1.) I do not like that this game mostly revolves around "fame" aka "victory points".  It abstracts the objectives too much.  Endless Space 2 had victories for "Collect all the final technologies", which is a much more tangible objective.

- What I do like is that this allows you to change focus much more easily.  However, it seems like this could be done by adding economic conversion paths, allowing you to convert science to production mid-game, etc.  This accomplishes the best of both worlds: Clear objectives, and flexibility to change directions.

2.) The diplomacy UI is still very confusing.  I can't tell what is being proposed, vs. what isn't.

3.) Unit pathing around elevation is VERY hard to see.  Elevation changes are just not very visually pronounced.

4.) It not super intuitive as to how region influence is obtained.  Is it from adjacent regions that influence values?  What is the advantage of having influence over a region?

> 4.) It not super intuitive as to how region influence is obtained.  Is it from adjacent regions that influence values?  What is the advantage of having influence over a region? 

I thought at first it was a way to swap regions without cities to your empire but that is not the case. It seems that you can get changes to your civics if you are influenced by a neighbor and vice-versa. It can culminate in massive stability issues for a medium-long period of time, if you decline the change. Also, it is a CB for war if your culture influences a neighbor, via the "Oppressing my People" grievance.

>2.) I found the diplomacy user interface utterly confusing as well. It seemed as though the options were spilled out onto the screen randomly and I was unsure of what agreements were even in effect. 

Agree with points 2), 3), and 4). These are points that have been brought to the attention of the devs before, and hopefully, we will see some changes in the closed beta. On the first point, I guess it seems to me, that you are missing the point of the game. Yes, currently, AI is not able to match the players' snowballing, even on higher difficulties, with just mean diplomacy. But the fame mechanic is something that I love. Wish that the other traditional paths, such as completely annihilating empires, were not locked out, or completely researching  the tech tree, as I understand it, results in the game ending prematurely. Or completely covering the world with your influence not really doing much more than awarding a miniscule amount of fame, and giving a few grievances, but not much beyond that.

I think the fame mechanic would be fine (and it's a pretty central point of the game's design) if the game did other things to get you invested in the story of your civilisation. They took out the quest mechanics, but still events are still a thing. If they had more events that triggered depending on your civs alignment (those sliders that are moved by events and civics) or even specific civics themselves I think it would be much more meaningful, because events wouldn't all be the same every playthrough and you'd have to actually engage with your policy decisions beyond the yield bonuses.

The fame mechanic is pretty central to what we saw in the Closed Beta.

That's part of what's the game bringing in terms of something new in the 4X landscape (or back to it, with, essentially, a much better "Score" system).

 There are indeed tons of other games out there, including Amplitude's, that have specific victory conditions. Let's experience something new for once, and forge opinions after.