Asenna Steam
kirjaudu sisään
|
kieli
简体中文 (yksinkertaistettu kiina)
繁體中文 (perinteinen kiina)
日本語 (japani)
한국어 (korea)
ไทย (thai)
български (bulgaria)
Čeština (tšekki)
Dansk (tanska)
Deutsch (saksa)
English (englanti)
Español – España (espanja – Espanja)
Español – Latinoamérica (espanja – Lat. Am.)
Ελληνικά (kreikka)
Français (ranska)
Italiano (italia)
Bahasa Indonesia (indonesia)
Magyar (unkari)
Nederlands (hollanti)
Norsk (norja)
Polski (puola)
Português (portugali – Portugali)
Português – Brasil (portugali – Brasilia)
Română (romania)
Русский (venäjä)
Svenska (ruotsi)
Türkçe (turkki)
Tiếng Việt (vietnam)
Українська (ukraina)
Ilmoita käännösongelmasta
The battle cards give you the promised effects, so if you think ignoring 20% more damage has no effect.... well I simply don´t know what to say.
Why should the ships numbers be limited??? If you have the gold to field it, you should be able to buy it.
Outfitting is the same as the battle cards... 50/50 win ratio is quite bad imho
There are sweet systems out there that you simply want. If you are ready to trade your 6 planet system with garden of eden and solar farm for a 2 asteroids system...
The cheating I will adress afterwards.
So...you lead in tech and get only 50/50? Could be due to the missing 20% damage from the cards? If you use cards and only get 50% win rate, think about your ship design.
The cheating is the only part I agree on, but well if you want to cheat there will always be a way. Whether it is abusing a mechanic or a console command. It would be cool if the designers would work on this, but there are more important things.
The best evidence of how meaningless this supposed '50/50 ratio' is is the idea that having 'more tech' should improve it. More tech in what? Are you upgrading your ships? Nonsense.
I agree the manual battles are painfully slow and I seldom sit through the animations. I will sit through them to see when and where my fleets are having success and when/where they are taking a beating. I would like to see detailed battle reports broken down by turn though, or a speed slider.
The cards DO matter, they can change an even fight into a low loss victory. If all your cards are countered, it makes an even fight a painful loss. Tech DOES matter, fall behind and you find out quickly that tech leads win. If you have a 50/50 win/loss you are playing wrong, i.e. not spending time refitting to counter the AI.
The most misleading comment is unlimited ships. It is limited by your economy, just because you apparently just kept building ships and sending them to slaughter doesn't mean there isn't a cap. I always find myself balancing the max fleets I can field and keeping them upgraded with the latest tech.
My guess is that you picked a faction that fit into your playstyle and your first game went well for you. Try again with a different faction and maybe a higher difficulty. You don't say if you changed settings to make the game easier. One game isn't enough to make such generalizations.
Not liking a game is fine, but your descriptions of the gameplay are incorrect and misleading.
Again, my fleets with 45,000 MP vs 50,000 mp were a 50/50 win chance playing 0 cards or full cards. Even playing cards where I got the yellow + made little difference.
There was a period of time vs one of the factions where my fleets were 42,000 vs 39,000 and I would get constant +'s on all my cards and still end up with a 50/50 chance.
My opinions and experience with the game are 100% valid and you can fool yourself into thinking otherwise if it helps you sleep at night. I recently loaded up Stardrive and that game has a long list of other issues that need resolved but combat was NOT one of them (at least not nearly as bad as this game).
I've invested more hours into gaming than any normal human should and Endless Space has some of the worst combat i've seen. In a 4x.
You opinions are valid since they are opinions. Your experience is limited to one game, and your commentary shows it.
Custom races can easily be made OP. If you had the tech lead you thought you had, your fleet MP would have dwarved the opponents. If you had the tech lead you thought you had, you wouldn't be able to 'cheat' for tech. 45k to 50k is basically an even fight, so I'd expect 50/50. Having the tech lead means you get to curb stomp the AI while disregarding cards and heros.
I've logged a few hours into ES, my opinion is that the cards make a difference. Not the end all be all, but a noticable difference. Played right you win the match and limit your losses.
ES isn't a combat simulator, it's a Rock,Paper, Scissors match. I wouldn't recommend it for anyone who wants to play realtime combat games. ES focuses more on empire building. Like all 4X games, once you get the jump on the AI and take over an opponent or two, you've pretty much won the game, and it's just a matter of going through the paces. Unless someone sneaks in a wonder/science victory, which has happened to me a few times.
Can't stop people from breaking their own game and complaining about it though.
The reasons your fleet was only winning 50/50 is fairly obvious from your post. You made a custom race that was heavily tech focused. You were likely fighting races that were either more balanced or combat focused giving them greater combat abilities. What you were experiencing it sounds like is actual game balance. Your tech focused race relied on its tech advantage to keep combat 'balance' not result in a blow out in your favor every time. I call that good race design balance.
You also made nothing but extremely generic 50/50 ship designs and are surprised you only have a 50/50 win ratio. Lol. Put some thought and effort it the design of your ships and weapons/defenses of your enemy and you will do dramatically better than 50/50. Also, did you notice that each hull type has advantages and disadvantages for different types of systems? That also makes a dramatic difference in the combat. Being lazy and just churning out 100s of generic ships is going to result in abysmal combat losses. That's not the games fault. As far as claiming you made ships 100% to counter your enemy and it made no difference - I call foul. The game system being what it is, had you actually done this you would have annihilated your opponent and taken zero losses. Simple as that, saying otherwise is outright fabrication. The AI will counter your counter ships fairly quickly if you continue to use them and sometimes the AI makes fairly balanced ships that aren't as vulnerable to being countered. You have to keep your fleet designs fresh and changing which is one of the interesting things about this game.
The star systems are MUCH more varied than in most 4X games. All those special resources are fairly significant for certain types of tech and/or give empire wide bonuses. A really good system near your border is certainly casus belli.
Cheating or using exploits is entirely up to you. Virtually every game I have ever played has some cheap way of exploiting some weakness in the AI. If you find that doing so ruins your enjoyment of the game then don't do such things. Simple as that.
I said, out of 100's of battles using cards or not using cards I always had a 50/50 chance of victory.
This was very obvious to me when I would get all 3 cards with + on them, enemy would have a few RED (failures) or just normal green's, we would have even fleets... and it was a 50/50 chance for victory.
If an enemy fleet is 100% energy weapon based. I build ships with 100% energy weapon defense, and I play energy weapon defense cards, AND I get a bonus on those cards because I countered the enemy cards... I should destroy them. But I didn't. It was 50/50 chance for victory, or both sides suffered heavy losses.
I had unlimited funds and owned a majority of the largest galaxy size. I spent the last few hours rebuilding ships over and over attempting to find a way to make the combat/defense/cards actually matter.
I basically had "cheat codes" enabled in that I had so much money and was instantly building the strongest fleets that I could try every combination of anything I wanted. Nothing made a difference. The only real combat change that mattered was assigning an agent/commander/whatever to the fleet. That would double/triple the MP and you would typially stomp anything.
Anyway, if someone asked me "Should I get ES or Sins?" I would say Sins hands down. Both games have almost equal depth and the combat in Sins is way better and choices made by the player make a huge difference.
But as way of a comparison I got Kerbal Space Program a couple of months ago, played it for 170 hours and am still wanting to go back and play it more. And there is still loads to be added to it yet unlike ES which seems to have had all development ceased (I assume they are all working on the expansion pack).
Having said all that ES remains one of my most played games on Steam but I dont play games much these days. Minecraft and KSP have both been played a lot more as has Battle of Britain 2, mostly non-Steam games. And I have a list of games including ARMA2 and Hearts of Iron 3 that I would rather go back to play than playing ES again. It will probably come off my hard-disk soon and not go back on.
I cant imagine I will want to get the expansion pack.
Sorry if you feel insulted, on my part I was responding to your premise that I was the one fooling myself. You've expressed an opinion that other's don't share. You back up that opinion with 'facts' that other's find rather unfactual. Don't be surprised when people refute those 'facts'.
I'm not sure what 'proof' you expect, we are just sharing experiences here after all. One small fact that has been refuted is that ships are unlimited. As other's stated, it is limited by your economy. But you wouldn't know that because you broke your economy with a 'cheat code'. I chose this because it shows how you changed the game dramatically with your codes, and it highlights how your experience doesn't represent what other's experience playing as the game was meant to be played.
What it boils down to is that you played one game, with a custom faction that may have been overpowered, and then apparently enabled 'cheat codes'. Only you know what other options you mucked with to make the game easier. You broke the game dude. And after breaking your game, you decide to share your experience as 'facts'.
Try playing the game the way it was meant to be played. I lost several games before I won one. Personally I like games I can lose, and I try to take my losses as learning experiences. Made my first win that much nicer.
If your complaint was that the combat system isn't to your liking, I probably wouldn't have responded. That's a fair opinion and one that others share. My problem is that the 'facts', as you protray them, clearly indicate that you have NOT experienced the whole game as you indicated in the OP.
As for "proving you wrong" about the battles. Uh, you provided zero proof yourself. You said battles went a certain way, provided zero data, proof, or anything. So since you said you did 100's of battles (doubt it), I'll say I did 1000's of battles showing the exact opposite. There you go, undeniable proof of the same quality as yours.
Finaly! Someone that has their head on straight! Thumbs up..like like like!