I would like to face allied AI's because they always declare war on me anyway when game is near the end and it's obvious I'm going to win.

So I would like the AI's figure out that early and try to destroy me trough alliance, that would be challenging

Endless space is for me at its best when players are working cooperatively In a large universe for the common good... In the civ 5 expan they have a UN type feature.... Blowing up things is cool but everyone working together is also pretty cool. It would be nice to have a win win scenario a non zero sum game outcome. In the real world civilisations work alongside each other it's not always about total domination and annihilation ... The power of cooperation and trade. There is a nice feel good factor in helping each other.

Hey guys,



We've recently undertaken a tentative "finish the games we start" initiative, and I'm sure they would be a lot more enjoyable if we were able to actually pursue alliances that had worth and meaning. Did you get a chance to gauge whether you have hte resources to develop and implement this?





I'm aware you probably have limited bandwidth, but Endless Legend is still reaaally far away and in the meantime, if you want us 4X fans to stay in touch with the universe, consider giving ES a parting hug. <3

I get you guys' point, but the difference in execution here is that I'm suggesting a minor change, whereas you guys are talking about adding entirely new features that'd need to be balanced etc, and probably require valuable dev time.



I don't think the game's gonna change all that much now, but if that minor tweak can lead to a victory screen rather than a "you dun goofed", well, I'll be happy, and many people playing with friends they'd like to retain will be happy too.

well sovereign to balance portals like this out they should have quite a big negative bonus to science maybe alliance wide and should be limited in their use i.e. from capital to capital. they should costly enough that the entire alliance can only afford a few portals. however early game portals like this may be a bit overpowered for expansion. expanding near an ally you will have for the end of the game really isn't crippling like such a thing would be in the current endless space. I just think there should be something to prevent the streaming of colony ships from all over the alliance into an area where they take every system. at least not early game. just a thought.

Normaly the bigest advantage of a alliance in war times are military forces but this is very ineffective in Endless Space cause of the Distances, i see it very often in MP when i get very unlucky one evil Guy eats up some New Players arround him at the other end of the galaxy to get over 30 Systems. I absolutly know that i probabaly lost the game when he has 30 Systems but i still do not help his victims cause its absolutely pointless to send fleets to the other side of the Galaxy, its all over till they are there and they got no supply lines for reinforcements.



Imo Alliances should be able to build Alliance Portals, which work like the Vaulter Portals but with the restriction that only Allied ships can pass through it. They still would have to research the Tech and still would have the Expansion dissaproval,



and ships also would also only be able to jumb from a Portal from Player A to a Portal from Player B

jumps between your own portals shouldnt be possible.



so imo this also wouldnt dilute the Vaulters Affinity.

well when you think about alliances what is the big advantage in them? is it all that extra territory? the extra science and economy? what makes a few small empires in an alliance any match for the giant faction next to them? You propose that alliance victories should be unhampered by restrictions but what about the larger empire? what advantages does it have? Think about all of Europe vs Russia and that might be a fairly good example.

I'm sure it would be possible to balance it out... and keep in mind: allying with someone against others isn't balanced per se. It's a goddamn alliance. You're teaming up two or more civilizations, not reducing them to one!



Obviously it could be "abused" to win just like you can have your friends take pot shots at other civilizations in the current game, the only difference is that currently if someone teams up with you, one of you is getting screwed in the end, regardless of what happens.

i still think that might pose problems, even with the increased cost, although maybe alliances like this require extra resources and a certain amount of time in the regular alliance maybe?

Adventurer_Blitz wrote:
well for example, if you went for the wonder victory and in total you only needed 5 buildings then isn't that overpowered? cooperation is nice and all but being able to cut your work for victory in half or more 9depending on how many are in the alliance) is a bit overpowered in my opinion. although maybe they can balance it out and you have to research some later game techs before you can start working together on that scale.

Or atm this cooperation on that scale is possible the Victory Conditions are higher then normal for example for 2 Allies it would be 8 Wonders instead of 5, 50% Higher costs for Science Victory, 25% Higher Amount of needed Dust for Economic Victory etc.

the_wamburger wrote:
Mmh, I'm not sure, to be honest. If two nations cooperate as hard as they can to reach a victory faster than the others, isn't it a viable and worthy outcome as well, from both lore and gameplay standpoints?



If you and your buddy are rushing a scientific victory, or an economic victory, there are very few things preventing the others from paying you a visit with massive invasion fleet and ruining your day. That could also be a togglable option if some people want lonely winners too, I guess.

well for example, if you went for the wonder victory and in total you only needed 5 buildings then isn't that overpowered? cooperation is nice and all but being able to cut your work for victory in half or more 9depending on how many are in the alliance) is a bit overpowered in my opinion. although maybe they can balance it out and you have to research some later game techs before you can start working together on that scale.

Humbly bumping my suggestion back up. Not sure it's allowed here so let's just say that if it ain't, I'll be blaming Obama.

Hi guys,



I mainly play multiplayer games with the folks over at CanardPC. We've recently started playing regularly again and for the last 2 months we've been playing every Thursday for a few hours. This means 4-8 people, every week, starting a new game.



Why starting anew every time? Because the winning conditions of Endless Space are rather frustrating for us as they currently are.



Whether or not you're at peace or even allied with other races, only one player among us all will win. There's no way to set up teams at the beginning of a game, like you'd do with an RTS, which would allow several people to be on the same side for good and win together, and whatever good relations you have with your neighbors will go out the window when you get the chance to snatch a quick victory (also know as "HAHA WONDER VICTORY, LOSERS!"), thus making you win, making them lose.



But what if I'm playing a good guy? If I'm playing the Amoeba, the Pilgrims, the Automatons, the Sophons, the Sheredyns, I'm a good guy! It makes little sense from a lore perspective.

But what if I'm actually a good guy? If I want to play with my friends and take on the galaxy/other friends, well, there's no way of winning together, so if we want to end the game, at some point I'll betray them to grab the victory for my own.





My suggestion:







This has many applications, as pretty often, when a player falls behind, they have no way of coming back into the game and lose interest. If they were allied with a bigger player, whether the challenger or the player currently ahead, they could still be contributing to the game, knowing that they'd have a chance to be on the winning side.

Also, there are only so many players I can happily betray before any attempt at playing a multiplayer game ends up with me getting shut down from turn 30 for fear of me getting the upper hand and pulling a quick one on the rest of the galaxy. I'm sure many multiplayer veterans feel the same.





For me, Endless Space is about building stories of space colonization with my friends. I'd like to be able to play with them, and not always against them.



Thanks for your time.





Edit: while I read the list of suggestions, I didn't see anything like this proposal. However, Steph tells me it's been suggested a bazillion times already, so apologies for the repeat, I guess?

Yeah setup Teams or just the possibility to actually win together would be a great improved.



ATM peace and alliances are just for fun cause everyone knows that they all will backstab each other sooner or later.

Adventurer_Blitz wrote:
i would support this in a games2gether



although i believe there would need to be a seperate victory for alliances than the existing ones.

Mmh, I'm not sure, to be honest. If two nations cooperate as hard as they can to reach a victory faster than the others, isn't it a viable and worthy outcome as well, from both lore and gameplay standpoints?



If you and your buddy are rushing a scientific victory, or an economic victory, there are very few things preventing the others from paying you a visit with massive invasion fleet and ruining your day. That could also be a togglable option if some people want lonely winners too, I guess.

DreamSmith wrote:
I've been thinking about this, it might be more viable to have a 'claim victory for alliance' diplomatic option. Lets say that the alliance fulfils one of the victory conditions, for example supremacy, the members of the alliance have reduced all other races to memories and would be happy to end the game there rather than having to turn on each other to 'win'. Instead of just quitting and saying end of game, all members of the alliance could agree to a cumulative victory. Sure the same result of the scoreboard, but it would be nice to get a victory note rather than all the friendly games end with 'loss' due to just alliance members left in the game.

Also an interesting option.



My main point is: this is a conversation worth having, especially as we may be seeing the last updates to Endless Space before the team moves on to Endless Legend altogether (I have no idea but that's how we work in my company :alder.



Now to get one or more pairs of official eyes on this thread...

i would support this in a games2gether



although i believe there would need to be a seperate victory for alliances than the existing ones.

I've been thinking about this, it might be more viable to have a 'claim victory for alliance' diplomatic option. Lets say that the alliance fulfils one of the victory conditions, for example supremacy, the members of the alliance have reduced all other races to memories and would be happy to end the game there rather than having to turn on each other to 'win'. Instead of just quitting and saying end of game, all members of the alliance could agree to a cumulative victory. Sure the same result of the scoreboard, but it would be nice to get a victory note rather than all the friendly games end with 'loss' due to just alliance members left in the game.

I agree with this suggestion, it makes sense both in terms of lore and gameplay.

Allied victory should absolutely be in the game. I support this.