Alternative solutions to "Human battles are too short"

[xX-Dillinger-Xx]

Due to the fact that this discussion is outside the scope of PR #9851 and Issue #9802 , I'm starting a discussion here.

Side note I'm starting to learn that PR's and Issues are meant to have a very narrow focus and that people don't like it when people like me come in and offer input that drifts outside that focus. I'll try to be more cognoscente of that in the future.

I've copied and pasted my comment from #9851 to here. I'm not suggesting that the #9851 is unnecessary. Adjusting T1 ratios may very well be needed. However, I have feeling that T1 ratio matters more to game designers then it does to players. Just an opinion. According to some, adjusting that ratio will have ripple effects through out the game and will inevitably cause a lot of unnecessary work and a balancing nightmare. Not to mention, a divide as which way is best to alter that ratio.
Here is my question. Is adjusting the ratios the best way to deal with the "battles are too short" issue?

The big question is, what is the real issue in the comment human battles are to short?
I highly doubt players are referring to what is happening between the NPC's. How many players care how fast NPC's kill each other? I feel the complaints stem from the player dyeing too quickly. It certainly wouldn't be from the player killing too quickly. When was the last time you read "Ah, I killed them too quickly. I'm over powered, I wish my ship was weaker" ? You do see "Why do I die so fast?".
If I'm completely wrong about this, I'm sorry. Let me know and I will close this discussion.
How do you fix the "battles are too short" issue?

What are the options: --- I'll start with the ones I can think of. I'm sure I've missed some. Feel free to add your own.

• decrease DPS (has ripple effect and alters tier ratio)
• increase HP (has ripple effect and alters tier ratio)
• improve human shield generators ( limited ripple effect and limited effect on tier ratio ) -- nobody uses human gens. beyond FW anyway and if they did, who cares. (additional point - there are only 5 so very little work)
• alter the system arrival points in some human space systems to spread battles out a bit. The start of the fight would be delayed. See my other discussion Adjust system arrival point's and intersystem travel mechanics #9861 for a more detailed explanation. ( no ripple effect and no effect on tier ratio)
• alter the asteroids so they can be used as a tactical feature. (Zitchas idea, I think)
• reduce NPC fleet sizes in human space a little so the player isn't ganged up on
• add a tiny buff to the players ships. DPS and/or HP (maybe a non purchasable (i.e. gift) outfit that adds the buff but stays with the player like licenses do.) It could be removed later in the game. Let's call it training wheels. I highly doubt any player would complain. (no ripple effect and no effect on tier ratio - only effects the player and only for the first part of the game)(also doesn't really mess with lore IMO)

Any of the above ideas could be tweaked to only focus on early game and human space.

[MasterOfGrey]

This is just one of the many problems that ultimately stems from a lack of reasonable mass and capability scaling across ship sizes.
All of these options (like many options for other things before them) are effectively balancing around the problem, rather than addressing it..

Having said that, I wouldn't mind seeing something that can be done with asteroids.

[MasterOfGrey]

Excluding the special superheavy ships out there. Common ES ships range in mass from around 50t to around 2,500t.
If you applied volumetric scaling to them based on the visuals, that range should (somewhat conservatively) be more along the lines of 50t to 12,000t just for human ships.

This nearly five-fold shortfall in possible mass across ship sizes contributes to balancing difficulties for everything from fighter vs heavy warship ship speeds, the effectiveness of heat damage (mass is a heat sink), and the potential endurance of heavy ships by installing more equipment to sustain in battle.
It also means that the ships are restrictive when it comes to the possibility of adding new things. It would be lovely to have a full range of countermeasures for different missile types, armouries for crew weapons, and various other conceived of outfits - but there's scarcely a ship that can afford to carry a radar jammer when anti-missile works better. We could have a paradigm where the bigger a ship gets, the more likely it is to carry countermeasures, and keep its limited turret slots for more weapons - but there are no ships big enough to make countermeasures worth taking vs an anti-missile turret, if you actually need to defend against them.
Equally, there's no cause for genuinely high-damage single-shot weapons that it would be worth programming AI tactics for/against, because while regen is king in a protracted fight, it's still orders of magnitude below the point where it's really worth it for a fleet to carry an anti-capital ship torpedo boat.

At the end of the day, the difficulties of balancing in this game all come back to mass.

And, in my observation, just when people think the balance is about right; something new gets added and the process starts all over again.

[xX-Dillinger-Xx]

Interesting view of the problem. I also had the impression that the scaling in this game was out of wack, especially in human space. I just figured, "oh well it is what it is"

I think constant re-balance is an endless circle in any game. Game developers responsible for maintaining balance live in a world surrounded by data, which tends to make them more sensitive to balance numbers. Obviously, data analysis is hugely important in the world but sometimes doesn't represent how things feel in reality. I used to fall into a similar trap all the time. I tend to over analyze things and come up with overly complicated solutions to simple problems. I need to remind myself of the K.I.S.S. theory everyday.

[MasterOfGrey]

Indeed, I'm firmly of the opinion that the relative lack of scaling makes the margins on balance too tight, and the result is the endless circle is upset by almost every small change.

You've only gotta look at the debate on the numbers for adding in a couple ships a while back: #7436, and how they were subsequently tweaked by such small amounts: #8193
They were pretty chill and civilised discussions - but when a mid-range ship fits reasonably well into it's own race's line-up, but needs to be quibbled over a 2.6% difference in HP, and eventually have engine space buffed by just 6 points, to keep things balanced against other races; you've got a very tight margin on balancing.
And that was 2 years ago, a whole 2 alien races have been added since then.

Fixing the scaling in a way that feels good in-game might not be the simplest thing, but if you come up with a predominantly algorithmic approach for it, it's the sort of thing you only have to do once. (One was proposed for discussion, but was rejected because people didn't like the particulars of that (draft) algorithmic approach #6481 (comment))
Meanwhile, the endless circle spins ever faster.

[xX-Dillinger-Xx]

quibbled over a 2.6% difference in HP

Would player have even noticed? I highly doubt it.

, and eventually have engine space buffed by just 6 points,

Now things like this they notice. There are a few ship builds you just can't quite reach because the next best engine is 1 or 2 points too big. Frustrating. I guess I could edit files and justify it with " I needed a little more room so I tossed out some furniture". LOL

I said it before, perfect balance is something devs care about more then players. Ever heard the phrase " can't see the forest for all the trees "

[xX-Dillinger-Xx]

side story: I used to play another popular MMO game. It was a free to play, but pay to win game. They got so focused on balance and adding new things for people to buy, they didn't have any time to repair some of the big problems players kept telling them about. You can imagine what happened when devs started messing with the balance of items people payed real money for. Very hostile at times.
Just like some things here, some really big issues were ignored for years. The game went from as high as apporx. 50000 players a day, at it's peak, to now less then 5000 a day. They added so much stuff, the game became too difficult to play and stopped being fun.

[mOctave]

As someone who doesn't grind on ES and focus on optimization nearly as much as many other contributors here, I find this:

1. Early game, I get beat up a lot by pirates. I tend to stick with the starter ship for longer than I need to, so I play a lot of dodge-that-pirate. If I mess up, I die. Occasionally, I manage to escape, but there is no possible circumstance in which I could actually beat the pirates. Would making the battles last longer help? Maybe. Or maybe it would just be a slower, more painful death. An optimized shuttle could probably take out a pirate interceptor at the hands of the skilled pilot. But I don't have an optimized shuttle. I have a stock shuttle with a couple outfits switched around and an energy blaster to fill some extra space, get a good feeling when the militia thanks me for me help in combat, and occasionally board a crippled but not disabled pirate.
2. Maybe I end up with an interceptor instead. In that case, I don't have the experience other experienced players seem to have. Rather, my interceptor battles are long and drawn out, because I'm still not focused on dps-maxing my Sparrow. Instead, my weapons are going to be approximately equivalent to my enemy's, and the battle comes down to skill and tactics. These battles tend to last a long time unless someone jumps in and kills off one of us. I either need to wear down the enemy's secondary weapons to the point where my energy weapons can destroy them with impunity, or I need to do a whole bunch of low-accuracy, high-speed bombing runs on them and hope that I don't run out of ammo.
3. Finally, I choose to move on to something a little less bad. Now, I am more than a match for the pirate interceptors, but I've still got to watch out for the HWs. In some ways, this is the most fun part of the game for me. The battles are no longer too short unless I'm fighting one of those weakling pirates, but I still need to watch where I go lest I arouse the wrath of a Leviathan.
4. Now, I get to move on to a HW myself. This stage of the game usually consists of me blasting away at puny pirates and building a CR for myself, something I have neglected to do until now. As Dilinger said, though, I don't complain about being OP: it took a lot of work to get this far, and I know I'll be back to square one as soon as I hit alien space.

I'm curious: is the too-short battle thing something brought up by new players, or experienced ones? Any experienced player can get themselves a ship that will only fight short battles, but I suspect that new players are more likely to have non-optimized builds like mine that don't have this problem. While early-game survival remains an issue, I'm not sure that the way to solve it is to make everything else take longer.

Regarding asteroids:

Personally, I'd love to have asteroid belts for our asteroids and not just for minables. What if we reduced the number of asteroids by 50%, dropped their speeds by 25% or so, and increased their size by about 10-20%? That would add an element of strategy to the asteroid game without letting HWs hide behind them like a pure size buff of 50-100% might.

[xX-Dillinger-Xx]

Interesting, so you feel the issue, for the player is dyeing to fast?
I personally, have stopped being so obsessive about hulls and shields and focus on speed, maneuverability, and dealing as much damage as possible per pass. I also use a few escorts and place them out away from the center and try to draw the enemy into a trap. This only works because the AI is too stupid to see the trap. So, in essence it's like cheating, kinda.

[Hurleveur]

@mOctave the game says the blaster on a shuttle is useless. That is not true, it has a negative effect bc it draws pirates to you. Dont use one.
As for interceptors a sparrow with sidewinders is a menace, or simply with energy blasters (not with lasers tho). Furthermore the sparrow is agile enough to dodge any pirates.

For me the short battle issue is mostly bc of overbuffed human missiles like the torpedo and heavy rocket, that are a big issue for inexperinced players (gotta dodge them and not be too close to the ship)

[Quantumshark]

The big issue with the Heavy Rocket in particular is that although it itself is slow, unguided and easy to dodge, it's often deployed by small, fast pirate interceptors which attack from almost point-blank range. That's the thing that makes it dangerous, it's largely harmless for small ships when equipped by something like a Bastion. Torpedoes likewise.

[mOctave]

@mOctave the game says the blaster on a shuttle is useless. That is not true, it has a negative effect bc it draws pirates to you. Dont use one.

Well, I dislike feeling defenceless, though. And I don't usually play ES with the goal of being the best possible at it :)

[Hurleveur]

Its the difference between all pirates attaking or ignoring you, you do you
the single blaster is like a water gun, but it looks real enough

[xX-Dillinger-Xx]

I'm just thinking out loud.
I'm starting to wonder if it would be a good idea to improve early game experience for new players. Maybe, figure out how to allow new players to survive a little longer. Most games are intentionally easy at the very beginning to allow players to learn the game. It doesn't feel so easy at the time. It's only after you come back and replay that it seems easy, maybe too easy. The hard part for developers and testers is you can only ever have a first impression once. You have to rely on feed back from truly new players.

[Zitchas]

Yes, definitely. It's a core goal for a lot of ideas I've had over the past couple of years. Most will probably never make it into mainstream ES as it would rock the boat too much, similar to GreyMasterofGrey's comment. Inertia is a nasty thing.

[xX-Dillinger-Xx]

as it would rock the boat too much

There may be another issue at play. It tends to revolve around age. I don't have any idea, the ages of people here but can make a pretty good guess, but I'm not going there. I'll keep it general. Younger people have a hard time separating pride from ego. When I was much younger I would defend my decisions fiercely. "I know better" I had pride but way too much ego. Ego is like wearing ear plugs, "I can't hear you".
Today, I still have a lot of pride in my work but a lot less ego. Now I'm able to listen to others and realize there probably is another way that I didn't think of. In fact I seek and welcome the input of others.
Wouldn't it be great if we could impart the wisdom, that only comes with age, onto the young? But most don't want to hear it. 😁

Ever heard the Mark Twain quote, “When I was a boy of 14, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be 21, I was astonished at how much the old man had learned in seven years.”

[xX-Dillinger-Xx]

I still maintain that, balance in this game is just an elusion.

• If players were forced to only play the vanilla version, then yes balance would be a really big factor
• players have access to editing ship and weapons files, anyway they want, and most do. Or they use plugins, and most do. So there goes the balance everyone spent so much time perfecting. So in reality, the perfect balance only applies to a very small number of players.
• Balance only matters to 1st time players and only for the first part of their "career". How many players end up capping something "unbalanced" and not intended for the FW storyline, but end using it to complete FW anyway? Again, balance no longer applies.
• On my second playthrough, and every one since, I decided to skip the tier jumping and just stick with the ships I prefer. I prefer the Remnant ships. They are only supposed to be T1.5 (i think), so why would I want use them? Because, they are fun. I don't care that the "balance" numbers tell me I don't stand a chance, IMO the numbers are wrong. This only supports what I'm saying, "Balance is an elusion"

I guess my point is, stop focusing so much time on balancing numbers and just make stuff that makes sense. Focus more on making the overall experience more enjoyable. Players will sort out the balance on their own. Players will always just do what ever they feel is fun for them, even if it means editing files.

[Haukr777]

Thinking out loud as well.
To me, the game looks very well balanced in the beginning, and while you remain within human space.
Once you start being used to tier 2, most human ships are really like flies.

I was wondering if this could be solved by applying an additional layer, such as a "dodge" skill (EDIT: to be applied after the collision and even to beam lasers). After all, there is almost no friendly fire in the game, so we already see ships that are not hit while on the line of fire.
This could either be related to the ship itself (let's say, that could depend on the model, so a Hawk or a Sparrow could have a better dodge rating than a Fury and certainly better than a Rano'erek, but that could depend on the steering factor as well, so it could be improved up to a limit), and/or to the characters.
This is a RPG, in fact, but your character really has no development: you are the equipment and the knowledge/tech you brought.

Other player skills that I think could be added would be related to ship boarding. While reasonable, ship boarding looks also very simplistic in comparison to the true tactics we would have with the real thing.
It would be amazing if that part of the game could be a bit more akin to tactical RPG games, having small arms, grenade, first aid, tactical skills.
The battlefield must not be crazy, units could move around a simple checkerboard, mimicking the involved ships.
Units could be upgraded as in games like Mount & Blade, so not to have an abnormal increase in complexity. So they would only be a unit type along with the exp needed for the next upgrade.
The only complex character, as for skills, would be the main one.

[xX-Dillinger-Xx]

I'm not sure if I ever mentioned this before, but I, as well, never really had any issues while playing in human space during my first playthrough. At least none related to battle balance or length. The only reason I started this discussion was to provide an area to record alternative ways of addressing an issue being dealt with in the listed PR's.

The "dodge skill" as you called it is something that will just become part of the smarter AI that the developers are working towards. The current AI is rather "stupid" and suicidal. I hope it will get sent for some combat training soon . (i.e. be programed to make more logical decisions)

I also agree that boarding is currently too simplistic. The whole process of disabling, plundering, and/or capturing does not make a whole lot of sense, logically. I personally would love to see a more immersive and involved experience.

[Haukr777]

maybe I wasn't clear enough in my comment or I am misunderstanding you now: when I meant dodging, I would've applied this random+skill factor after the collision has occurred, let's say, even with beam lasers (plenty of sci-fi stuff in which beam lasers fail to hit the target).
This would also realistically factor the Y dimension.

Good to know, on the other hand, that AI will improve the dodging ability of ships before the collision.

[Quantumshark]

reduce NPC fleet sizes in human space a little so the player isn't ganged up on

I think this is the best solution, because it solves more problems than just this one.
Why is combat being too short an issue? I think you're right that dying too quickly isn't fun, and you're right that this would help with that. The excessive per-shot damage of missiles is another contributor to that, particularly early-game, and that's something we ought to look at too.
But combat being too short is also an issue because it means that the rng-heavy clashes between rival npcs can decide a battle before the player has time to make a difference. It's quite often in a campaign battle to quickly find yourself alone against half the enemy fleet because your allies died so quickly, and from there you can't do much except reload and try again. That's the other problem other than directly dying too fast. Scaling down both the ally and enemy fleet means that if that does happen, you're left with a less one-sided combat in which you can actually make a difference, and that's an improvement.

[Haukr777]

@Hurleveur @xX-Dillinger-Xx Apologies for the late reply but I was both busy and away; and thank you both, it seems you have a cute community here.

Well, I guess that a better opinion on the subject could be gathered if people had a chance to compare the gameplay in different versions of the game (e.g.: without and with light/heavy dodging rates applied).
Although for sure quite a few people feel like something could be improved or tested (otherwise this and other threads, such as the one concerning carriers and fighters, wouldn't have been started).
I think it would be fun to see Endless Sky just as the battles in Star Wars, with interceptors dodging fire a few times, before being destroyed (and with most of my ships and foes at tier 2 I really have no reason to have fighters and interceptors in my fleet, which feels as missing a part of the potential of this game).
But of course I can't have people do this, just because I think it would be nice.

So I freed up some space on my computer, installed Visual Studio Community (it surely takes up some space) and the advised packages,
I guess I will take this as an opportunity to learn some coding in C++ (some courses are in order, but of course if someone feels like guiding/helping me, I will be most grateful and open to suggestions).

Do I only have to click here for forking the game? Any other instructions?

[warp-core]

That should create a fork of the repository on your account, yes.

Here's GitHub's information on forks: https://docs.github.com/en/pull-requests/collaborating-with-pull-requests/working-with-forks/fork-a-repo

[Haukr777]

thank you, @warp-core ! Here it goes: https://github.com/Haukr777/endless-sky

[xX-Dillinger-Xx]

@Haukr777

if people had a chance to compare the gameplay in different versions of the game

Are you aware of these? ES Launcher2 and ES Manager Both allow you to download PR's for testing. ESManager is supposed to be better suited for developers. I haven't tried it.

I also like using this site as well. http://dev.endless-sky.7vn.io However, it is not always up to date.

[Haukr777]

one week later: I stopped playing ES, but during that time, I finished a few general coding courses and am at 55% of a cute C++ course. Until now it's been fun. I want to complete a few C++ courses and feel confident before I start coding, but I guess "I'll be back".

[xX-Dillinger-Xx]

Another long read, but it's important to be clear.

Just resetting the thread. We were starting to drift into 2 different topics.
Let's continue the discussion of Republics, FW, and Syn outfits and ships.

@Quantumshark @bene-dictator
You are both suggesting we need more diversity in human space, and I agree
@Hecter94
You are suggesting not to add too many more factions specific outfits, and I agree with this as well. I feel, we almost have too many options, as it is, in human space.

Why can't we ( we, meaning those of us in this discussion and those that actually change things ) simply redefine what already exists? Some outfits are already produced by a specific faction, but aren't identified as such. Syndicate Generators are a perfect example. (let's not get bogged down about when they should be available. That's a different conversation)
If we decide that it makes sense to redistribute some of the outfits it would mean we would need to remove availability from certain outfitters and add availability to others. Even some of the current ships could become even more faction specific.
This does two things.

1. It's introduces the idea of mixing and matching from different factions and locations, without becoming overwhelming to new players.
2. Offers the suggestion that there may be an incentive to favour one faction or another at later points in the game.

Currently, we get a very clear understanding that the Republic and it's navy are a stand alone faction right from day one. They have unique ships that the player can't buy. New player can safely assume that maybe one day they can buy them, and as it turns out, the assumption is correct.
Once we are introduced to the FW it becomes clear that they are also stand alone, they developed the Dreadnaught and now the player can buy that.
The same can not be said about the Syndicate. Except for ships, they do not have any unique outfits, except the proton gun, until much later in the storyline. As I mention somewhere before, there is no clear incentive to join forces with them.
However, most of the actual outfits are not unique to anyone and are available everywhere.
.

[Hecter94]

Armageddon Core could be buffed above the Fusion Reactor and then made Navy-exclusive.
Regenerators could be nerfed down to be about halfway between Human and Hai shield generators, made Syndicate exclusive, and available from the start of the game.
Pirates already have a few unique things and are getting more, so they're probably good as-is.
Free Worlds get the flamethrower, plasma turret, and plasma repeater, so they're probably good as-is.

This would mean a fully optimized ship at the end of FW would likely want to be a Carrier, Dreadnought, or Bactrian, using a navy-exclusive reactor, with syndicate exclusive shields and FW-exclusive turrets, which is likely enough diversification.

[43897689431805741092]

Something I think might be worth noting is that, at least based on what I've seen, the most common complaints about combat being too fast come from new players dying to a random pirate heavy warship when they enter a system in their starting or second ship. This isn't possible to know without some serious data collection and analysis, but: if these complaints cease per-player as they become more experienced, then that might not represent a problem with the game's balance so much as the process of adjusting one's expectations to match its offerings.

Fights between two equally-sized ships seem to play out reasonably, presuming an intended combat time of 30-60 seconds. The real problem, if there is one, appears to be the lack of freedom of player skill expression during asymmetric engagements. My own take is that:

• Weapon ranges and projectile travel times are too short relative to ship responsiveness, making it not reasonably practicable to actually perform evasion.
• Weapon inaccuracy values are too low, such that their cone of fire is smaller than most small ships, ergo said ships lack much in the way of a passive defence afforded by their small hitboxes.

[Haukr777]

@Zitchas thank you for the explanation! Well, as I previously said, to me it's neither (we don't have the Z-axis here, as in the X series, and plenty of classical RPGs having rogue builds based on evasion, I don't feel it's cheap but that's because they are mostly built around D&D RNG-RPG concepts, here the concept seems to me to be mostly based on the actual abilities of the player). But I do see your point.

On the other hand, I totally agree on the pirates whose purpose shouldn't be to blow up ships for the sake of it, but rather to board them. That's the way they are meant to be, and the way we imagine them.

[Zitchas]

I was probably a tad harsh on Dodge stats. Like in D&D, there is probably a place for it when chosen carefully for specific use. In ES's case, I could see it being used for fighters and drones, but that is it. Nothing in any ship that we expect players to ever fly for a meaningful amount of time.

It is still, however, a bandaid for the fact that our NPCs don't recognize being shot at, not take defensive maneuvers to avoid being hit, as well as the fact that all our capital ships turn way too fast and thus can bring heavy weapons to bear on ships that should be able to rely on speed to stay safe...

[Haukr777]

@Zitchas I totally agree on that, to me the most unrealistic fact is that I can see ships that just go straight into being reduced into scraps in a matter of seconds. It specially sounds weird after all the nice emphasis that has been put into getting your first ship.
Above all, as you said, it's a matter of their "personality" and "intelligence".

On the other hand, I don't think it would be a bad idea if interceptors could be a more viable option (and here I don't mean just as a flagship, but as escort ships as well) in later parts of the game, since of course it would be weird if they had hull scores in the range of 10K.

[Quantumshark]

Random [dodge, miss] chance does have a place, and that place is games that don't have actual collision detection. It should not be used in cases where it's already possible to not be hit by an attack by moving out of the way.

the fact that our NPCs don't recognize being shot at, not take defensive maneuvers to avoid being hit

I agree our current AI needs work, but I'd be hesitant to go too far with improving it. It's good to have AI that plays at least somewhat badly, to give new players a chance - it means that clever tactics are something the player can use to gain an advantage, rather than something they must use just to keep up.
In particular, AI that was too good at dodging would make the game absolutely miserable to play. Dodging is fun, but having your attacks dodged becomes quite frustrating quite quickly if it happens persistently.

[Zitchas]

That's why it wouldn't be a universal thing, but something reserved for the "ace pilot" personality. Regular ones wouldn't. Maybe have a "decent pilot" mid step that does exactly what it says on the tin.

[Haukr777]

@Quantumshark "Random [dodge, miss] chance does have a place, and that place is games that don't have actual collision detection. It should not be used in cases where it's already possible to not be hit by an attack by moving out of the way."

Actually, games in the Elder Scrolls series, starting from Arena, Daggerfall, Morrowind, all have skills that improve the more you use them. Among them are skills such as the dodge one, that improves the more you evade, or even the light/medium/heavy armor skills, that improve the more you get hit.
And this is of course in addition to the fact that you may move out of the way of any hit or spell.

Sea Dogs is a pirate RPG/simulator. In addition to the ship stats, it has skills such as coordination, repair, sailing, reloading, defence, boarding, and you get 3-5 skill points every time you level up, through experience. Even officers add to such skills.
Same here, skills add to your actual ability at boarding and ship maneuvering.

Games such as X1, X2, X3, etc., on the other hand, do not have any player stat, but only ship stats, and you only evade because of your ability to fly. But they are also akin to 3D flight (and economy) simulators, in the way they work.

Mount & Blade goes as a medieval simulator with horses, ranged and close combat, castles. And you can be a simple freelancer or running an empire. The more you practice a skill, via training or experience, the better you are at fighting with a certain weapon, but still you need to be good at actually dodging and landing hits. Also, there is no dodge skill here, but you have both agility (which influences the speed at which you actually move to dodge hits) and strength that influences your hit points and damage.

These are all amazing games, IMO. All in all, I would say it's rather a matter of game philosophy and weighing all the elements, but a good balance can be achieved in many different ways.

[Hecter94]

Actually, games in the Elder Scrolls series, starting from Arena, Daggerfall, Morrowind, all have skills that improve the more you use them. Among them are skills such as the dodge one, that improves the more you evade, or even the light/medium/heavy armor skills, that improve the more you get hit.

This is also a widely criticized feature of these games. I would say they're good games despite that mechanic, not due to it.

Endless Sky's closest simile to character stats and/or character building is likely in its shipbuilding, where you have a limited resource: outfit space, and have to choose what stats you want to prioritize within the limited amount of space you have access to.

If you want to dodge, you have to actually dodge. If you have trouble dodging, you can prioritize the "agility" of your ship to make dodging easier while simultaneously weakening other aspects of it. Hence why it's likely incompatible with the sort of progression-based leveling system employed by a few of the games you've mentioned.

[Haukr777]

@Hecter94 you may not like that in TES, but it's core in other games (there's Agility even in System Shock 2, or try to dodge hits with agility 1 in Mount & Blade, at higher difficulties: it's totally unfair). Some games even add a parry option as a chance to counter-attack.
Anyway, I am the first one who wouldn't like such mechanics to be applied to the extreme, to a game like ES. It would be too pervasive, it would make no sense.
On the other hand, I feel like something's missing, as I am unable to roll or to carry out maneuvers such an Immelmann or a loop.

Still talking out loud: it would be amazing to see ES with a 3D engine.

[yafflehk]

I'm also thinking out loud here: Can we make solar systems larger and more complex? They are the terrain on which all battles take place. Right now they are a flat, featureless plain, but perhaps they shouldn't be? There should be places to hide and things to hide behind, pirate bases in the Oort cloud and police stations in the asteroid belt. The sun should be fatal, both to ships and missiles Gas giants should be systems unto themselves, but impossible to escape from with any but the most powerful engines. There should be tactical upgrades that carry no weight penalty but give a ship advantages in a system (an advanced auto pilot that will avoid gravity and ablation hazards (stay away from the gas giants and slow down in the asteroid fields). Missile ranges should be far greater than they are now. The practice of hovering over a star to refuel with a ramjet should be impossible (but if you have good cooling tech you can get closer). In general I feel that systems should be much much bigger than they are and have a lot more stuff in them.

[Zitchas]

Yes, larger and more complex systems are both possible and potentially very beneficial to the combat environment. Some of what you describe here is possible currently, but tricky to implement. I've got a copy of VitalChip's Sol kicking around here somewhere that is a lot of fun to explore.

[bene-dictator]

What would be very nice is the ability to define custom asteroid fields and place them in predefined areas, like in Naev.