PDA

View Full Version : Comments on Previous anno games. I hope you (Devs) will read it



alexjacobsen
08-25-2017, 08:21 AM
First of all I would like to say that im one of the few people who like the furture settings and I hope you will revisit the idea again at some point. Mabey where we are exploring the entire sol system with a bit less realism?

Secondly I would like to apologies for the bad English and how this post might end up more as a rant. But you know this is anno its important !! :-). I do hope however that someone in the dev. Team manages to read though this even though it has possibly been said and done already.

I have played 1404 and 2070 for about 300hrs each and enjoyed them greatly. Now I preordered 2205 thinking that would be the one francise I could count on and well… So I played the game at launch and when I got to the moon my finances tanked, tried to fix it for a bit and then thew in the towel, on my second attempt later on I got fed up with the obnoxious npcs so now and im on my third attempt to get though this game something I really did not have a problem with in the past. So I would like to make some observations.

Finaces / Resources
So one of the major power points was that we where going to the moon and quote “it might even be possible to make the moon self sustaining”. Now finaces in this game are really off, the moon was supposed to be the rewarding part and yet nothing gets build there because its just soo damn expensive, I know its probably about realism but this has to work as a game first, and I think 2205 would be more fun if you could balance out the other zones with some investment rather than just having mules for the tempered region.

Now if you look at youtubers making big cities in 1404/2070 they blob out in tier 1/2 pessants before going tall, and all though that is a strategy it almost seems required in 2205 and I for one don’t like the blob it feels almost like its contradictory to what the game actually wants you to do. But even on veteran you quite simply need the income.

In the main menu you have all these overlays showing economy trade expensive ect. And then you have a hidden trade taxation in the finance outliner that no one uses because we have all the other tools and all of a sudden you have a 12k hidden expse that you don’t know is there. I still don’t know how it works and how to overcome it, I just know that trade routes becomes exponetially more expensive the more you have. Im not saying it cant be there but it needs to be “visible”

So in 2205 you have all these rare resources and I thought they where a good idea to make combat and regular missions worth while. That said in patch 1.8 they seem opsolete, and I for one think that’s a shame.

Game mechanics
So the upgrade mechanics in 2205 outright removes some buildings / chains like beef production. First of outright removing games mechanics suggest to me that they are not worth building in the first place, some might say that I could just not take the – animal rights policy – but that is how you optimize in 2205 soo…
The orbital minigame really is unimpressive some kind of running science like in2070 would be preferable

I do like the “hostile takeover” options you have in 2070/2205 where you can buy out the competition rather than wage war ect. And I how you do something similar in the next game.

Now about the combat I will say that however I think it should be present to some extent I also don’t want it to be important, yep I know weird comb. But I guess I like 2070/2205 better than 1404 with the ground troops.


Other stuff.
I really don’t like the npc’s in 2205 they just seem so obnoxious I don’t know if its because your allways being bombarded with quests. That are ohh so important. As I recall listening to papa-whats-his-face and that army guy was the breaking point for my second attempt. I would suggest dialing it down a bit and mabey making it less juvenile

I do like that the game has a campaign you can play through and enjoy them en general that said I hope you will either bring back sandbox again or giving us the option to turn of the quest giver. She really dosent have to be there in 2205 right ? and you are left with an objective for hours at a time especially in the later game where you are not remotely able to push at it.

Something I like aswell in 2205 is the sector projects, and if you go back to the 1404/2070 layout of one big map I would suggest that you could make something similar for major isles on a map, mabey even randomized to give some kind of production boost ect.

Edit: Yes and think you should consider longer more complex but not more expensive productions chains. It seems to me that when getting the "big" stuff up and running in anno games is allways a great feeling

BertProesmans
09-04-2017, 07:02 PM
I mostly agree with the original poster, except for the 'the moon is expensive' part.

The purpose of the game is to be an open simulator, which implicitly means it must at least resemble realism.
The game itself does not offer 'fun'; finding out how to and having fun is up to the player. What Anno does offer are challenges, which have to be unique and meaningful so a certain amount of time passes before the game doesn't feel 'fresh' anymore.

The reason i mentioned fun is because some players don't even care about reaching the highest of achievements when they are content micro-managing their production chains for hours straight. I totally agree with the suggestion to keep (not necessarily longer) the complex production chains. The biggest reason why many mention this is because it impacts how you trade, wage war, sustain your population growth and more all at the same time! Doing A will not simply cause B.

Abstracting this concept into 'decisions impact game progress on several levels at once', it becomes clear that colonizing the moon is analog to managing production chains.
'The problem' isn't the task of colonizing the moon. Within previous versions of Anno when a chain wasn't sustainable people tried again, like the OP did, until they found a way to keep it sustainable for the remaining duration of the game.
Why would people persist in retrying to sustain their population but won't trying to colonizing the moon? The point about reward makes sense to me; colonizing the moon IS the reward for sustaining your colonization on earth until you can space travel. What's left as reward for sustaining a moon colony? Please remember that the hype around 2205 was about going to space and colonizing the moon; the game kinda falls flat on incentive after that because there is nothing to gain on the moon except for rewards analog to colonizing earth.
I would say going to the moon was equal to starting a new game with a higher difficulty (without actual intention) and that feels like the game is forcing more on you than just 'the next challenge'.

About the new upcoming Anno game. Obviously there isn't the big reward to go to space anymore, which isn't necessary either imo.
Let 1800 do what the older games did well;

Have a nice, fun, (even multiple) atmospheres across the world map; the atmospheric attraction of 1404 alone was enough to play hundreds of hours.
Provide complex chains for goods / external politics / possibly internal politics?
Make sure there is a nice reward at the end of the struggle, which stimulate players to keep making decisions (which sometimes can be high risk).
Don't force progress too hard on branches of the main story line.
Remember that the focus isn't on getting the highest reward (speaking for most players), but the 'journey' which matters the most. Figuring out the complex chains in the game is rewarding in itself.


I wish the developers success in building the next great Anno game, i hope this post can positively influence its construction.

Tip: keyword is 'chains'.