Thoughts

paulmagusnet · February 1, 2002, 17:57

Other than some of the corporate propaganda I don't know a lot about how Moo3 is progressing. It sounds good and promising and adult oriented. So what I can talk about are some of the things that pained me about Moo2 and some hopes for Moo3.

First, I really want in a new game something that brings me some new experiences and that has sufficient depth and subtlty that I will have someting new to learn for a long time (ie, continuous new expreiences).

In no particular order:

One bad thing about Moo2 is that energy weapons completely outclassed missle weapons and fighters about mid game. Basically, at some point, your high tech multi warp plasma torp got about five feet out the door and some jackass with a beemer vaporizes your ship. I love it when the skys are full of space crap creeping around trying to anal probe your ship. When the inverse square laws of power are repealed all you do then is beem things to death in an instant.

In the same vein, planetary defenses become useless. I really should be able to build as many starbases (and at least have my own general design) as I can afford to float, if that is my stragegy.

Planets are boring and the economics far to simple. Shortages make life interesting an give you a REASON to attack your neighbor.

Like in SMAC, it would be nice to have, in addition to one on one diplomacy, faction or universal relations. In SMAC you have a position in the 'UN' and vote on effective laws and actions.

Two games with interesting ideas are 'DEADLOCK' (nice economic model) and 'Empire of the Fading Suns' (interesting political and tech model).

Many games have tried automated goveners and burocrates, and failed miserably in implementation. I want to be able to at least TELL my minions what parameteres to adhear to and maby even what goals to work towards. It is a personal wet dream that those minions might adhear my wishes in some intelligent way. In every RTS and TBS I've played the minion AI is so consistantly suicidal I want them to defect to the enemy.

I should NEVER have to double click anything. I should not have to confirm that yes I realy want to do what I told the program to do, at least not without a groveling appology from the program. And I should NEVER NEVER have to confirm to the program that I indead read a purely informational message. ALL the information I need to push a button should be on display BEFORE I press that button, unlike CIV III where I am diliberately denied that information just so that I have to push that button to interact with a cartoon that tells me I dont have the right resourse to push that button.

If you need an excellent example of how NOT to design a game user interface pick up a copy of 'MERCHANT PRINCE II'.

Politics and Religion are affected by philosopy and evolve, they are not simple speedbumps on the way to someting else.

Admiral · February 3, 2002, 23:22

Well, fortunately, some of your problems are indeed confirmed fixed.

1: in MOO3, combat will use taskforces, so there is a place for both missiles and beams. The data dump on space combat has not been released, so i don't know any more information than that.

2: in MOO3, you are able to completely custumize planetary defenses.

3: simplicity is not a thing to worry about in this game. One look at any data dump and you will see that they have made/ are making a very complicated game.

4: They have implimented the Orion senate which will do more than the UN in SMAC.

5: the dealock economic model seemed somewhat simple, and the MOO3 model will be much more compicated.

6: well, in MOO3 you will have to rely on a lot of governors, some of which will be good, some of which will be bad. go here to review the IFP system, which is fairly informative on this issue

7/8: I know nothing on these issue.

All in all, a much improved game, i think.

Zealot · February 4, 2002, 06:24

Yeah, even if you want to prevent the AI governors to screw up, you can't prevent it all, since you have limited IFP. As Stormhound said one time, in the start of the game you might want to micro manage everything, but as the game progresses, you just have to leave it to the Governors.

(You did say something like this, right Stormhound?

)

vmxa1 · February 4, 2002, 14:38

Yes it was stated and I am not fond of it. I have yet to find a gov that can handle things well. In fact this is the main way to get over, micromanaging to get an edge.

Zealot · February 4, 2002, 15:00

Quote:

Originally posted by vmxa1
Yes it was stated and I am not fond of it. I have yet to find a gov that can handle things well. In fact this is the main way to get over, micromanaging to get an edge.

I don't agree with you, vmxa!

I think that (and thank QS for it) now you need to use strategy to get an edge, not to micromanage! You have to see now that we will always have the same "crappy"

governors, and will have to deal with them, using our "wit" to be the best ruler of the galaxy!
Thank God late micromanagement tedium is fading away in TBS games!

Argh! I need MoO 3 now!

...and a car...and a new PC... and some new clothes...and...

vmxa1 · February 5, 2002, 00:57

I don't see where you say anything that is in conflict with my statement. I am not fond of the late game management. But in the early stages you need to handle things or you will suffer. Of course we out think the AI, that is a given. By looking at planets you grab, you can see that the AI has not made the kind of progress it should and this is costing it. Human players that do not get their colonies going and build and research the proper things will have a harder time. The more the AI does things for you the less you will accomplish in most games, be they TBS or RTS.

Kc7mxo · February 5, 2002, 01:29

Combat is one of my my major concerns (as major as worrying over a computer game can get

) is the combat system. No one knows anything about it. If its done right, the gamewill rock, if not . . . . well, we all know where crappy combat system lead to.

paulmagusnet · February 18, 2002, 00:56

Don't get me wrong, I like the idea of having goveners, and I hope, other beaurocratic structures to fill.

I do understand that goveners could be of less that stellar quality.

I am wary if the idea that I will have no choice but to use them.

But I DO DEMAND:

That I am able to set reasonable operational limits and goals.

That my AI assistants NOT be overtly SUICIDAL.

That QS understand the difference between underachiever AI and SUICIDAL AI.

That MY AIs be no worse than the AI's AIs. All I want is an even playing field.

That I not be placed in the position begging my opponents to conquor me so THEY have to deal with my AI staff.

What I would like:

Reasonably obediant AIs

AIs that can learn and remember, progress, take on new responsibilities.

AIs that tell me facts, not irrelevent trivia or infantle babble.

If you can't simulate a reasonable personality, give me charts, lists numbers and graphs.

PAX impirial had this concept, you chose from a pool of potential underlings with various ability scores which gave adds or minuses to some of your game paramaters. I HOPE THAT YOU PLAN SOMETHING MORE ADVANCED THAN THIS.

LordEd · February 18, 2002, 20:53

An interesting idea on the subject of AI's and charts would be the possibility of being able to review both factual charts of past activity as well as projected charts of future activity.

There is precendence for this type of chart usage by political figures: Ross Perot. If I could have a Perot-ish AI tell me about the planet in question, it could prove extremely useful.

Lose the ears though...