Rantz Responds

MarkG · February 28, 2003, 20:19

it seems that Rantz suffered from the "one vs lots of unmoderated people" chat effect so he went for the forums....

Quote:

ok, look...

I tried to answer as many questions as I could, in a timely fashion, but I was getting hammered by multiple people asking multiple question very quickly. I type slow and with two fingers. The chat room mads and I actually talked about moderating chat discussions so that people *could* get their questions answered, and not piled up.

Art: Whether you like how MOO3 looks or not is a personal opinion. and it's subjective. Some people like it, some don't. We did our job with the budget and schedule allowed, often doing work 'off hours' because we wanted to put something extra in that wasn't in the scope of the project. I believe we did a good job at it. Would I do more if I had time and money, of course.

Yes, Pixar can do a feature in that time. They have a staff of HUNDREDS and millions of dollars behind them. We had 5 people working on Master of Orion III. 1 tech artist, 1 UI artist, 1 3D modeler, 1 animator and 1 concept person. There's a bit of a difference there.

Working at Disney an average project cost 5-12 million and had an art staff of 20+ artists. Very different world.

RE: Micro vs. Macro. This should not be a shock to anyone who has followed the game. We've exposed the dev process (to much grief and pain-in the butt inducing moments due to fans reacting to MOO3 development) throughout the entire game and we have ALWAYS said that it is a 'higher level' game, and that micromanagement was no the type of game it is. That's not me saying 'tough', that's me just stating the facts of micromanagment was never the goal of the game, or part of the design. If you HAVE to have micromanagement to be happy, you probably won't like MOO3.

RE: AI. One of the biggest problems with the game is lack of documentation and clarity on what is happening and why. That applies across the board, the documentation needs work, hence why we are putting together a 'revised manual' on the website, which wil hopefully make the game easier to get into and also explain how things work in a clearer fashion.

We've had people tell us that it's the best AI they've seen, and we've had people complain about it. Do we listen to the complaints and objectively evaluate them? Yes. Why? Because we believe in the game and making sure that it's everything that it can be. Hence a running bug/suggestion list.

Will all your suggestions get addressed. No. Micromanagement won't be a part of it, it would require completely remaking the game to do that, and it was never our intention. But things like right-click feedback, suggestions on improving the cause effect relationship on why things are happening in diplomacy. We're absolutely interested in looking into those kinds of things.

MOO3 is a different type of game, and the response has been pretty much what we expected. Very polar, love or hate. It isn't everyone's type of game, and not everyone will enjoy it. Other will and are. If you don't, sorry. We can't change people's minds or their outlooks. You recognize going in that no matter what, people are going to like your game and people are going to hate it. If we had done MOO2 with 'updated graphics' we would have been lambasted by folks saying that it was a rip off, and that you expect more from a sequl than just a paint job. If you do the next generation of something, pushing it you get lambasted because you've taken away something that someone held dear.

You have to, as a developer and as a publisher, make your choice and head down that path with that in mind.

I don't respond to every post (same with other members of the team) because it becomes idiotic to defend against every detractor, or to say thanks to everyone who likes it, and responding to feedback gets lost in the noise of the hundreds of posts going up daily, hence the rework of the forums that the mods have initiated to make it easier for people to actually get important information they need.

So, if I haven't addressed your particular issue, sorry. It's not me ignoring it, it's not me turning a blind eye. There's only so much time I can spend typing on the boards when I do have work to get done.

I now return you to your previously scheduled banter

__________________
Rantz Hoseley
Art Director
Quicksilver Software, Inc.

H Tower · February 28, 2003, 20:52

That's fewer art people than I expected.

You know Rantz, If you made me moderator, There would be a lot less people drowning you out at the chats.....

Comrade Tribune · February 28, 2003, 20:53

*RE: Micro vs. Macro. This should not be a shock to anyone who has followed the game. We've exposed the dev process (to much grief and pain-in the butt inducing moments due to fans reacting to MOO3 development) throughout the entire game and we have ALWAYS said that it is a 'higher level' game, and that micromanagement was no the type of game it is. That's not me saying 'tough', that's me just stating the facts of micromanagment was never the goal of the game, or part of the design. If you HAVE to have micromanagement to be happy, you probably won't like MOO3.*

This is another thing obviously none of the playtesters pointed out to the designers:

If what I have read in the forum so far is true, you *can* have micromanagement. Study the situation for hours, make 50 different development plans, and if you fudge around long enough, every single planet *will* end up doing precisely what you want it to do. And *this* will be the best strategy, it will turn out.

So micromanagement *is* actually in, it has just become incredibly -and unnecessarily- complicated. But it appears you can certainly work around the system, and, given an unlimited investment of time, this *will*, remember my words, turn out to be the best 'strategy'.

A conceptional error that obviously no one noticed. How can I be so sure? Because a stringent logical analysis beats empirism every day. You´ll find out.

H Tower · February 28, 2003, 21:03

it sounds like they've made the game so detailed that 99% of people will use the viceroy feature instead of slogging through the micro. While you and I may decide to micro in SP, your MP buddies will hate you if you micro everything

General Ludd · February 28, 2003, 21:22

You wouldn't have time to micromanage in multiplayer, anyways.

Comrade, dev plans are not the same as micromanaging, they just direct the AI to do what you want them to - that's macromanaging. With alot of them it can get quit percise, but it's still macromanagment, and it doesn't require your full attention every turn. They're not exactly complicated to make once you get the hang of them, either.

Comrade Tribune · February 28, 2003, 21:42

Quote:

Originally posted by Osweld
Comrade, dev plans are not the same as micromanaging, they just direct the AI to do what you want them to - that's macromanaging.

Yeah, but what I am getting at is, it will turn out you can achieve the same results as you would with micromanagement, by micromanaging the macromanagement

, just *much, much, much* more tedious, and this tactic will always beat the Ai. My bet!

I doubt this was what they tried to achieve.

Edit: IFPs would (presumably) have taken care of this particular problem (assuming making DEV plans and such came at an IFP price), but with taking them out they derailed the system. Sounds like 'worst of two worlds' to me.

billybaruch1 · February 28, 2003, 21:55

Quote:

We had 5 people working on Master of Orion III. 1 tech artist, 1 UI artist, 1 3D modeler, 1 animator and 1 concept person.

I read the original concept was for a game that'd sell 500,000 units. Do you have any idea on how many need to be sold to make a profit? Or to make another sequel? Is this public knowledge? Is there any way we can find out how many have been sold to date?

Is this line of inquiry more appropriately addressed to chantz at IG, instead of rantz, the creative director of QS? BTW, bravo, I love it so far.

Draginol · February 28, 2003, 22:30

I have one query on the personnel issue, who are all those people in the credits? Doesn't seem fair to you guys that 5 people get spread out when there's dozens of other people given pretty high billing.

PaulNAdhe · March 1, 2003, 00:43

Well, I'm at 100 turns now. Time to come up for air.

So far I like it. It's not MOO2, but I didn't want MOO2.5.

There are some things I don't like, but I didn't like some things about MOO1 and 2, so tuff sh*t for me. When I design a game then it'll be exactly what I want.

I'm going back in. Maybe tomorrow I'll read the manual.

PaulNAdhe · March 1, 2003, 00:57

If this becomes a patch request ... the encyclopedia doesn't have nearly enough entries.

1. Nothing on pollution. How do I combat it?

2. Nothing on terrorism. How do I combat it?

And finally. I thought we did away with manuals w/o indices a loooong time ago. It seems they've reemerged here. It's too bad. This game has the makings to be a great game if we can figure out how to play it. But, an indexless manual doesn't help.

vmxa1 · March 1, 2003, 01:22

The Encyclopedia is missing Magazine. I was trying to look it up and no luck. I finally realized the build queue had a small definition.
I am with you the manual and the guide are sans index, not nice. With the publishing software around that is a crime.

Corentor · March 1, 2003, 02:13

I can't wait for this revised manual....the one that came in the box just ain't cutting it.

H Tower · March 1, 2003, 03:18

Quote:

Originally posted by Draginol
I have one query on the personnel issue, who are all those people in the credits? Doesn't seem fair to you guys that 5 people get spread out when there's dozens of other people given pretty high billing.

there were 5 people doing graphics, not five people working on the game. all of the coders aren't included in that 5 people

ChaotikVisions · March 1, 2003, 04:03

Paul, Decomposition Centers(Planetary Building) help lower pollution, as well as some other buildings/techs I believe. Theres also a racial trait to ignore some of the pollution effects.

For terrorism, thats being caused by enemy spies. Only way to combat that I know of is by increasing number of spies/raising opressometer.

Vince278 · March 1, 2003, 05:52

Quote:

Originally posted by PaulNAdhe
Nothing on terrorism. How do I combat it?

Terrorism is a Social spy causing unrest. Counter with another Social spy and/or raise the O-meter.

dadacp · March 1, 2003, 09:17

Micromanagement definitely does a better job than the AI, and is definitely made so extremely difficult as to be nearly impossible. The documentation is so bad as to require searching the forums or delving into the game files. To get basic information in the game one requires the patience for a long series of clicks and a pencil and notebook to write down important information.

One cannot alt-tab out of the game, nor can one save the game and resume it properly. Combined with the poor documentation and information presentation, this means that one should:

a) Buy a new computer.
b) Put the old computer next to the new computer.
c) Play MOO3 on the old computer while using the new computer to look up information and store notes for MOO3.
d) Leave MOO3 running on the old computer while doing other work on the new computer.

I actually did just buy a new computer recently and am doing exactly this. It's keeping me from giving up MOO3 in frustration.

Craterus · March 1, 2003, 12:11

Is two computers listed on the box as a requirement or recomended?

Proteus_MST · March 1, 2003, 12:42

Quote:

Originally posted by dadacp

One cannot alt-tab out of the game, nor can one save the game and resume it properly.

I was able to leave the game via alt-tab and opening other Programs.

The only Problem I occasionally encountered war, that sometimes after returning to the game you had to use the middle of the Mousepointer if you wanted to klick on a button or the like within the game and not the Tip of the pointer as it was before.
But even then I was always able to save and end the game correctly (and after restarting the game the Problems with the Mousepointer didn´t reapear).

But yes, using two Computers would be much better of course

vmxa1 · March 1, 2003, 14:44

I am using the Windows key to get out and come back. The screen is all scrambled, but running the cursor over it or hitting esc fixes it.

Corentor · March 1, 2003, 16:36

Alt-tabbing can be used but it did screw up the game once for me. I got a message like Direct X surface could not be drawn or something and the screen went black.

Its not a big deal though since the game autosaves your last 5 turns.

notyoueither · March 1, 2003, 17:26

This game is incredibly complex. At first I didn't get it at all and I had some grumblings. The more I look the more I discover that most of the things I thought were missing were there somewhere, and the way I expected it to work is not the way it works at all, but it works (or seems like it might).

The manual and Encyclopaedia are pretty useless though. Or maybe I just haven't figured them out.

Anyays, it is good to know that a newer manual is being worked on, although by that time I'll have figured most things out or read something by someone who has.

bhaight · March 2, 2003, 00:38

Not sure about the pollution, but, for the terrorism, try setting your oppressometer up a notch or too. That's what works for me.

Quote:

Originally posted by PaulNAdhe
If this becomes a patch request ... the encyclopedia doesn't have nearly enough entries.

1. Nothing on pollution. How do I combat it?

2. Nothing on terrorism. How do I combat it?

And finally. I thought we did away with manuals w/o indices a loooong time ago. It seems they've reemerged here. It's too bad. This game has the makings to be a great game if we can figure out how to play it. But, an indexless manual doesn't help.

Trystan · March 2, 2003, 06:50

Quote:

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune

Yeah, but what I am getting at is, it will turn out you can achieve the same results as you would with micromanagement, by micromanaging the macromanagement

, just *much, much, much* more tedious, and this tactic will always beat the Ai. My bet!

I've noticed this too. I get a kick out of the people saying stop trying to micromanage the game, set the dev plans and let it go, then turn and say that they tweak what the AI does every so many turns.

My amusement is that, what do you think micromanagement means? This is just that. Tweaking = micromanagement. It needs to be streamlines, better UI, better info at the screens you need it at.

vmxa1 · March 2, 2003, 14:59

If no MM was needed, why would we need to play? Wouldn't it just be a video, if all we do is hit the turn button?

Ianpolaris · March 2, 2003, 17:51

Quote:

Originally posted by vmxa1
If no MM was needed, why would we need to play? Wouldn't it just be a video, if all we do is hit the turn button?

That's the way the game already is, pretty much....at least once you have mastered the interface.

-Polaris

vmxa1 · March 2, 2003, 19:05

You are not far from the truth.

playshogi · March 2, 2003, 20:03

Can you save development plans from game to game?
That would be a chore if you had to re-do your development plans for each game. Especially in MP, there might be no time to do it (make development plans).

vmxa1 · March 3, 2003, 01:29

There are gone, unfortunetly.

darcy · March 3, 2003, 03:43

Quote:

Do we listen to the complaints and objectively evaluate them? Yes. Why? Because we believe in the game and making sure that it's everything that it can be. Hence a running bug/suggestion list.

Where is this list?

starfox · March 3, 2003, 09:03

same here. A direct X plane error.

And last night I saved. I was in the orion senate. This morning I load my game and I'm no longer in the orion senate, and some computer races went hiding. I no longer see the Orion. Really weird.