was thrilled, but then I understood what the end-of-game picture and text said. Sigh. My empire was just as great as the empire of the humans, and we defeated our foes, but suddenly the game just showed me a picture of my proud automaton race, as dead, smoldering wrecks, as if I had lost a terrible war. No, no I say! I won, and I won the game together with the humans, we won!



And yeah, that's how I have to "role-play" it, and it feels pretty bad to have to "role-play" it like this; pretending that you've won the game, when the game says you were defeated. Although I do understand that the game can't be played like this, it feels kinda bad because I would very much like to play like this. So yes, an allied victory condition/a co-operative diplomatic victory condition - be it by fixed alliances since the beginning, or another system - I would really love to vote for this feature! Really, it is the only big thing that this game is lacking, and it would improve the gameplay 100% for everyone of us who loves to play 4X games in this allied victory way. And I think there are a lot of us, both MP and SP players, I think many would love to have a feature like this. And I think for many of us, diplomacy just doesn't mean anything because there is no feature like an allied victory.

When will we be able to vote for it?



In my opinion you should have a decision.

Like this:

Capital Victory!

You and your ally hold all capital systems in the universe.

Do you want to accept this victory together with the Sowers or do you want to turn on your allies?

[Accept] [Turnonally]

If you accept the game is over and you and your ally (Sowers) win.

If you decide to turn on your ally, the game continues and you get a major diplomatic penalty, because you turned on your ally. All remaining forces in the galaxy will declare infinite war on you.



What do you guys think about this? With this option whoever wants can have his team/alliance victory, and all the guys who want to be the only remaining force in the galaxy, can have what they want as well, and there is a penalty for breaking a treaty. Furthermore I would add that team victory is unlocked at the last alliance technology and you can only achieve team victory if you have either

a) another additional treaty to the alliance treaty, which is called the team victory treaty or

b) the alliance treaty is also the team victory treaty but "The alliance must continue 20 more rounds until you can have a team victory" [letithavelike20or50roundsorsomethingbeforeitisenabled]



I prefer b).

JackDanielsNo7 wrote:
When will we be able to vote for it?



In my opinion you should have a decision.

Like this:

Capital Victory!

You and your ally hold all capital systems in the universe.

Do you want to accept this victory together with the Sowers or do you want to turn on your allies?

[Accept] [Turnonally]

If you accept the game is over and you and your ally (Sowers) win.

If you decide to turn on your ally, the game continues and you get a major diplomatic penalty, because you turned on your ally. All remaining forces in the galaxy will declare infinite war on you.



What do you guys think about this? With this option whoever wants can have his team/alliance victory, and all the guys who want to be the only remaining force in the galaxy, can have what they want as well, and there is a penalty for breaking a treaty. Furthermore I would add that team victory is unlocked at the last alliance technology and you can only achieve team victory if you have either

a) another additional treaty to the alliance treaty, which is called the team victory treaty or

b) the alliance treaty is also the team victory treaty but "The alliance must continue 20 more rounds until you can have a team victory" [letithavelike20or50roundsorsomethingbeforeitisenabled]



I prefer b).

This system looks like a viable way to add a very common, and much needed feature.

Sorry to bring back an older topic, but myself and a few friends recently picked up Endless Space are enjoying the game immensely. However, the "AI vs. Human" option discussed in this thread does not appear to have made it into the game which is disappointing. Providing a way to force the AI players into an alliance ups the difficulty and fun (imo) as it requires the Humans to execute better as they are going against one unified team of AI. It seems Endless Space is still very active in updates which is great to see... has anyone seen any updates regarding this feature being considered? (I searched through the forums but didn't see too much other info). Thanks!

Hi devs,



Just wondering if predetermined fixed aliances is still in the pipeline?

If not this, is it possible to implement a feature where the AI feels more easily threatened by ingame aliances made and makes there own aliances as a safety measure.



Me and a few friends are looking for our next 4x crave after sinking 1000+ hours each in civ5.

We have our eyes on endless space, however we need to have a descent ai enemy, and if the 4 enemy ai's just dont work together it wont be any fun.



Please post a reply so i know if i need to go look for another time-sink.



UPDATE: Just saw the "Sticky: Community Suggestions Amplitude is following" thread. Perhaps after answering here you could add this including the answer in that thread?



Regards,



Carrarn

This is timely, I came back to check if this feature had been added. Any word Devs?

Coop is a huge deal for me. I've got a friend who also plays these type of games and we play them together whenever possible, as a team. If there's no allied victory, then that's a huge blow to coop play. As mentioned this is a selling point for a lot of people, and it's something of a deal breaker for us.



Starting as a team isn't a deal breaker, but it's a huge convenience and makes coop play work better. Hopefully this gets looked at.

This has been an option in many rts and I think it'd make a great addition to endless space games.



Maybe make it so craverns are always at war with anyone who isn't always an ally in these options, usually expected to be another cravern. (can not be but most players wouldn't do that if they don't like breaking the lore)

I think that this is an important part of an strategy game.

So i think that the multiplayer will bring it. Or an later release.

This thread is the origin of discussions about fixed diplomacy settings in multiplayer games.

Other threads about this have been archived:

/#/endless-space/forum/29-archives/thread/13817-suggestion-multiplayer-team-settings-single-player-team-settings

/#/endless-space/forum/29-archives/thread/13816-locked-starting-alliances

/#/endless-space/forum/29-archives/thread/13911-pree-arranged-teams

/#/endless-space/forum/29-archives/thread/13935-teams-co-op-victory

/#/endless-space/forum/29-archives/thread/13970-allied-victory

/#/endless-space/forum/29-archives/thread/13990-diplomacy-and-allied-victory



Feel free to post here about this topic here and inform yourself about the variations the threads listed above have already discussed, but don't open new suggestion threads for anything alike.

OK! If this is the thread we are to be talking about this in, then I think it is THE essential missing feature for multiplayer. Comp-Stomps are a must for many of us strategy enthusiasts who love working in a team with our friends to defeat the computer, but hate (or just wont) play PvP. Without a set teams feature 3 players and 3 bots quickly turns into 3v1v1v1! This shouldn't replace the diplomacy options. This just lets you set up teams which then (through research) get turned into full alliances once you have that unlocked, etc. This could be a challenge in terms of setting up the AI more than a UI or design issue; however, I seriously hope it gets strong consideration and implementation.

The devs have commented on this:

Steph'nie wrote:
Well, as already mentioned, that feature isn't planned for the game (starting as a team).



Technical director: it's not planned, but why not.

Game designer: this is not planned. That's part of the game: trying to arrange things with friends, working together, but eventually, there is only one winner.

If you're playing with your friends against the AI, you don't need a game mechanic to tell you that you're all allies. That's just silly. Work together against the AI, and if you don't want to accept that in the end there can only be one victor, well...Either work towards an economic/scientific/wonder victory so you don't have to attack your friend, leave the score victory on so the game decides when it ends, or just agree amongst yourselves when you've won.

You're right... I don't need a game mechanic to say we're allies; however, the *AI* needs the game mechanic to know that IT is allies with other AI! It's a fairly small change to allow the game to go from "winner take all" to coop. Coop is a huge draw for many fans. For market reasons alone, it's worth it just to be able to put 'coop' on the steam list of game modes. That guarantees additional sales. The game has every single element it needs to make this work... except implementation. As my professor used to say, this is snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

I'd recommend this article on the value of coop in indy game development:



http://www.co-optimus.com/editorial/1004/page/1/indie-ana-co-op-and-the-dev-stories-convinced-of-co-op-s-value.html



In a nutshell, the game company added coop mostly on a whim and were shocked to find that it was one of the biggest drivers for sales. They marketed on steam with 4 pack sales and got a huge inflow of players (and thus revenue, if that matters). Coop allows players to work together as a team and share in the games narrative. More then just satisfying for the gamer, it also adds to the conversation about the game. Suddenly I don't buy it for ME to play, I talk all my friends into buying it so we can play together. It's a good article, and one of many on the topic.



Not everyone is driven by the same forces, but personally not a single one of my friends would sign on for a competitive Endless Space LAN party, and ALL of them would if it was a coop Endless Space LAN party. Food for thought....

cooliwhip wrote:
You're right... I don't need a game mechanic to say we're allies; however, the *AI* needs the game mechanic to know that IT is allies with other AI!

Bingo. If Impossible isn't enough, then we can try Impossible vs. multiple permanently allied AIs (which could be particularly important for co-op.)

I was hoping to see this on the 'tracked by devs' list. It's obviously very desired and would be quite easy to include. Any chance of it showing up there soon? I've got people lined up to buy this once it gets included.



A quote from the article I linked to above:

Explosive Potential, or How I Learned to Quit Worrying and Love Co-Op

If you’re reading this, the chances are good that you sing the praises of co-op gaming without need of encouragement. Interestingly, for us at Cadenza, Sol Survivor was a wake up call. Co-op was less a core decision as it was a logical possibility that wasn’t difficult to include. We were oh so satisfyingly wrong.

I love playing 4X games with my friends, though I rarely will play by them by myself. For me the genre is the perfect for LAN Parties. I can work together with friends in a relaxed, but challenging, game. Almost everything I've seen about this game looks awesome. It has massive potential for my friends and I. However, without real co-op (Team Victory and AI Teams) this is a non-starter for me.



It seems like the game is this >< close to having it right. While I'm sure that adding true co-op is non-trivial, I can't imagine that it's an insurmountable amount of work to implement.

I really want to buy this game and play with my friends. Please implement co-op and take my money.

Zee wrote:
I love playing 4X games with my friends, though I rarely will play by them by myself. For me the genre is the perfect for LAN Parties. I can work together with friends in a relaxed, but challenging, game. Almost everything I've seen about this game looks awesome. It has massive potential for my friends and I. However, without real co-op (Team Victory and AI Teams) this is a non-starter for me.



It seems like the game is this >< close to having it right. While I'm sure that adding true co-op is non-trivial, I can't imagine that it's an insurmountable amount of work to implement.

I really want to buy this game and play with my friends. Please implement co-op and take my money.

I'm not sure what isn't in the game that's the difference between Coop and not Coop. You can forge alliances, you are at no point forced to attack your teammates and if any of your defined human team wins, it just isn't displayed as one score but as two. Still, you've won as per your definition.



The only thing that's not in there or easily manageable to "do yourself", so to say, is to get an AI player to do what you want.