Moo3's Death by a Thousand Cuts

[H Tower]

someone explain what IFP is to a Moo virgin please

[Sikander]

Imperial Focus Points, sort of a measure of your (The Emporer's) time and staff capabilities. Many actions in a turn would cost you IFP's to effect. Thus rather than visiting every colony and changing its production around to fit your taste, you can only make as many changes as your IFPs allow. Everything not decided by you is decided by the AI governors. This would have been a good brake to late game MM, and would have helped the AI immensely vs the human player. People complain that they want to MM everything, but I don't see why a mode where one received infinite IFP wouldn't have been possible .

[SnowFire]

I miss IPF's too, because they would have been an impressively gutsy risk. Still, all hope is not lost... let's not forget that replacement they made, the whole increasing inefficiency by amount of micromanagement thing. If you perform too much micro, your efficiency gets a slight decrease, and if you go clicky nuts, then it takes a major hit. That should keep some of IPF's spirit.

Then again, maybe this got cut too.

[H Tower]

if the game has ifp points, i ber we'll have a "stupid things the AI governors did to my empire" thread.

if the AI so much as moves one of my ships, i'll go ballistic

[Harry Seldon]

I hear you can remove your AI governors if you don't like the job they're doing. What would be even cooler, IMHO, would be to hold a messy public execution as a humble reminder of your wrath. I'd be on the edge of my seat just WAITING for one of my governors to step outta line...

[Ozymandous]

Sure you execute a poor governor, then the morale of your populus goes down and people start secret movements to tear down your government. If you're going to be a blood-thirsty tyrant then you should pay some sort of price as well..

[H Tower]

execution for cause though would be fun

[Kc7mxo]

Heh, I often execute unit commanders who flee in battle while I'm playing medieval. Typically I'll try them for treason, but sometimes I'll have an assasin take them out. If I'm playing catholic, i ussually have some inquisitors around, and they can typically make the coward pay.

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by Xentropy
Personally, I love strategy games, but removing IFP's has officially killed the potential of MOO3 to move to the next level, since it will be burdened with the SAME problem MOO2 had: rediculous boring micromanagement after the first few turns.

Arguments that there will be AI to control parts of your empire are a moot point, because NO MATTER HOW GOOD THE AI, IT WILL NOT BE AS GOOD AT MAKING DECISIONS AS I CAN BE. Therefore, I am FORCED to micro every last spec of a colony in my empire or else my empire will NOT work up to its potential. So removing IFP's have just made this game a 4-hour-per-turn lategame, and I'm not sure that I'll be buying it because of that. I still may buy it, but do something similar to what I did in MOO2; start a new game, play about 100 turns, see that winning is inevitable but not feel like going through the days of tedium to play those turns to win and start a new game again. Lategame in MOO2 practically didn't exist, because I never got there in a situation where the endgame wasn't a foregone conclusion and wasn't boring to play due to large numbers of colonies to control.

At least with IFP's, everyone could control the same amounts of their empires, large or small, heavy micro or light micro players. It leveled the playing field. FORCED everyone to use the inferior AI to control the majority of their empire and only focus on the threat areas, like most people will do anyway. Instead, with IFP's out, I am hella glad that colonizable moons are out, because it's bad enough I'll have 900 colonies, each of which to spend 30 seconds looking over every single turn and deciding what they should be doing, (for a total of 7.5 hours per turn lategame in a huge galaxy), without also having 2700 moons around those colonies to also check up on.

Perfectly well said.

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by Xentropy
With IFP's, the STRATEGIC DEPTH was there, because not only did you have to make the right decisions, you had to make the right choices as to which decisions were the most important.

Or, if you are a truely outstanding player, you could try to make questionable priority decisions work. Which might be great fun.

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by Ozymandous
Sure you execute a poor governor, then the morale of your populus goes down and people start secret movements to tear down your government. If you're going to be a blood-thirsty tyrant then you should pay some sort of price as well..

I think the governors got cut, too. They have already been executed by Quicksilver, so to speak...

[Kc7mxo]

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Xentropy
I'll miss having the ability, but I honestly didn't use it much even in MOO2. It's not like it was very cost-effective. Spend 25% of the cost of a whole new ship just to add one extra mass driver now that you've miniaturized a bit?

That sounds like a personal problem. Why would anybody sane do that? You need to judge the cost/benefit ratio like you do everything else in the game.

Originally posted by Xentropy
This is a shame, but I didn't use this in MOO2 any more than I did refitting. It wasn't all that effective. The AI rarely had decent ship designs so all a capture would amount to is *maybe* some tech (though rarely; I tend to be a tech hound and would outtech the AI even in huge impossibles) and a few credits in scrap.

You don't have to use it. But why are you stopping others to use it?

Originally posted by Xentropy
These were too powerful anyway. Anything that makes it impossible to ever attack someone's empire, even with good tactics and intelligence like watching where their fleet is, is a bad idea. To the person who complained that a defensive strategy was completely killed by not having these, I argue that such a strategy would still work, but it wouldn't be an automatic win like it would be with interdictors.

Hm, how would a defensive strategy be an automatic win unless I also have a decent fleet and good tech? Besides, there are abilities (stealth ships, for example) and methods to counter interdictors.

Originally posted by Xentropy
I'd imagine this would be a ***** to code, except maybe like the Artemis system net, only placable in-system. Not all that much use, either. May as well build a bunch of tiny weak ships and tell them to ram as soon as battle begins hehe.

Mines? Piece of cake to code IMHO.

Originally posted by Xentropy
Now here I disagree entirely with the sentiment of most of the people here. Personally, I love strategy games, but removing IFP's has officially killed the potential of MOO3 to move to the next level, since it will be burdened with the SAME problem MOO2 had: rediculous boring micromanagement after the first few turns.

What next level?

Originally posted by Xentropy
Arguments that there will be AI to control parts of your empire are a moot point, because NO MATTER HOW GOOD THE AI, IT WILL NOT BE AS GOOD AT MAKING DECISIONS AS I CAN BE. Therefore, I am FORCED to micro every last spec of a colony in my empire or else my empire will NOT work up to its potential.

That is one of the most pathetic design decisions AFAIK. Make the game massively complicated, then tell the player he can't control half of it. Whose bright idea is it anyway? Why would somebody make a game complicated, then let loose a nitwit AI to do the stuff for a human player? Sorry, this is too retarded for words. If a designer doesn't want a player to tweak some details, hide it. For strategic games, a simpler design is usually a better design.

[Petep]

No No
I don’t believe it.
It can’t be true.
This game should not be in MOO-series.
These ‘small cuts’ are great and vital ideas to the game.
What can creators of the Moo3 propose in return which will be equally interesting?
I really don’t know why these guys are making these ‘small cuts’ if they are already programmed in the game (why not making them optional – this should be easy)
It’s the last chance (hopefully before the next patch) to alter the game.

[Ozymandous]

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune


Perfectly well said.

Heh, care to explain how you want IFP's on one hand, yet say that because of the poor AI (which would be the foundation of IFP execution) you will want to micro every part of the game?

So which is it, do you want to NOT have the ability to control anything on a smaller level and constantly curse the "poor AI" for making stupid decisions, or do you want to be able to handle everything, but be potentially swamped with micro because of poor AI?

You can't have it both ways.

[Ozymandous]

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune


I think the governors got cut, too. They have already been executed by Quicksilver, so to speak...

Ah, in case you missed it that reply was in response to someone making a comment they wanted to be able to execute any AI governors who did a bad job. Hence my response.

If there are no governors then the consequences of murdering them will be a moot point, no?

[DarthVeda]

*weeps openly*

You know I've been looking forward to this game since master of orion II. The closer we get to the release date and the more screenies come out, the less excited I am. You look at the battle screen and I can't help but wonder 'wtf?' I know they are shooting for low end computers but come on.... these graphics could have run on an average system two years ago!

I really am afraid that if the gameplay isn't killer (and we're talking better than WarCraft III, Age of Mythology, and other recent releases), that Moo3 is going to quickly find its way to the bargain bin and that would kill me knowing that the QS team has put so much time into the game.

So, I find myself asking if they have cut so much from the game, what exactly, is left?

[Ozymandous]

Originally posted by Petep
No No
I don’t believe it.
It can’t be true.
This game should not be in MOO-series.
These ‘small cuts’ are great and vital ideas to the game.
What can creators of the Moo3 propose in return which will be equally interesting?
I really don’t know why these guys are making these ‘small cuts’ if they are already programmed in the game (why not making them optional – this should be easy)
It’s the last chance (hopefully before the next patch) to alter the game.

Hey Petep, welcome to the forums (assuming you're new.)

The game has much more to it than just these cuts, IMHO. What people are complaining about now is similar to someone saying they cut a minute off a 6 hour miniseries and everyone not having seen said series going ballistic.

Most games go through feature cuts and additions, but the public doesn't know about it because game developers aren't as open with the process of creating the game as QS is/was. Although I can almost guarentee that from the reactions the whiners & complainers have generated we (gamers) won't see a company do this again for awhile.

Oh, and the time for adding anything was about 6 months ago. The game is not being "developed" now, as in new code, it is only being tested (supposedly) to make sure the last bug fixes QS did worked as they were supposed to. Just as an FYI. :

[Ozymandous]

Originally posted by DarthVeda
*weeps openly*

You know I've been looking forward to this game since master of orion II. The closer we get to the release date and the more screenies come out, the less excited I am. You look at the battle screen and I can't help but wonder 'wtf?' I know they are shooting for low end computers but come on.... these graphics could have run on an average system two years ago!

I really am afraid that if the gameplay isn't killer (and we're talking better than WarCraft III, Age of Mythology, and other recent releases), that Moo3 is going to quickly find its way to the bargain bin and that would kill me knowing that the QS team has put so much time into the game.

So, I find myself asking if they have cut so much from the game, what exactly, is left?

I guess we'll know what's left once the game is out and EVERYONE has a chance to buy and play it eh? That time will be much better than people second-guessing what they don't know or having a raindrop hit them on the head and run around screaming that "the sky is falling!"

[Petep]

IFP,

Well, thanks Ozymandous for consolation in these hard times.
I must confess I’ve been waiting for the sequel many years. And now ... this.
By the way, the only working concept similar to the IFP was in old game called 'Genghis Khan' developed by Koei (very good game, anyone remember?).
So, IFP it did not scared me, but lack of refitting, warp-interdictors etc.
Yeah I guess it is ‘streamlined for the masses’ (as one ‘booje’ wrote). This is f... entropia.

[warden]

I think the most important thing missing from the game is good tactical feedback. In the first place, there's a limit to the number of battles that you can participate in. And the ones that you do take part in run in real-time. There are no detailed tactical scans like MOO2, no detailed after-action reports - just a lot of flashes and bangs and then some crude stats (numbers of ships lost).

I can see how the need for MP speed got them to this but it's not satisfactory when the main feature of the game is research and ship-design.

It's really tragic when imagines how good MOO2 could have been with some further development. What we're getting isn't MOO3. It isn't even MOO 2.5. It's MOO 1.5, alas.

Andrew

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by Ozymandous
Heh, care to explain how you want IFP's on one hand, yet say that because of the poor AI (which would be the foundation of IFP execution) you will want to micro every part of the game?

A micro-manager will always be better than even the best ai, therefore the game should keep you from micro-managing. Of course, sometimes the ai will make a bad decision for me; that´s life. Would be the same with humans.

[Xentropy]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
That sounds like a personal problem. Why would anybody sane do that? You need to judge the cost/benefit ratio like you do everything else in the game.

And my point is the benefit *never* outweighed the cost. Call it imbalance in refit costs in MOO2 if you like, but it was imbalanced such that refitting was worthless, so I never used it. Ergo, while I might have used it in MOO3, assuming they balanced its costs better, I won't miss it since I never used it in MOO2 anyway. In my mind, it wasn't even a feature in MOO2 because it had no use.

You don't have to use it. But why are you stopping others to use it?

Why am *I* stopping others? I don't work for QS. I'm merely offering my personal opinion as to how certain features existing or not existing affects *my* opinion of the game. Even if my opinion were different, the feature still wouldn't be in the game, so accusing me personally of stopping you from enjoying a feature you miss is way out of line. Blame the guys who axed Alan Emrich and set off The Great Cutfest of April 2002.

Hm, how would a defensive strategy be an automatic win unless I also have a decent fleet and good tech? Besides, there are abilities (stealth ships, for example) and methods to counter interdictors.

Automatic win was exaggerating a bit, but when I used interdiction and played defensively in MOO2, I was a hell of a tough nut to crack. If an equally-sized empire and industry (i.e. the empire of an equally skilled player) is not able to at least take one or two outlying systems through an intelligent assault, there is a balance problem. The attacker cannot *always* be expected to have a superior total force to win (just asuperior force in a given location) or no one would ever take anything from equally good players and a whole lot of multiplayer games are going to end in stalemate.

Mines? Piece of cake to code IMHO.

System mines, in a very abstracted way (like Artemis nets), yes; deep space mines, no. I should say, *how* to code it is easy even without abstraction, but time spent modifying and adding properties to a large variety of game objects to track those mines would be more than makes the feature worthwhile. It could be a feature in a expansion, but I'd rather efforts be placed on more impressive features for such a product.

That is one of the most pathetic design decisions AFAIK. Make the game massively complicated, then tell the player he can't control half of it. Whose bright idea is it anyway? Why would somebody make a game complicated, then let loose a nitwit AI to do the stuff for a human player? Sorry, this is too retarded for words. If a designer doesn't want a player to tweak some details, hide it. For strategic games, a simpler design is usually a better design.

The only argument you apparently have is that you want the entire game to be less complicated. I can see that. Especially without IFP's, I would definitely like things simplified so I don't have to spend many hours on each individual turn in lategame single player.

Remember, with IFP's removed, the AI is still a nitwit. So you now have to actually visit and check up on and control *every piddly little colony in your empire every turn* if you want a chance to win, especially in multiplayer against people who *are* checking up on every colony. Get that click speed going, you'll need to be faster with a mouse than Warcraft 3 to play multiplayer MOO3.

Originally posted by Ozymandous
Heh, care to explain how you want IFP's on one hand, yet say that because of the poor AI (which would be the foundation of IFP execution) you will want to micro every part of the game?

The poor AI is the foundation of non-IFP execution as well, because of the sheer complexity of the game. You either micro every part of the game, or you do worse than someone who does micro every part of the game.

So which is it, do you want to NOT have the ability to control anything on a smaller level and constantly curse the "poor AI" for making stupid decisions, or do you want to be able to handle everything, but be potentially swamped with micro because of poor AI?

You can't have it both ways.

I want to NOT have the ability to control everything on a smaller level *as long as* no one ELSE in multiplayer could either. As it is now, multiplayer is a clickfest, he who can micro the most in the two or ten minute time limit wins!

Basically, instead of *time* limits for turns in multiplayer, which promote speed above all else and turn the game into an RTS, I want a limit on the discrete number of orders that can be given per turn, rewarding strategy (this IS a strategy game, and a TBS at that) over speed. e.g. IFP's!

[EDIT]I'd like to add, for completeness sake, that if IFP's *were* still present in the game, I would be a strong proponent for an "unlimited IFP" *option* in both single and multi. If people want the game to be an RTS, let them go unlimited orders and limited time. The way it is now, though, there's not even a choice: the game's an RTS whether you like it or not.[/EDIT]

[H Tower]

how is Moo an RTS again?

[Lemmy]

how is Moo an RTS again?

I assume it's about timed turns, where the faster player can get most things done, just like an RTS.

[RolandtheMad]

Here is the solution - find a decent player that you feel comfortable about not having timed turns with, then restrain yourselves from obsessive-complusive micromanaging. No extra coding required.

After you micromanage X number of colonies you can pretend the IFPs prevent you from further micromanagement.

[Sammual]

IFPs were the best idea in games design I have seen in a long time.

They (should have) allowed the newbies to play a fun game against masters without getting totally crushed early on.
They also should have turned the game in to a true strategy game (Instead of a micomanagement fest where you need to follow the exact tech path to win).

Without IFP I still think MOO3 is going to be a great game but I think it will no longer be THE game.

Sammual - On vaca and sleepy

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by DarthVeda
*weeps openly*

[snipped]

So, I find myself asking if they have cut so much from the game, what exactly, is left?

Not a whole lot. What really got me is QS was going to put all this "insanely great" stuff into the game, then quickly cut them all out - and then some.

Sid knows what he is doing, Quicksilver doesn't.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Xentropy
And my point is the benefit *never* outweighed the cost. Call it imbalance in refit costs in MOO2 if you like, but it was imbalanced such that refitting was worthless, so I never used it. Ergo, while I might have used it in MOO3, assuming they balanced its costs better, I won't miss it since I never used it in MOO2 anyway. In my mind, it wasn't even a feature in MOO2 because it had no use.

Then perhaps you have timed the upgrades incorrectly. Two very important things you forgot to take into account are time and experience. It is a lot faster to upgrade than to rebuild from scratch. Upgraded ships retain experienced crews. These two alone worth the cost, and then some. Elite (or even Ultra-elite) ships are just so much better than your average ships.

Originally posted by Xentropy
Why am *I* stopping others? I don't work for QS. I'm merely offering my personal opinion as to how certain features existing or not existing affects *my* opinion of the game. Even if my opinion were different, the feature still wouldn't be in the game, so accusing me personally of stopping you from enjoying a feature you miss is way out of line. Blame the guys who axed Alan Emrich and set off The Great Cutfest of April 2002.

My point was, why are you against the inclusion of a minor feature in the game you don't use? Okay, so it won't be in the game, but even if it were, it wouldn't bite you in the neck, would it? So why did you spend all that time saying how bad it is and should not be in the game?

Originally posted by Xentropy
Automatic win was exaggerating a bit, but when I used interdiction and played defensively in MOO2, I was a hell of a tough nut to crack.

Sure, but there is no need as long as I can take other players out. You'll be dead in the end anyway, just wait for your turn

Yes, you can play defensively, but you can't win that way. Defense is just part of an overall plan.

Originally posted by Xentropy
If an equally-sized empire and industry (i.e. the empire of an equally skilled player) is not able to at least take one or two outlying systems through an intelligent assault, there is a balance problem.

Why is that? There might not be any problem with play balancing, perhaps it is the, hm, "intelligent assault" part has gone wrong.

Originally posted by Xentropy
The attacker cannot *always* be expected to have a superior total force to win (just asuperior force in a given location) or no one would ever take anything from equally good players and a whole lot of multiplayer games are going to end in stalemate.

Oh sure, but it is just a logistics problem, i.e., how to concentrate your force.

Originally posted by Xentropy
System mines, in a very abstracted way (like Artemis nets), yes; deep space mines, no. I should say, *how* to code it is easy even without abstraction, but time spent modifying and adding properties to a large variety of game objects to track those mines would be more than makes the feature worthwhile. It could be a feature in a expansion, but I'd rather efforts be placed on more impressive features for such a product.

Hm, as far as I can see, there's no need to add separate objects. Just make it a property of a hex, because all mines are standard AFAIK.

Originally posted by Xentropy
The only argument you apparently have is that you want the entire game to be less complicated. I can see that. Especially without IFP's, I would definitely like things simplified so I don't have to spend many hours on each individual turn in lategame single player.

"Action points" themselves is not a bad idea. IFP the way QS wants to implement is a bad idea. I myself much prefer the way Romance of the Three Kingdoms has it.

Still, there are two separate issues. One, IFP is a totally ham-fisted way of restricting a player. Two, why make the game so complicated in the first place?

Originally posted by Xentropy
Remember, with IFP's removed, the AI is still a nitwit. So you now have to actually visit and check up on and control *every piddly little colony in your empire every turn* if you want a chance to win, especially in multiplayer against people who *are* checking up on every colony. Get that click speed going, you'll need to be faster with a mouse than Warcraft 3 to play multiplayer MOO3.

Of course, timed-turn is yet another harebrained idea. Hi Quicksilver, is this a TBS anymore? Bah.

This whole design gets sillier and sillier the more I think about it. First, they make the game unnecessarily complicated. Then, to save time, they enforce a time limit on each turn. Finally, to help you do all this stuff - or to mask their own silliness - they stick you with the IFP. Oh boy. I wonder if this is Alan's idea.

Originally posted by Xentropy
The poor AI is the foundation of non-IFP execution as well, because of the sheer complexity of the game. You either micro every part of the game, or you do worse than someone who does micro every part of the game.

The way I see it, everybody will micromanage the whole thing anyway so you are on equal terms with other players. The computer players have advantage in speed. Besides, they all cheat.

Originally posted by Xentropy
I want to NOT have the ability to control everything on a smaller level *as long as* no one ELSE in multiplayer could either. As it is now, multiplayer is a clickfest, he who can micro the most in the two or ten minute time limit wins!

That's why I think the game should be a lot simpler. Keep the gameplay smooth and avoid clickfests.

Originally posted by Xentropy
Basically, instead of *time* limits for turns in multiplayer, which promote speed above all else and turn the game into an RTS, I want a limit on the discrete number of orders that can be given per turn, rewarding strategy (this IS a strategy game, and a TBS at that) over speed. e.g. IFP's!

I don't think IFP is the cure. The cure is to simplify. Abstract details into the background. Don't have separate structures, etc. to build on planets. The problem with the game is they want to do everything, which, of course, is not possible.

[Kc7mxo]

Simplification is better to a degree. Moo1 with multiplayer would be quick enough so that noone would bog the game down.

But most people who play this genre expect/demand a level of complexity and options that moo1 really can't provide. Finding the balance is hard.

Most especially when you're trying to sell the game to both the people who will play singleplayer fanatically, and never ever log on to the internet to play, and the people who ignore all the hard work of the singleplayer campaign.