I just don't... "get" the combat system.

[Varulfr]

It feels so obtuse to me. Here we've got all these variables supposedly under the hood, but I have no idea what, if any, I have an effect on. There's these flotilla options but I can't control that... choosing different cards says it does different things and changes the way the ships fly... ok...

Case in point: I'm attacking some pirate that supposedly has 0% efficiency at close range. I figure, right... I'll jump into close range, likely take some hits in the approach, but annihilate if I can get in there. I select the option, battle starts.

My choice seems to have no effect though. The ships exchange fire the entire time and it ends in a draw. How is it possible to exchange fire all the time if this guy has 0% efficiency at close range? At the very least, shouldn't he be "missing" or doing little damage or firing slowly or whatever it is that efficiency is supposed to be? Add to this that the AI ALSO chose a close-range option: wtf?

A different battle example. I'm attacking a fleet of two small, one medium ships. I have long range efficiency but, as before, this guy has nothing short range supposedly so I order one of the cards that closes in. The enemy has great long range efficiency, but during the battle doesn't fire a single shot. I blow up everything without any difficulty whatsoever.

I have no idea what is happening during these battles. Apparently there's a bunch of number crunching, but it seems that the only things that matter for a battle is having a higher attack value and maybe a protector ships thrown in to get shot at first. Outside of that initial ship selection... I just don't do anything. Why invest so much in a flashy cinematic when it just ends up pretty much the same every time with pretty much no input from the player? Why not just throw me an autoresolve with a nice, colorful splash screen (of which ES2 seems well-versed in) and devote these resources to something players actually have meaningful contribution to?

Am I alone here? Anyone else feeling this way?

[Cadelanne]

Originally posted by Varulfr:

My choice seems to have no effect though.

[...]

but it seems that the only things that matter for a battle is having a higher attack value and maybe a protector ships thrown in to get shot at first. Outside of that initial ship selection... I just don't do anything.

You got it. That's pretty much how it works. Build a bigger fleet, maybe pick weapons that somehow counter ennemy protection if you're in good mood, and that's it. Everything else is fancy and bright stuff but doesn't really matter.

[Shrinkshooter]

Originally posted by Varulfr:

snip

You are right about it being obtuse, in that there's almost ZERO information for you to make informed tactical decisions. You don't know anything about the enemy other than their range efficiencies, and regardless of whether you win or lose, you have no idea exactly how your pre-battle choices actually affected anything, so you can't just learn and adapt. You're basically taking wild guesses.

HOWEVER, there is one thing I do know that you don't: the range mechanics don't work the way you think they do. Short range beats medium, medium beats long, and long beats short. It's rock paper scissors. When an enemy has zero percent efficiency for close, that means they will NOT be choosing "close" as their attack range. Close counters medium, so because you know he isn't going with close, you can choose "medium" range for your fleet, because you know your enemy can't use the range that hard counters it.

It does NOT mean that you pick close, and get up close to him, and now he can't shoot at you. That's not how it works. In fact, you might have shot yourself in the foot. If your enemy had 0% close, that means he has medium and long. Long counters short, so if you picked short because you didn't understand the mechanics, and your enemy picked long, he just picked a range that hard counters what you picked.

[TehJumpingJawa]

Originally posted by Shrinkshooter:

Originally posted by Varulfr:

snip

HOWEVER, there is one thing I do know that you don't: the range mechanics don't work the way you think they do. Short range beats medium, medium beats long, and long beats short. It's rock paper scissors. When an enemy has zero percent efficiency for close, that means they will NOT be choosing "close" as their attack range. Close counters medium, so because you know he isn't going with close, you can choose "medium" range for your fleet, because you know your enemy can't use the range that hard counters it.

It does NOT mean that you pick close, and get up close to him, and now he can't shoot at you. That's not how it works. In fact, you might have shot yourself in the foot. If your enemy had 0% close, that means he has medium and long. Long counters short, so if you picked short because you didn't understand the mechanics, and your enemy picked long, he just picked a range that hard counters what you picked.

Wow, that's totally unintuitive.

[Varulfr]

Originally posted by TehJumpingJawa:

Wow, that's totally unintuitive.

No Kidding! See, this is what I'm talking about. Where do we pick up that kind of info? How are we supposed to infer that? How did YOU guys learn that??

Also, I still just don't understand the level of development that went into the visuals for something that amounts to a rock-paper-scissors game, especially when the rock-paper-scissors has virtually no effect when faced with "build bigger ships" strategy.

This is what I don't get: why bother with all of this fluff when the entire "strategy" amounts to buld bigger ships and click button? The visuals are interesting a couple times but the interest falls pretty fast when you know that your influence on any of it is pretty much nonexistent. I suppose I have about as much or less right to question a design decision as they do to have it, though.

Just can't imagine watching very many of these battles or why anyone else would. It just keeps begging the question: why so much effort into something I feel will be skipped by a majority of players after a certain point? Perhaps I am in the minority here.

[CloudAssault]

I'm pretty much in the same boat. They want to focus so much on the cinematic value of the space battles that they can't figure out a system that is up to par with the other complicated systems that they have outside of battles. When I'm in the galactic map, every decision feels very strategical and has a long lasting impact. When I enter a battle however, I feel like a soccer mom just watching her kids at a soccer game, hoping they kick it in the right goal.

[Sublustris]

You'll have to watch cinematic, if you want to know if your fleet doing good, and what went wrong. Amplitude is working on improving battle scan view feedback, so throw them Ideas at Ideas section of their site.
Things my look straight forward, when you have superior fleet - just pick the range you're good at and it's done. But it's a lot more interesting, when forces are equal, or your fleet is at disadvantage (early pirates anyone?) - you have to counter enemy range(s) plus pick a card that synergies best with it.
For more general tips, like, what range counters what - I think that'll come after release, when tutorials be ready.

[Drages]

The most stupid battle system in the 4x history.. even the battles which you watch, makes more sense.

Card system was a the worst thing at first game and i don't understand the reason why they used it at 2. game.

It's just not working and not logical.. i dont want stupid cards in my 4x game.. this is not a card game.. just make it SOTS way and be happy but nooo..

So there is totally no reason to play this game when there is Stellaris out there with some MOO 2 clones.

[Mysterarts]

Hi,

Thanks for your feedback on the battle. We know that we still have a lot of work to convince you about the system, so here are some explanations about the direction we’re trying to take.

But first, I must admit that I’m surprised with the result you get Varulfr! If a ship has 0% compatibility with a range, it should not fire. So maybe there is a bug in the simulator or in the range compatibility feedback. If you have a save where we can test it, it could help us. Because your reasoning is good and valid during our tests. ;)

So the range compatibility is important. But our goal is to create way more parameters to take into account if you want to select a good play. Some of them are not easily visible and the fact that we have a big feedback on range compatibilities gives the feeling that it’s the only one. That’s why we added more statistics comparisons (buttons in the lower middle). We tried to create some more complex effects, useful or not depending on the situation:

• I have a lot of energy weapons
  
• The enemy only has energy defenses
  
• The enemy wants to protect weak ships
  
• The enemy has big ships, etc.

In update 2, we all but removed the rock-paper-scissors effect on the ranges (unintuitive, you’re right), that’s why we removed the feedback about it. It now favors the shorter range when the ranges are long vs medium or medium vs short, but that’s only compensating the advantages of the long range to shoot first.

And because we “softened” range counters and compatibilities (e.g. laser and kinetic shoot now at every range), we think that we’re now creating a choice between taking into account the 3 range intentions or the effect on the card. For example, if you are in the situation where you have a majority of lasers and the opponent only kinetics and shield, it’s the perfect time to play “Plasma Distortion” (increase shield penetration for everyone), even if the main flotilla is at short range.

Obviously, if you have way more power in your fleet than your opponent, these choices could be logically almost pointless. But as [0xFB] [»Sublustris«] said, it becomes interesting if the forces are close or if your fleet has the disadvantage. The right choice can really save your ships, as our tests showed.


We know that we are still missing some important elements to completely prove the interest of the feature:

• A detailed after-action report to see the efficiency of the strategies
  
• More elements to increase the importance of flotilla distribution (support modules for the entire flotilla, better targeting / aggro etc.)
  
• Arena effects to add diversity in the encounters
  
• More content, especially exotic effects for strategical modules
  
• And very important: an IA being able to build ships and decks in a coherent manner, and to counter players to force them to adapt their strategy!

Don’t hesitate to follow and take part in the discussions on our forums, for example in this interesting thread: https://www.games2gether.com/endless-space-2/forum/66-game-design/thread/23242-space-battle-card-system

[Drages]

Really, just scrap all and make sots style and bbecome number 1 4x game.

Why ddon't u do this?

[Mysterarts]

Aha, why not ;)

[Thjof]

Originally posted by Mysterarts:

Aha, why not ;)

No need to copy things, but please don't underestimate the importance of combat. I (regrettably) refunded yesterday because space combat just seemed too simplistic, compared to e.g. MMO. If you don't offer tactical combat, you have to offer multifaceted and meaningful choices.

I'll continue to follow development, but if space combat leaves EA in the current state I'll have to move on.

[kryogenic]

I have to disagree with the comments on this thread relating to combat.

In Stellaris combat is not really tactical at all, ships group up in a big mess and shoot (at the nearest non combatant mining station more often than not). Don't get me wrong, I like Stellaris too but the combat is not strategic whereas the diplomacy and tech choices are.

Haven't played mmo personally, so can't say.

But I do like the idea of the combat system in this, though it does need tweaking to add more depth and strategic elements to the choices. The idea of a set of tactical choices being laid out to influence the battle is to me a bit like an admiral ordering a fleet before battle is met.

My suggestions for the system would be too thin the card effects a little, shielding should stop a reasonable amount of kinetics but not nearly as much as laser. Same and oposite for kinetics. Also the way the info is written (as pointed out earlier) is counter intuitive and could do with clarification.

From me to the devs, one thing I would like to see as well is the ground battles improved, rather than build this building for stat increase, some effect in battle would be better which would allow for counters to be used by the attacker (similar to space) and actual graphics rather than wireframes. Lastly system invasions are too rapid in this, in es1 you had time to respond by building and sending new ships to try to break a siege.

Just my two cents 😺

[ray.campokc]

The combat system seems like an afterthought. I don't like the idea of cards in the combat system and I don't like how it makes the combat feel so out of your control. The viewing options for the battle are horrible. I want to be able to pan, and zoom and rotate to see the battle from wherever I want. Overall, space combat is very underwhelming.

[Drages]

Originally posted by Mysterarts:

Aha, why not ;)

Don't get me wrong, i respect all your effort. But you got already a nice mechanic in strategic layer and you got the visuals and system for tactical. Just it's wrong and not a fitting mechanic for 4x combat.

I got first game and i wanted to play it so badly but that combat was, just so wrong.. i did not like that combat at all..

Stellaris got one of the worst tactical combat but still you can control things with different combinations and mod support. So it could be playble with some tweaking. But you can't do anything for this games combat style.

Just look at the forums and all the critics of first game.. it's all about combat mechanic. You just need to change the combat system for 2. game and you will win.. SOTS got one of the best tactical combat mechanic.. it's simple and uses one of the most loved Space RTS, Homeworld style. But at SOTS 2, devs destroyed themselves with some strategical decitions/failed to deliver content even they got maybe the best tactical combat..

I am asking that, why don't you just take a simple solution for the best result? Why do you insist to use your not working one at first game? I can't see the reason, why there is no developer to get the sure win option..

How can't someone get in love with the combat of Sots 1/2? There is 2 most accepted combat mechanic in 4x space strategies.. MOO 2 and SOTS.. and developers fail to deliver that kind of combat for decades..

There is tons of 4x space strategies here and there, from big companies to indies.. Big companies fails at tactical, indies fails at strategic.. Big companies just don't want to have a good tactical combat, without a reason, indies can't effort to finish their games because of the big scale..

It's just sad..

[HereticPriest]

If you made the battle card system more complex so it plays more like a true deck building game like MTG(ok not THAT complex) and discard the range thing completely, instead work it (range)into the battlecards somehow and make the battlecards you get dependent on the ship designs AND the ship XP level AND the star system/location terrain effects AND the tech AND maybe certain hero-abilities also this could be very interesting. And this would still keep the whole thing unique in a way, and similar yet expanded to the ES1 combat system.

edit: i forgot race-specific battlecards