Moo3's Death by a Thousand Cuts - Page 4

Zanteogo · December 28, 2002, 07:11

No refitting? Are you sure?

Last thing I heard was that ships in reserve get upgraded automaticly over time...

Xentropy · December 28, 2002, 19:08

Quote:

Originally posted by 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.

It's not a very effective solution to have to trust the people you're playing with (and thus be limited to only playing with friends, learning their playing styles and rarely being surprised like you would be playing with new and different strangers) than to just have IFP's in the game and put in an unlimited-IFP option so you know the game is doing your policing for you.

Comrade Tribune · December 28, 2002, 19:39

Quote:

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

This would be definitely the nightmare for everybody who prefers SP, and sees the point of a strategy game in solving ultra-complex problems, as I do.

The last thing I would want is another CivIII. (Moo1 was great for its time, but the simplicity was dictated by hardware limits, it was not, I believe, a design decision.)

Kc7mxo · December 29, 2002, 01:35

Quote:

It's not a very effective solution to have to trust the people you're playing with . . .

heh, this made me think of the old board game, diplomacy. Forming alliance is the only way to win, but there's nothing preventing alliance breaking either. . .

but we never played it at school cause we were rather worried about the long term reprucussions and repeated vengences that would likely result. Some of us still haven't forgiven eachother for certain starcraft games.

Ozymandous · December 29, 2002, 03:37

Quote:

Originally posted by Urban Ranger

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.

Ah, you are a BT then so you know what you're talking about or are you just spouting off your opinion, like every one else?

Just checking...

Xentropy · December 29, 2002, 07:55

Quote:

Originally posted by Ozymandous

Ah, you are a BT then so you know what you're talking about or are you just spouting off your opinion, like every one else?

Just checking...

Personally, I'm more likely to listen to a "random person spouting off their opinion" than a beta tester after reading the official MOO3 boards.

People who were very much anti-cuts and seriously disenfranchised with the game before they got their beta copies are suddenly all glowy and happy in their reviews of MOO3 now that they're a tester. It smacks quite strongly of "post a bad review and you don't get the next build" strongarming from the same people who rolled Alan Emrich's head for "creative differences" (you know, Alan wanted to make a good game, and IG wants to release another cookie-cutter clickfest, so they just couldn't work together well) and hamfistedly mod out every slightly anti-QS/IG sentiment from the official boards. (Heh, it's funny, even I have some bad things to say about Infogrames, and I'm a stockholder. :P)

You take a group of 50 or so beta testers ("randomly selected" my ass, too, almost every "winner" is some fairly popular board poster going all the way back to the 2001 community), and I don't care if your game was written by God Almighty, ONE person out of those fifty is going to dislike the game in some way. Even Blizzard games are disliked by at least 2% of gamers, and they're considered the "holy grails" of PC gaming by most people (for some reason; personally I'm not a big fan of most of their stuff, so put me in the 2% :P). So for NONE of those beta testers to have a bad thing to say about the game just means they're being told what to say and not say, on a level far beyond your usual NDA, and ergo their opinions can't be trusted.

vmxa1 · December 29, 2002, 14:04

Wow, neither Warcraft, Starcraft or Diablo cut it?

Craig P. · December 30, 2002, 13:17

Quote:

Originally posted by Xentropy
You take a group of 50 or so beta testers ("randomly selected" my ass, too, almost every "winner" is some fairly popular board poster going all the way back to the 2001 community),

Bulls***. All of the BTs outside the contest are fairly popular board posters. However, only one of the contest winners was a fairly popular poster. Note that at least a couple of the BT impressions and AARs were not from Xentax, Sencho, or CK. Also note that some of that "fairly popular" group had been critical of the direction QS/IG was taking after the, um, events of the spring.

RolandtheMad · December 30, 2002, 20:18

Events of the spring eh?

Urban Ranger · December 31, 2002, 09:24

Quote:

Originally posted by Ozymandous
Ah, you are a BT then so you know what you're talking about or are you just spouting off your opinion, like every one else?

Just checking...

That Sid knows what he is doing and QS doesn't? Isn't that a bit transparent?

nato · December 31, 2002, 10:26

I was never sure whether I liked IFPs or not. However, I'm sure of one thing. The removal of IFPs is a very bad sign for MOO3.

From the start, IFPs were constantly mentioned as a major feature of the game. They weren't just a small feature, they were an integral part. Also, they were supposed to be MOO3's big new innovation.

Taking such a major component out of a game this late just CAN'T be a good sign, whether I liked the idea or not. I think its a major warning sign that MOO3 is not in good shape, and is mostly being hashed together.

Now, I find from this thread that they removed ship refitting & upgrading, and I'm not happy at all. I liked that a lot in MOO2.

Cutting capture ships is a big loss too. That was a whole class of ships, and almost even a style of race if you went for ground combat bonuses.

But what really gets me are these cuts:
Ability to rename systems
Ability to choose empire color
No choosing ship apperance

These bother me for two reasons. First, I just don't understand how hard they can be to include. Things really must be desperate. At least match MOO1!

Second, it pretty much says that customization is a low priority. I can understand this not being a big deal for some people, but it is for me.

I'm getting pesimistic about MOO3 now. I think I may wait a year for the patches; I sure wish I had done that for Civ3.

Craig P. · December 31, 2002, 12:49

Quote:

Originally posted by nato
But what really gets me are these cuts:
Ability to rename systems
Ability to choose empire color
No choosing ship apperance

These bother me for two reasons. First, I just don't understand how hard they can be to include. Things really must be desperate. At least match MOO1!

MoO1 didn't have to worry about multiplayer, which is the stated justification for not allowing users to pick empire color (and which generalizes even moreso to not allowing users to rename systems).

nato · December 31, 2002, 14:45

That seems kind of thin to me. Plenty of RTSs I have played let you choose your color, and I'm pretty sure you could rename cities in CivNet. Using MP as an excuse doesn't hold up to me.

Harry Seldon · December 31, 2002, 17:19

You would think these simple features would have been included from the start of production. I saw they locked colors because they use specific bitmaps and didn't want to retexture all the menus and such but it seems odd that if multiplayer uses separate color schemes we can't access them in single player.

vishniac · January 2, 2003, 18:11

Outposts have been gutted.

http://www.ina-community.com/forums/...hreadid=247912

kalbear · January 2, 2003, 18:17

Huh. I can see how it might be somewhat less cool, though I don't have access to the site directly right now (and what's up with that), but they sound much better than the almost pointless outpost ships in Moo2. The idea that you can capitalize on, say, higher pop growth of your race over someone else and go for cheap, quick expansion at the cost of early development is a nice alternate strategy idea, especially given the idea of the senate and starting out in a crowded section of the galaxy.

TheMaestro · January 2, 2003, 18:43

My god they cut outposts?

It's confirmed, they officially don't care about what the actual consumer wants. Outposts were so helpful in MOOII, when you're surrounded by systems with nothing but Gas Giants and Asteroid belts...without them you'd be stuck for so damn long.

No outposts, artemis nets, can't even choose a color, rename a system...no refits? And didn't they get rid of most of the MOOII hold-overs in the company?

Remember, George Lucas had a whole bunch of new people for Episode I, and we all saw how "classic" that turned out to be...

Craig P. · January 2, 2003, 20:27

Quote:

Originally posted by TheMaestro
My god they cut outposts?

Did you actually read the linked thread?

"Gutted" != "Cut" in this case. In fact, I think "gutted" might be going overboard, though I wouldn't argue with "scaled back significantly."

vishniac · January 2, 2003, 20:29

Quote:

Originally posted by TheMaestro
My god they cut outposts?

Not totally!
But there is only one sort remaining,like a cheaper colony ship, and the data dump is no more relevant.

SeanV · January 3, 2003, 02:00

Quote:

Empire color
Renaming Star Systems
Refitting Ships

What is going on? These things should be easy to code. I mean, for heavens sake, how many times have things like that been coded into games? Since DOS was invented! (Well not the refitting ships one, but the other two...)

Outposts... well I read the thread and what it sounds like they did was go back to the original MOO2 outpost style.

Looks like they sliced, diced and strained MOO and MOO2 and tossed in a few fresh ideas (well cleaned) and put it all together and baked it for 45 minutes.

Oh yeah, about IFP's. Interesting concept but I don't think that it would have worked out to well. Imagine Ascendancy where you were forced to let the AI handle almost everything.... Scary, huh? The whole game would have to be designed around IFPs and that would mean bending the way the game plays (so you could have a good TBS space game that used IFPs it just wouldn't be a Master of Orion game.)
Shouldn't be all that much micro-management in MOO3. The planets are the biggest problem and since you can say that all core worlds will build this, and all new colonies will do that (and you can define which worlds are core and which worlds are new colonies etc.) the mm should be lowered considerably.

Just my two BCs... oops AUs.

kalbear · January 3, 2003, 02:12

There are some things that are simply baffling to me, like lack of color/ship design choices and lack of renaming systems.

The rest makes pretty fair sense. Refitting doesn't fit in the model they have, and making it fit requires too much retooling for too little gain and very little fun.

Outposts are similar to MoM's style - they are limited colonies that stake a claim. Considering that you have unlimited range and speed/ability to protect chokepoints is the real key factor, I'm not surprised they were changed. They did get modified from the data dump, most notably because of game balance issues.

I'm not sure that most people realize exactly how much is different in MOO3, especially compared to the first two. The sheer scale, the task force system, ground combat, diplomacy and the Senate, space lanes (and that does change quite a bit), race mechanics, spying, government choices, queue choices, race balancing, population emigration and growth, research, economics, taxes...

They did indeed take a lot from other games. It sounds to me like they took some of the better elements from MOO (like no buildings and slider bars), MOO2 (leaders, interface, economics), SMAC( better diplomacy and council politics, better queues and templated queues) Ascendancy (notably spacelanes, notably absent AI), CIV series, and a few others. They introduced real-time combat to the set in a fleet-based system.

I do believe that the list of cuts is painful to some, but really, how bad is that going to make the game? Are any of the cut things going to be more than merely annoying to people?

RolandtheMad · January 3, 2003, 02:26

Yeah so, like I`ve said a few times in not so many words, I think it will still be a good game. I`m just baffled like you that the little things were left out. In the end it isn`t that big a deal but it all seems so simple and basic that it really put a hair in my ass for awhile to learn that they were cut.

Xentax · January 3, 2003, 11:01

Quote:

Originally posted by TheMaestro
My god they cut outposts?

It's confirmed, they officially don't care about what the actual consumer wants. Outposts were so helpful in MOOII, when you're surrounded by systems with nothing but Gas Giants and Asteroid belts...without them you'd be stuck for so damn long.

No outposts, artemis nets, can't even choose a color, rename a system...no refits? And didn't they get rid of most of the MOOII hold-overs in the company?

Remember, George Lucas had a whole bunch of new people for Episode I, and we all saw how "classic" that turned out to be...

You're exaggerating, to put it mildly.

"What the consumer wants"? What the consumer wants is a fun game, last I checked, and that's what they're trying to deliver.

FYI, the MOO2 outpost is almost completely useless in the MOO3 context -- you're no longer have limited range (though ships far from home cost progressively more to maintain).

What WAS going to be new and different was different kinds of outposts with different bonuses when created. As it stands, they're basically a mini-colony -- they don't create fully-functional colonies as quickly, but they're cheaper, too.

It sounds like you want MOO 2.1, IMHO. No Artemis System nets, true. There were plans for non-trivial, non-abstract minefields in MOO3 at one point, but they didn't make it, either. Be upset about that, not the missing Artemis, if you want to be upset about something.

Refits will come, eventually. Everyone wishes they could get them in for the initial release, but you'd have to choose either a buggier release or another delay to get it. Sorry.

I'm not sure what you mean about holdovers in "the company" -- QSI is a completely different company from SimTex, which made MOO and MOO2.

vmxa1 · January 3, 2003, 14:40

I never saw any value in Artmeis Net any way.

kalbear · January 3, 2003, 14:42

Not that doom stars were all that much better, but yeah - being able to do a negligible amount of damage to ships and then not being able to attack them first anyway was effectively stupid.

Now, if they did them right, well hey, cool beans and all that. But I won't be crying over that.

Now, not being able to change my empire color and continually having RED...that might get on my nerves after a while.

moomin · January 3, 2003, 15:54

The Artemis net was useless alright. Maybe we need a poll over in Moo2 about the most useless technology - Artemis is right up there, next to scout lab.

Harry Seldon · January 3, 2003, 16:28

It's been awhile since I last played MOO2, but I'm pretty sure I was able to lay a little smack down with Artemis System Net. Now I'd agree that it wouldn't stop a massive fleet but sometimes it made the difference when all I had was a Battlestation and a few missle batteries in-system.

TheMaestro · January 3, 2003, 16:37

Obviously you never played MOO2, Artemis nets were useful.

But think about it, if QSI is a whole new company, then they can never live up to the ratings of MOO2, which was truly a great game. Check out any sequel made to any game, if it was made by someone secondary than the originals. Star Control III, different people than Star Control II. Had QSI kept all the MOO2 people, they would have had veterans of this kind of code-database, but since they've been working from scratch, they've had to cut all these little things that while not important individually, make the game more interesting and fun in the long run. Sometimes creating a massive expanding empire doesn't feel the same when you're empire color has to be purple.

But it's just a game, no need to get defensive and sensitive about it, and defend a company that has yet to give people anything.

Xentax · January 3, 2003, 17:02

Quote:

Originally posted by TheMaestro
Obviously you never played MOO2, Artemis nets were useful.

But think about it, if QSI is a whole new company, then they can never live up to the ratings of MOO2, which was truly a great game. Check out any sequel made to any game, if it was made by someone secondary than the originals. Star Control III, different people than Star Control II. Had QSI kept all the MOO2 people, they would have had veterans of this kind of code-database, but since they've been working from scratch, they've had to cut all these little things that while not important individually, make the game more interesting and fun in the long run. Sometimes creating a massive expanding empire doesn't feel the same when you're empire color has to be purple.

But it's just a game, no need to get defensive and sensitive about it, and defend a company that has yet to give people anything.

Um, "you don't know what you're talking about" would come across as offensive, so I won't say that. But I think you're making some bad assumptions, at least.

-- QSI never *had* any of the MOO2 people -- though Steve Barcia did talk to Alan about the project at least once.

-- There is NO code re-use from MOO2. That's not always a good thing or a bad thing; in this case, I'm pretty sure it's a good thing (I'm a software engineer by day, so I have some insight into this sort of issue).

-- I know there are a lot of examples out there of "don't let somebody else to the sequel!", but considering SimTex isn't around anymore to even potentially have done MOO3, that's really a non-issue here. It was somebody other than SimTex, or nobody at all.

RolandtheMad · January 3, 2003, 17:08