Is MOO3 going to suck

[Garth Vader]

Nowadays I am always worried about new versions of old favorites. So what do you think?

I am concerned that the starlane concept will bring the game one step closer to a warp point based game which I think always sucks. Although I am interested in seeing how they implement many things like the combat and the imperial focus.

[tniem]

Wait are you worried it is going to suck because it is not enough like the original or because you don't like the concepts behind the game?

If it is the first, I really wished Civ II had more deviation. As it was it was the same game I had played for 5 years. So I am not a big fan of entire conservative sequels.

If it is the second, I must say that I have enjoyed reading what they are trying to accomplish. Force the player to make overall strategy is what I would love to see in any game. I never saw a way to do it. The IFP could accomplish this and that would just be fantastic if they do.

Battles in RT again force the same type of thing. Overall strategy is decided by the player but actual implementation is up to the computer. The whole game is like the player is making the pencil marks on a painting of how he wants to see his civ develop and then the marks are filled in with the actual colors by the computer. It should be a great experience.

[Garth Vader]

The second. I am worried that some of the new concepts aren't going to work well. I agree with your assesment of Civ2.

Most of the new things look good, but not all. Plus, the ones that look good can be easily screwed up.

[Urban Ranger]

Both.

Being the Yin26 of MoO :D, there are a number of concerns I have with the new sequel:

1. Sequels done by a different design team do not live up to their promises. There is no exception to this rule, yet.

2. Leaving the actual implementation of your directions to the computer is a <em>dumb</em> idea. It will be less dumb if this can be turned off.

3. Going overboard in adding complexity is yet another dumb idea. Not only it will make the game less fun, it will require more computing power.

4. Putting [2] and [3] together, i.e., making the game more complex <em>and</em> leaving the actual implementation up to the program is <em>massively dumb</em>.

While I wish them luck, it looks like the Quicksilver team is heading down a very bad path.

[Blade Runner]

I think the imperial focus is a very good idea. :b: This feature help to eliminate the tedious end game management, when you have 50+ planets and 100+ starships to babysitt. Of course in the beginning you can micromanage every little details, anyway that is the time when somebody win the game. :)
We cannot realy say Alan Emrich is new to this MOO series. He helped with the first MOO to the original team, and he wrote the strategy guide, so he knows the MOO games inside-out. So I am certain we will get a very good and enjoyable game next year form his team.

[Father Beast]

I don't know which way to go. MOO2 sucked, and the original MOO was one of the greatest games ever made. I still play it.

but this is being made by an entirely different team. it might be good. I doubt it, though. this imperial focus thing looks like it would limit the player's ability to manage his empire. governors are OK, but they often would go and do things I don't want them to do.

When playing the moojr scenario for fantastic worlds, my governors would often build police stations (under a fundamentalism!!) and I would have to go in and tell them to knock it off. I try to imagine the horror as my governors go and do some crazy things and I can't get them to fix it because I've run out of imperial focus.

eventually, I predict the game bogging down into me screaming at a few of my governors to do something right, while the rest of them go ahead and do what they want, acting pretty much like any computer AI. not something I look forward to.

in the recent discussions on RTS vs. TBS, it has been pointed out that the greater strategy depth is in TBS because of the ability to look at everything that's going on, and tweak it minutely. Some people have played AOK on slow and pausing a lot, making it somewhat like plaing a TBS. it looks like MOO3 will take a TBS and force you to play it like an RTS. step backward, I say

[Fyunch(click)]

oh boy. Looks like you're going to have the same discussions we had at the QSI MoO3 forum (http://www.delphi.com/n/main.asp?webtag=masteroforion3&nav=start). :)

IFP and handing control over to AI leaders has always the first and foremost topic people complain about. One thing you guys should remember though is that the enemy AI has the same problem too. It too has to issue commands to it's empire through the IFP system.

Basicaly, what IFP is is a way to prevent an empire on a roll from winning the game in the first quarter of the game just by getting substantialy bigger than the others early on (as it was in MoO3: reach critical mass, then spent several hours mopping up). In MoO3, it gets progressively harder to run your empire the larger it gets (both for human and AI players), evening out the odds between large and small empires somewhat. It's not the only mechanism too. You can read more about it on the official site (moo3.quicksilver.com (http://moo3.quicksilver.com))

[Tiberius]

Where is the "I hope/think not, but who knows" option?

[Garth Vader]

That's what the maybe is for;)

UR, good points. Although I have always wanted a real "you be the emperor" game where you make the big descisions and get reports on what happened like it would be in real life. You points are probably valid as it could be a disaster, but I am interested to try!

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Both.

Being the Yin26 of MoO :D, there are a number of concerns I have with the new sequel:

1. Sequels done by a different design team do not live up to their promises. There is no exception to this rule, yet.

2. Leaving the actual implementation of your directions to the computer is a <em>dumb</em> idea. It will be less dumb if this can be turned off.

3. Going overboard in adding complexity is yet another dumb idea. Not only it will make the game less fun, it will require more computing power.

4. Putting [2] and [3] together, i.e., making the game more complex <em>and</em> leaving the actual implementation up to the program is <em>massively dumb</em>.

While I wish them luck, it looks like the Quicksilver team is heading down a very bad path.

Urban Ranger, You would have to try hard to be more wrong. :lol:

Yin is the Yin of Civ and not the Yin of Moo, because Yin has, imo, a very good brain.

To put Yin´s ideas upside down is <em>massively dumb</em>. :D

ad 1) Statistics come into play only with large numbers. How many 'sequels, but from a different design team' have there been lately?

A sequel from, I think, a different design team, was '
Dune II'. :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

ad 2) Have You ever played one of the old SSG wargames? The great thing about them was a correct perspective . If Your role was a general, You could *not* give orders to individual units, because a military hierarchy doesn´t work like that. You gave orders to Your (AI) sub-commanders, and they implemented them as they saw fit.

This is the reason why SSG games were realistic and exciting, and why Talonsoft games are unrealistic and boring. The most important thing with a good simulation is to put realistic limits on players` choices .

Let me repeat that:

The most important thing with a good simulation is to put realistic limits on players` choices .

ad 3) If You want little complexity, play Tetris. :rant: :rant: :rant:

Simulations are about complexity, and nothing much else. There can never be a strategy game, let alone history/sci-fi simulation, with too much complexity. Of course they have to organize it well so that the information is accessible. And they have to deliver a comprehensive manual.

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by Fyunch(click)
oh boy. Looks like you're going to have the same discussions we had at the QSI MoO3 forum (http://www.delphi.com/n/main.asp?webtag=masteroforion3&nav=start). :)

IFP and handing control over to AI leaders has always the first and foremost topic people complain about.

I suppose so. I really, really, really hope Alan Emrich is not going to water down his brilliant approach because of the complaints of those Attention Deficit Syndrome kids. :mad: :angry: :doitnow!:

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune
ad 1) Statistics come into play only with large numbers.

Yes, but what is a large number? This is comparative in teams of the total sample space. Since there are not that many sequels by different design teams, the total sample space is small. Is this invalid? Not necessarily.

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune
How many 'sequels, but from a different design team' have there been lately?

There are many sequels from a different design team than their original creator. Off the top of my head:

- XCOM 3
- Railroad Tycoon 2
- Call to Power & CtP 2
- Test of Time

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune
A sequel from, I think, a different design team, was '
Dune II'. :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

Unclear on this point.

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune
ad 2) Have You ever played one of the old SSG wargames? The great thing about them was a correct perspective . If Your role was a general, You could *not* give orders to individual units, because a military hierarchy doesn´t work like that. You gave orders to Your (AI) sub-commanders, and they implemented them as they saw fit.

I have played some SSG games but I'm not sure to which you are referring. At any rate you are making a wrong comparison since <em>MoO 3</em> is not a wargame. It has elements of combat, but the game itself is not focused on battles and how military units are organised.

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune
Let me repeat that:

The most important thing with a good simulation is to put realistic limits on players` choices .

You can repeat that a million times without any effect whatsoever, because <em>MoO 3</em> is not a simulation. Simulation? :lol:

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune
ad 3) If You want little complexity, play Tetris. :rant: :rant: :rant:

Let me show you a very simple game. It's called Go.

You don't appear to understand that, just because a game is simple doesn't mean no deep strategy is involved.

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune
Simulations are about complexity, and nothing much else.

Really? Played SimCity before? :p

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune
There can never be a strategy game, let alone history/sci-fi simulation, with too much complexity.

First of all, there's no such thing as a sci-fi simulation. Secondly, <em>MoO 3</em> will be far from a simulation. Shall we start discussing things such as flight models, population growth models, etc? :D Thirdly, surely there is such a thing as too much complexity. There is a limitation on human capacity afterall.

[yin26]

Yin is the Yin of Civ and not the Yin of Moo, because Yin has, imo, a very good brain.

Hey! Talk like that could get you in trouble around Apolyton! :lol:

So far, I think the MOO3 team is doing some things very well. I will admit that I have not followed the development as closely as I have with Civ 3, but I am FAR more excited about MOO 3 and feel that (with my limited knowledge of either game aside) MOO3 will be a game you keep on your hard-drive because you love it, while Civ 3 IF it stays on your hard-drive will be because the community modded it.

[Stormhound]

Hmmmm...well, while I can't say I'm inspired much by the title of the poll, at least I'm glad to see that overall expectations are positive. I'd hate to think I'd spent so many hours working on a game that people would figure was going to suck. :cute:

[dainbramaged13]

Originally posted by yin26


Hey! Talk like that could get you in trouble around Apolyton! :lol:

So far, I think the MOO3 team is doing some things very well. I will admit that I have not followed the development as closely as I have with Civ 3, but I am FAR more excited about MOO 3 and feel that (with my limited knowledge of either game aside) MOO3 will be a game you keep on your hard-drive because you love it, while Civ 3 IF it stays on your hard-drive will be because the community modded it.

WOW ive never seen you so positive. I personally think civ3 will be a great game, but this isn't that forum is it.
I also have not been following the MOO3 production NEARLY as closely as the civ3, but I expect that it wil be good from what I have heard. byt the way. I LOVE COMPLEXITY, so while it may be big on your hard drive and system requirements (and most likely be delayed quite a bit) I will like the game.

Also, while I like the idea of IFP to some extent, and for some purposes, I really wish that there were an option to turn this off, for both you and the AI, like if you really wanted to have an incredibly long game, and micromanage everything.

[yin26]

Well, maybe I'm so positive BECAUSE I haven't followed it closely? :) But seriously, some things I really like about the effort at QS so far:

** Directly and consistently working with the public to get feedback. I can't stress how important and how rare that is. It's amazing to me that companies have a virtually free means of finding out what their consumers want...and yet they design in a vacuum and hope. Makes no sense.

** The decision to release MOO3 3 months AFTER Civ3. Not only does this mean they are not worried about the Christmas window, but they will be able to play and learn some things from Civ3, watch the reception of its various features...and at the very least have the opportunity to polish and tweak. So while Civ 3's first major (and most likely NECESSARY) patch will be coming about 3 months after its release, MOO3 will be hitting the market. If the timing is good, they'll attract a lot of frustrated Civvers who otherwise might not have bought the game if they were released at the same time. Great move.

** Trying new stuff. Let's face it: This is industry is often sooo damn conservative it's a wonder it still makes any money at all. I will be the first to say that MOO3 could flop because of its "messing with the forumula." 10 times out of 10, I would rather buy a polished game that tries something new than a cookie-cutter game that takes another 4 months for patches because the designers and publisher never really cared about the gamer to begin with.

** Sending the message that the game is a labor of love. This is important. I want to think the a game's designers are loving every minute of the project and not just clocking in time or looking at this game as a step to the next one. Firaxis, if you ask me, has been a cold fish. Infogrames has forced them to a holiday (heck, OCTOBER!) release, and I have heard basically NO excitement from them about working on the project. Jesus, even Sid comes out and says stuff like: "Well, I thought Civ was behind me, but what the hell."

Hardly inspiring by contrast.

[tniem]

Originally posted by yin26
Well, maybe I'm so positive BECAUSE I haven't followed it closely? :) But seriously, some things I really like about the effort at QS so far:

To the same token, I am probably really positive about MoO3 because I played the original two only on a rare occassion. I was more of a Civ and Stars! player. So for me MOO3 really represents a new game for me. So that is probably the reason I am most excited.


** Directly and consistently working with the public to get feedback. I can't stress how important and how rare that is. It's amazing to me that companies have a virtually free means of finding out what their consumers want...and yet they design in a vacuum and hope. Makes no sense.

I think this is in big part because Alan is really a game player not a game designer. He always wanted to be a part of the process and now that he has gotten that chance he is letting us all in on the ride. Which means that the difference is because they came from different places.

I think for MOO it is really important to have a big involvement of the community. It has always lived in the shadows of Civ. Now it is listening and caring about consumers, building a community before release. Firaxis said something about learning how to build communities from Maxis, they choose the wrong company. They should have looked at Quicksilver within the Infogrames umbrella.


** The decision to release MOO3 3 months AFTER Civ3. Not only does this mean they are not worried about the Christmas window, but they will be able to play and learn some things from Civ3, watch the reception of its various features...and at the very least have the opportunity to polish and tweak. So while Civ 3's first major (and most likely NECESSARY) patch will be coming about 3 months after its release, MOO3 will be hitting the market. If the timing is good, they'll attract a lot of frustrated Civvers who otherwise might not have bought the game if they were released at the same time. Great move.

To me I agree with Christmas stuff. Most great games are released after Christmas when companies missed their window. Blizzard is always doing so and they still sell a ton during the spring season. Maxis and the Sims. Black and White. Spring is the time for the best games, the ones that missed Christmas because they were still polishing and not in a financial rush to release the game.

But I must say the three months after Civ III release window is some what cheap. I mean if it is coming from Infogrames than I would say it is just because they don't want two TBS games competing against each other. But coming from Quicksilver it is kind of saying were going to come out after and do better. I don't know, it to me is kind of petty.


** Trying new stuff. Let's face it: This is industry is often sooo damn conservative it's a wonder it still makes any money at all...

Agreed.


** Sending the message that the game is a labor of love. This is important. I want to think the a game's designers are loving every minute of the project and not just clocking in time or looking at this game as a step to the next one. Firaxis, if you ask me, has been a cold fish. Infogrames has forced them to a holiday (heck, OCTOBER!) release, and I have heard basically NO excitement from them about working on the project. Jesus, even Sid comes out and says stuff like: "Well, I thought Civ was behind me, but what the hell."

Hardly inspiring by contrast.

Again a big agreed. Quicksilver really wants to do this game. They are dedicated to it. It is this or none of them have a job. Many came within the forums and are now on developement. They love this game. This is their life.

I think similar things happened at Blizzard. There one of their map editor designers took a labtop to the hospital. He had to work on the game. Of course the problem with this is that his wife was in the hospital giving birth.

When she came out of labor he was still plugging away on the labtop working on the game. She asked him why didn't he put the damn game down for a little while. He told her that it wasn't a game, it was StarCraft.

Love for what you do is big and it shows in how the game turns out.

[yin26]

I think similar things happened at Blizzard. There one of their map editor designers took a labtop to the hospital. He had to work on the game. Of course the problem with this is that his wife was in the hospital giving birth.

LOL! Yes, I read about that. Reminds me of Phil Steinmeyer's comment when his baby was born and the same day that Tropico was released. He said, basically, that the release of Tropico was a bigger deal to him because he has the rest of his life to see his son grow. :lol:

Thank God for those nut-case game designers / programmers who sacrifice everything for what they love!

[Master Marcus]

For what I know right now, I'd say ...the best feature is the combination of RTS battles and TBS overall management. I think it is THIS kind of gameplay mechanics, melted togheter on a powerful and highly playable engine, that should make MoO3 a great space-opera game. The IFPs are only there to allow playing in a galaxy of 10,000 colonies ,and thousands of ships around...and maintaining your leaders in line of course!

To answer the meaning of this thread, not only MoO3 is NOT going to suck ( perhaps the thread's title should have been more positive oriented: is MoO3 to be a huge hit???), it's going to be a surprise hit if they can implement all the inputs shown on the official site.:cute:

[Master Marcus]

Originally posted by dainbramaged13


Also, while I like the idea of IFP to some extent, and for some purposes, I really wish that there were an option to turn this off, for both you and the AI, like if you really wanted to have an incredibly long game, and micromanage everything.

dainbramaged13, I've just read a reply from Stormhound answering that and I quote him in my own words: you will NOT be able to disable the IFPs, either on multiplayer and single-player. He says that the whole game is constructed upon this points system.

[Stormhound]

Originally posted by tniem

But I must say the three months after Civ III release window is some what cheap. I mean if it is coming from Infogrames than I would say it is just because they don't want two TBS games competing against each other. But coming from Quicksilver it is kind of saying were going to come out after and do better. I don't know, it to me is kind of petty.



It's entirely Infogrames' call; they're the publisher, and they didn't want the games competing directly for sales. We're not in competition with Sid; if anything, we want both games to sell well as it increases the chances for a MoM2, which we're quite keen on taking a crack at. Both games need to be good sellers, so that Infogrames will remain committed to the TBS market.

[yin26]

Stormhound:

Their decision makes perfect sense to me. I'm just damn happy that MOO3 is the one being released LATER. :) You guys are really going to be in a sweet spot.

My only concern: What are the advertising plans? Seems like Civ 3 is getting better coverage just for being a Sid game. This is understandable, but PLEASE don't let MOO3 go quietly into that good night...

[Kc7mxo]

Hmm. When I read that moo3 was coming 3 out three months after civ3 i didn't think it was because of any strategy. i thought it was just because civ3 was still supposedly a long ways off, like the holy grail, and they were just a bit farther. Sorta like ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer.



While I only breifely played either moo1 or moo2, i am willing to give the ifp system a chance. but it all depends on their implamentation of the ai. if they hired proffesionals (of which there are quite few ) for the ai, or put out a LOT of effort of their own, then it will work. If the ai is even the slightest bit stupid, then people will scream bloody murder.

Personalyl after following black and white with breathless anticipation for 3 years, only to be utterly disaspointed, i've avoided reading about moo3. as i did with diablo2exp. unfortunatly i couldn't contain my curiousity abotu civ3 and i'm already disapointed.

anticipation is a *@#^@.

[[LordLMP]]

Okay, I haven't read the whole thread as first several posts are just down right Negative and close-minded....typical conservative who is afraid of change. So i may repeat some things. If you don't like MOO3, then simply go back to play MOO, simple as that. I can see how Negativity would annoy the Designers. Instead of complaining and repeat it all over the place, make suggestions and think POSITIVE. Give the team good karma, not bad :p

I wouldn't mind allowing the Governors run things...aslong as the AI ain't stupid. IFP will work, aslong as they have a good AI system. if MOO3 has bad AI, then of course the IFP will not work.
And there won't entirally ONE AI for the Overall thing...there will be multiple AI algorithms...one for the Emperor(which would be the most complex...hopefully), each Governor, each Minister, each Leader, each Admiral, each Captain, etc...

If you end up having one stupid Governor, then its your job as a Emperor to Fire him and get a new one...if you don't or cannot do to IFP, then the fault goes to the Emperor :p

As for the RTS thing, i prefer RTS then turn base...aslong as there is a Pause, Play, Fast-Forward, etc... buttons like in X-COM: Apocalypse. I rather have the Ship battles run something like Homeworld, Harpoon, etc then Turn base, which is unrealistic. In r/l, i wouldn't not allow the enemy to get into range and destroy half my fleet before i get a chance to Fire back. Thats one of the annoying things about MOO2. You practicly have to build Defensive and Offensive ships. Defence will be geared to have the ships be able to take heavy punishment and then whatever left for weapons. Where in Offensive, gear the ships to have the biggest guns in numbers s you can blast the enemy before they a get chance to fire back. That, in my opinion is pathetic.... sure may try a variety of designs in a fleet, but in Moo2, won't allow you to place the ships...so the darn game ends putting your offencers with low armor in front then the defencers with low guns at the back. Pretty annoying. Also, RTS allows the players to get through battles a lot quicker then spend an hour on some pathetic battle...... Birth of the Federation had the right idea about ship-to-ship battles, but they could of done better... but had fun with anyway....hey, i was able to get a small fleet of raider type ships to cause a lot of damage to the enemy battleships before being eliminated in BOTF....

If RTS battles in Moo3 will be something like Harpoon which Stormhound used as an example, would be hoot of lot fun :)
All little battles will leave to the Admirals...but the big huge important ones i want to be able to lead :)

-LMP

[Father Beast]

Originally posted by Fyunch(click)

IFP and handing control over to AI leaders has always the first and foremost topic people complain about. One thing you guys should remember though is that the enemy AI has the same problem too. It too has to issue commands to it's empire through the IFP system.


get the mote out of your eye;)

the AI has to use the IFP system? that means it has to hand a lot of the micromanagement over to the AI. That means handing the job to itself.

Irrelevant in the big picture. I picture a game with large complexity I can't enjoy because of this ridiculous IFP.:mad: :mad:

[Stormhound]

(answering various bits)

AI: We hired someone specifically for that a year ago. More people are working on it now.

AI handing the job to itself: Not quite. There's an AI that makes the "big picture" level decisions, simulating what the player does (trying to decide what's most important to do at any given time, and how to respond). Then there's the AI that simulates subordinates, which both the player and the AI-player have to deal with.

Advertising: I just answered much the same question on our forum. Infogrames has to gear their campaigns carefully. Besides, Civ3 is the big flashy title with the Grand Old Man of TBS at the helm, and all the pomp and circumstance. MoO3 will get its share of the limelight, don't you worry.

KC7MXO: That a Ham call sign? (g) KC0EKV here.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by [LordLMP]
Okay, I haven't read the whole thread as first several posts are just down right Negative and close-minded....typical conservative who is afraid of change.

Nope, all wrong. Branding those who disagree with you? :q:

[loinburger]

What an incredibly loaded polling question. :p

[TCO]

Originally posted by Father Beast
I don't know which way to go. MOO2 sucked, and the original MOO was one of the greatest games ever made. I still play it.

but this is being made by an entirely different team. it might be good. I doubt it, though. this imperial focus thing looks like it would limit the player's ability to manage his empire. governors are OK, but they often would go and do things I don't want them to do.

When playing the moojr scenario for fantastic worlds, my governors would often build police stations (under a fundamentalism!!) and I would have to go in and tell them to knock it off. I try to imagine the horror as my governors go and do some crazy things and I can't get them to fix it because I've run out of imperial focus.

eventually, I predict the game bogging down into me screaming at a few of my governors to do something right, while the rest of them go ahead and do what they want, acting pretty much like any computer AI. not something I look forward to.

in the recent discussions on RTS vs. TBS, it has been pointed out that the greater strategy depth is in TBS because of the ability to look at everything that's going on, and tweak it minutely. Some people have played AOK on slow and pausing a lot, making it somewhat like plaing a TBS. it looks like MOO3 will take a TBS and force you to play it like an RTS. step backward, I say

You need to learn to win with disadvantages. In the real world, top brass has to let lower-downs make decisions. Some of them will be wrong. you just nchalk that up to size of empire and move along. Who cares about some police stations getting built if you are moving howies for an important battle.

Breath in deep. "LET THE PERFECTIONISM GO!"

[TCO]

Originally posted by Stormhound
KC7MXO: That a Ham call sign? (g) KC0EKV here.

Hey cool! I couldn't get him to tell what that meant. Back on the AOL Civ boards, 4 years ago. Now I know!

[Internationalist]

MoO 3 Rocks!!:)

[Starfighter08]

Ethoi gone, Team victory gone....If the "high finance" and gov't agendas is canned too, only a remake/mix of MoO and MoO2 will remain. The IFP and this strange event engine aren't quite enough to justify a new release IMO. Thoughts?

Btw not the new ideas bother me but that there are too few of them and they get canned one by one. :madban:

[Stormhound]

Ordinarily, I wouldn't respond to such a post, but you're painting a highly inaccurate picture of things.

The terraforming model is new. The technology and research system is new. The concept of your people moving around without your guidance is new. The event engine is new. The economics is certainly a broader model than you're going to find elsewhere (and it's not exactly what you'd call a candidate for the chopping block, nor are the government agendas). In fact, a great many things are new in this game, especially compared to previous MOOs (ship combat with task forces, ground combat, internal politics, sub-leaders, corruption of leaders, multiple levels of "specials", mid-game player entry, planets AND MOONS to colonize with regions, a meaningful unrest and revolt system, internal piracy and security needs which require the presence of garrison ships and troops in your systems and on your worlds, military draft pools, a myriad of government policies, active forces vs. reserves, DEAs, more types of ground units, expanded espionage, expanded exploration of systems...have I come anywhere close to getting my point across yet?). If the only information you're getting on the game is through this forum, then frankly you haven't got very much idea what's going on at all, and you should get out to the website and the FAQ at the very least because you're missing a lot.

I'll also point out that we haven't announced any more cuts in a while (not a promise for the future, just a statement about the past), so it's hardly reasonable to talk about them being cut "one by one", which makes it sound as though we come out and announce another cut every week or so.

If you want to rip us for something we've done, go for it...but at least make sure you're accurate, because I'm not going to be shy about returning fire if I think you're off the mark.

[Starfighter08]

Originally posted by Stormhound
Ordinarily, I wouldn't respond to such a post, but you're painting a highly inaccurate picture of things.

Well then, thank you very much for doing it then.:)

Originally posted by Stormhound
The terraforming model is new. The technology and research system is new.

Ok, true the tech system is far better than anything existing at this time.

Originally posted by Stormhound
The concept of your people moving around without your guidance is new.

Hu? I read the whole official sit two weeks or so ago but didn't see it (admittedly it was quite late at night :o)

Originally posted by Stormhound
The event engine is new.

I have some trouble with it because it remembers me of all the monopoly sessions (take a card :D) or some RPGs. I wouldn't be surprised if I was wrong however.

Originally posted by Stormhound
The economics is certainly a broader model than you're going to find elsewhere (and it's not exactly what you'd call a candidate for the chopping block, nor are the government agendas).

I'm very glad to hear that they won't be canned. I must say I'm quite fed up with these "planned economies" you usually get in TBS (gov't owned factories, supermarkets, TV stations just to name a few).

Originally posted by Stormhound
In fact, a great many things are new in this game, especially compared to previous MOOs (ship combat with task forces,

Star Wars Rebellion

Originally posted by Stormhound
ground combat,

Imperium Galactica (not quite the same but you still have quite some impact here)

Originally posted by Stormhound
internal politics,

As far as I know the guys of "Galactic Civilizations" are trying something with a senate and different parties (I could be wrong here)

Originally posted by Stormhound
sub-leaders, corruption of leaders,

Pax Imperia (I was quite shocked when I realized for the first time that a certain system governor's boni had become negative and fired him right away :cool:)

Originally posted by Stormhound
multiple levels of "specials",

Quite curious about that. Do you mean black ops and such things?

Originally posted by Stormhound
mid-game player entry,

Fugger2 (no, that's not swearing the Fugger were a wealthy family in 16/17 century Europe, the game is from a German developer AFAIK and the mid game entering player gets something like the average of the others' wealth.

Originally posted by Stormhound
planets AND MOONS to colonize with regions, a meaningful unrest and revolt system,

By meaningful you mean better than civ and similar games I assume.

Originally posted by Stormhound
internal piracy and security needs which require the presence of garrison ships and troops in your systems and on your worlds,

SW Rebellion has some rudimentary garrison requirements for conquered territories but that's about all.

Originally posted by Stormhound
military draft pools, a myriad of government policies,

Europa Universalis has draft pools defined for every province and some gov't policies and EU2 is said (whatever that means) to have even more.

Originally posted by Stormhound
active forces vs. reserves, DEAs, more types of ground units, expanded espionage, expanded exploration of systems...have I come anywhere close to getting my point across yet?).

Yep. The game's back on my must have list, congratulations. :)

Originally posted by Stormhound
If the only information you're getting on the game is through this forum, then frankly you haven't got very much idea what's going on at all, and you should get out to the website and the FAQ at the very least because you're missing a lot.

As I said before, I visited your hp once (darn it really must have been late).

Originally posted by Stormhound
I'll also point out that we haven't announced any more cuts in a while (not a promise for the future, just a statement about the past), so it's hardly reasonable to talk about them being cut "one by one", which makes it sound as though we come out and announce another cut every week or so.

Since I read about the society system these guys of "Clash of Civilizations" are trying to implement I'm quite in love (don't laugh it's true) with a fleshed out societies/politics/religion in TBS games and so far I've waited in vain for such a thing being implemented. :(

Originally posted by Stormhound
If you want to rip us for something we've done, go for it...but at least make sure you're accurate, because I'm not going to be shy about returning fire if I think you're off the mark.

Return fire at will, my armor and dodge ratings are good enough to stand quite some barrages. ;) And again, thanks for answering in such detail. :)

[Stormhound]

Well, if that's the definition of "new" you're going to use, then I have some very bad news for you...not one single thing is new (except maybe the tech system, but I'm not sure and since it was my baby someone else had best judge)...I can go through my collection of old board wargames and find examples of all of them. (No, don't ask me to.) Alan's collection is far bigger than mine, so if I haven't got one...

But these things are certainly new to the MOO series, and there probably aren't many games out there that have half or more of the list I gave. This is not, to paraphrase the commercial, your father's MOO. (g)

People moving around has been discussed both here and on the MOO3 forum. I haven't said a whole lot about it yet, but I've nibbled the edges of the topic. Short version: if people don't like the places you give them to live, they'll move. Some will move elsewhere within your empire, some will start new colonies all on their own, and some will tell you just what you can do with your planet and go join someone else's empire. We're not talking stampedes, here, but certainly enough that it might be worth your while to improve conditions.

No, multiple specials doesn't mean black ops. You remember how, for instance, planets in MOO2 could have specials like "natives" or "splinter colony" or "gold mine" or things like that? Well, specials in MOO3 are of several possible levels of scope, both higher AND lower than planetary. BTW, the espionage model does include things that I believe would be classified as "black ops". It's far more robust than the MOO1/2 models.

I know who the Fuggers were. :) I paid attention in history class, and they made their money largely through banking and merchant trade if memory serves. And just another interesting tidbit: Alan Emrich (the lead designer) used to be a history teacher, back before he got into the game industry. So you've got some ejumacated people working this game, yup! ;)

[Starfighter08]

Originally posted by Stormhound
Well, if that's the definition of "new" you're going to use, then I have some very bad news for you...not one single thing is new (except maybe the tech system, but I'm not sure and since it was my baby someone else had best judge)...I can go through my collection of old board wargames and find examples of all of them. (No, don't ask me to.) Alan's collection is far bigger than mine, so if I haven't got one...

But these things are certainly new to the MOO series, and there probably aren't many games out there that have half or more of the list I gave. This is not, to paraphrase the commercial, your father's MOO. (g)

I'll settle with this definition of new.

Originally posted by Stormhound
People moving around has been discussed both here and on the MOO3 forum. I haven't said a whole lot about it yet, but I've nibbled the edges of the topic. Short version: if people don't like the places you give them to live, they'll move. Some will move elsewhere within your empire, some will start new colonies all on their own, and some will tell you just what you can do with your planet and go join someone else's empire. We're not talking stampedes, here, but certainly enough that it might be worth your while to improve conditions.

So voting with the feet (ships) is simulated :)

Originally posted by Stormhound
No, multiple specials doesn't mean black ops. You remember how, for instance, planets in MOO2 could have specials like "natives" or "splinter colony" or "gold mine" or things like that? Well, specials in MOO3 are of several possible levels of scope, both higher AND lower than planetary. BTW, the espionage model does include things that I believe would be classified as "black ops". It's far more robust than the MOO1/2 models.

Ah, those specials...

Originally posted by Stormhound
I know who the Fuggers were. :) I paid attention in history class, and they made their money largely through banking and merchant trade if memory serves. And just another interesting tidbit: Alan Emrich (the lead designer) used to be a history teacher, back before he got into the game industry. So you've got some ejumacated people working this game, yup! ;)

It's just that I didn't know you would know such "details" about European history. Sorry, no offense intended.

A history teacher? Who would have thought that? For some odd reason I imagine game developers being some computer cracks just taken some things/events and stuffing them into their games. The fact that I study economics and that economies in TBS games (capitalism et al. excluded of course) hardly ever come close to anything like a free enterprise (or then it's something like "lower taxes and growth will increase", yea right) that prejudice grew even stronger.

[Stormhound]

Certainly no offense taken. We've got a mix of people. Among the non-QS people who are also helping with the design, we have a Doctor of Philosophy (not just a Ph.D., his doctorate is IN Philosophy), a geologist, an author, a marine biologist...and yes, there are some people who do know how to program, too. ;)

I can't comment on what kind of people you see in other development houses (and it would probably be imprudent of me to do so even if I could), but there are some good minds and real fans of the MOO series working on this title, and even if half of the concepts we're putting together DID get cut...not that I have any reason to expect that they would...we'd still have a heck of a game.

Anyhow, glad to see that you're feeling better about it all. And now to get back to the business of delivering all these neat things...

(Y'know, this "the server is too busy" stuff is getting annoying...)

[Zealot]

Originally posted by Stormhound
People moving around has been discussed both here and on the MOO3 forum.

This IS a MOO3 forum! ;)

Originally posted by Stormhound
I haven't said a whole lot about it yet, but I've nibbled the edges of the topic. Short version: if people don't like the places you give them to live, they'll move. Some will move elsewhere within your empire, some will start new colonies all on their own, and some will tell you just what you can do with your planet and go join someone else's empire. We're not talking stampedes, here, but certainly enough that it might be worth your while to improve conditions.

So, there's a little of simCity in MOO3, right? :cool:

Originally posted by Stormhound
I know who the Fuggers were. :) I paid attention in history class, and they made their money largely through banking and merchant trade if memory serves. And just another interesting tidbit: Alan Emrich (the lead designer) used to be a history teacher, back before he got into the game industry. So you've got some ejumacated people working this game, yup! ;)

Wasn't a Fugger a Founding Father in Colonization? :)

[Stormhound]

Actually, Alan has said that he's definitely been trying for something of a "SimGalaxy", where the whole thing feels alive because the players aren't in control of every minute detail and there are always things happening whether the player acts or not.

In my mind, it's like a good role-playing campaign: the game world should give the impression that it has its own business to attend to, and is going to get on with it rather than waiting breathlessly for the players to do everything. It just feels more interesting that way.

[Stormhound]

For those who haven't seen it, http://www.quartertothree.com/ has chipped in their two cents worth on MOO3. You'll be able to guess my opinion of their comments after you've read them, I'm sure.

Go tell them what you think, good or bad. Tell us what you think. Heck, tell anybody what you think. We're big, we can take it.

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by Stormhound
Actually, Alan has said that he's definitely been trying for something of a "SimGalaxy", where the whole thing feels alive because the players aren't in control of every minute detail and there are always things happening whether the player acts or not.

In my mind, it's like a good role-playing campaign: the game world should give the impression that it has its own business to attend to, and is going to get on with it rather than waiting breathlessly for the players to do everything. It just feels more interesting that way.

:b: :b: :b: Three thumbs up to this! ;)

[Stormhound]

Three thumbs? Sounds like I need to introduce you to the Delphi board's resident Motie. :lol:

[Sarxis]

Originally posted by Garth Vader
Nowadays I am always worried about new versions of old favorites. So what do you think?

I am concerned that the starlane concept will bring the game one step closer to a warp point based game which I think always sucks. Although I am interested in seeing how they implement many things like the combat and the imperial focus.

Well the truth is- it seems as if TBS could be making a solid comeback. I just got CivIII, and all I can say is that it is as solid, revolutionary, and yet holding fast to the basics of the previous games, that it just makes the whole experience phenomenal!

I think MOO3 is going to be the same. I feel that the TBS genre has been 'pruned' so to speak, so that the only developers left are the original greats. MOO and CIV are the two pillars of might when it comes to TBS.

[Master Marcus]

Originally posted by Anunikoba
Well the truth is- it seems as if TBS could be making a solid comeback. I just got CivIII, and all I can say is that it is as solid, revolutionary, and yet holding fast to the basics of the previous games, that it just makes the whole experience phenomenal!

I think MOO3 is going to be the same. I feel that the TBS genre has been 'pruned' so to speak, so that the only developers left are the original greats. MOO and CIV are the two pillars of might when it comes to TBS.

Exactly what I said in details in my column I've recently sent ( still don't know if and when they'll print it ) - less one thing : Civ III is solid but not revolutionary, and meets so far my expectations after a couple of gameplay hours last night.;) The revolution is yet to come...

[moomin]

Originally posted by Master Marcus

Civ III is solid but not revolutionary, and meets so far my expectations after a couple of gameplay hours last night.;) The revolution is yet to come...

Yup. That's why we're all hoping for QS to pull Moo3 off. If they manage to actually implement the IFP system w/out making the player tear their hair at the AIs moronic choises in same, then there will be a revolution!

But the risks... Anyone ever tried playing Moo2 with tac combat off? Having the AI do your ship design was atrocious, for lack of better word. If the AIs that the IFP system relies upon perform even close to that, Moo3 will be unplayable.

But I will buy it nevertheless.

[Stormhound]

(Posted by Alan on the Delphi forum, 10/30/2001):

Here's a note from Bill Fisher, Kingpin of Quicksilver Software:

Actually, designing the AI has been more time-consuming than it has been difficult. We'll know for sure when we start our testing. The key has been to plan the game from the beginning so that each AI module has a well-defined, carefully limited set of tasks to perform, and to make sure that each of those tasks can be broken down into a simple set of need-based decisions.

I have two rules for writing game AI:

1. Don't do anything that looks stupid.
2. Try to do things that look smart.

In most games, the challenge is getting past item #1. That's often quite difficult. For example, in Conquest of the New World, we gave the AI a detailed list of buildings that needed to be constructed in each city, and the preferred order in which they were to be built. But we also had to tell it about a number of special cases, such as when there's not enough land and it needed to tear down something which is no longer productive to replace it with something that's now needed. These sequences were based on months of careful human play and analysis.

In Castles II, we addressed this challenge by creating a design where simply making "reasonable" choices from a well-defined sequence of play would result in very effective AI behavior. In formal mathematical terms, I like to say that "local optimization equals global optimization" -- that is, doing what looks smart from a very narrow view of the world tends to be the right choice. We're trying for the same approach in MOO3. Not all game designs are like this. In chess, in fact, it's often the exact opposite. Capturing your opponent's Queen with that pawn, while it looks good right now, will often lead to a game-losing chain of events one or two turns down the road.

For MOO3, here's what we've done:

1. Modularize: break down the game into small, simple sub-units with clearly defined rules and decision processes.

Needless to say, simulating an entire galaxy is a daunting challenge. We took a "divide and conquer" approach, picking a clear and easily understood metaphor to help us keep it straight in our own minds. From the very start, the galaxy was divided into various departments, just like a government would be. Each was given a set of tasks, which were assigned to various leaders within the department.

I often worry about getting too abstract and theoretical in AI design. It's tempting to build a monument to your own ingenuity, which nobody else can understand. The advantage of this departmental model is that it's quite easy to see how the various aspects of a galactic empire can be organized. It's somewhat abstract, but virtually everything has a clear equivalent in current human governmental structures, so the designers didn't get lost in abstruse mathematical abstractions. Everything boiled down to a relatively simple analogy with a familiar system.

Once the departments and sub-departments were laid out, the designers then worked through each system, one at a time, to make sure that its responsibilities were clear. Usually, this ended up looking a lot like a board game design. Alan, Tom and I have played lots of board games together over the years, and we like to think in the clean, elegant style that's required by such games. Early in the design process, I spent a lot of time talking with Alan about the departments, and was happy to see that each one essentially had a "combat results table" with a set of modifiers. This gave them plenty of variety, yet was simple enough that I could see how to write a very effective AI with minimal risk.

2. Stabilize: Design each subsystem so it's inherently stable

I wrote my first simulation game in 1975 (on punch cards). The first lesson I learned was that it's very easy to design a system that spirals off into disaster. For example, if a lack of food causes farmers to die immediately, reducing production, then any slight food shortage will quickly kill off the entire population. That's a simple system that tends toward instability. I like to think of this metaphorically as balancing a marble on a bowl that's been turned upside-down. The marble will quickly roll slightly to one side, picking up speed and rolling even faster as it falls toward the edge.

What we want to do is design systems that act like a marble inside a bowl that's right-side up. In a system like that, no matter where you put the marble, it will tend to roll back toward the center. This is what I mean by "inherently stable." That's how we've designed the individual systems in MOO3. They can swing a great deal from side to side, but they tend not to spiral out of control. There are checks and balances that always pull the system back from the precipice. That's not to say that they don't have interesting effects. The swings back and forth can be quite interesting. What it means is that they aren't fragile. Fragile systems in games are not fun.

3. Rationalize: Create "need-based" systems.

Instead of giving the AI (or the player) a long list of "stuff to build," give them a long list of specific needs with specific solutions. For example, instead of just allowing players or AIs to group ships in any way they want, define task forces around specific needs, such as a "planetary bombardment task force." At a higher level, give the AI a list of strategies to pursue. When the strategy says "attack a planet," it's then a simple matter to realize that this will require a bombardment task force, so the AI knows to build one.

This approach, of course, requires a lot of careful pre-planning and understanding of what each leader in each department will want or need to do. But, once that's done, the hard part of the AI design is also done. The AI can simply choose a solution from a logically constructed list, influenced by various other factors that are similarly defined throughout the design. And the logic for making such a choice, because it's all based on a "need" orientation, is usually quite simple.


That's a long explanation for a simple question, but I hope it shows how we're addressing this very large challenge. In the end, by breaking down a given decision into simple, clear parts that behave based on well-defined needs, we have essentially designed everything needed for the AI except the code and a few high-level strategies. By facing the challenges of the AI design from the start, we've minimized our risks and, as a secondary effect, created a system that's very easy for players to understand and enjoy.

[moomin]

I'm happy to see that long answer, SH. While I, personally, could do with more maths and fewer words, there's no doubt he's at least thought of the worst traps and took pains to avoid them. How effective this will be remains to be seen, however.

But even in optimized environs, AI is *difficult*. I program medical support systems (basically diagnosis support systems, giving doctors "a second opinion" based on a specific set of symptoms). We've generally found that the AI route is very improductive - we do almost all work based on a neural network model instead. Not for lack of trying, let me tell you, because NNs have specific drawbacks all by themselves. Or problem is, perhaps, more difficult, since it's impossible to modularize diagnostics in any meaningful way, but the problem you face is not exactly trivial either.

And while I'm certain that the efforts you describe would've been adequate for Moo2, let's remember that Moo3 AI will not only have to be so-so, but spectacular. The IFP system guarantees that even the smallest weakness in AI will propagate up to the player in a way that will be quite infuriating. But I hope you guys will pull it off. It'd be revolutionary in more ways than one, if so.

Good Luck!

[Zealot]

I'm getting a little worried about MOO3 being too much alike a board game. What's great about computer games is the interaction! I hope that MOO3 isn't less interactive than MOO2 or other great TBS games.

:b: on the AI!

[Zealot]

I'm getting a little worried about MOO3 being too much alike a board game. What's great about computer games is the interaction! I hope that MOO3 isn't less interactive than MOO2 or other great TBS games.

:b: on the AI!

[Stormhound]

Less interactive how? You've got more options than you had before, and it'll still be easy to interact with other players and the computer...what exactly are you worried about losing?

[Zealot]

Well, let me take Monopoly for example. From what I have been reading, letting Moo3 be like a board game might cause it to be a game where you are just playing "community chest" cards, not just to yourself, but to others. I think it will consume some considerable time, preventing players to feel earlier in the game that Megalomania feeling that characterizes Civ/MOO players.

I don't think I'm criticizing anything. Neither saying it's not going to be fun. Nor that MOO3 is going to suck! ;)
No, I'm just sharing my concerns. Thank you for asking, Stormhound.

[Stormhound]

Sounds like you're talking about the Event system mainly. There's certainly a big argument raging on the Delphi board about it (actually, it's starting to resemble the "Argument Clinic" sketch from Monty Python).

I don't know if Megalomaniacs are going to be pleased anyhow...remember that IFP will hamper that "perfect control", as will things like having to deal with factional support and people who move around when they darned well feel like it.

But I don't think you have to worry about MOO3 becoming little more than a board game, in either style or execution. Rather, we've tried to introduce elements that work in board games where they'll ALSO work in a computer game. The Event system as designed should work well with both (my opinion, counterarguments notwithstanding), and should help ratchet up the level of overall anxiety for the player another notch or so. The last thing we want to see is complacency. :)

The events are just one part of things to which you must pay attention. The plan is that each has its moments of importance, but that none of them is always critical.

[Master Marcus]

The technical note about the AI is what I call " hard stuff, good stuff"....

Originally posted by Stormhound
The events are just one part of things to which you must pay attention. The plan is that each has its moments of importance, but that none of them is always critical.

Yep, this is one of the major mottos that every developer should keep in mind when designing a "complete" empire building game.
;)

[Sencho]

(actually, it's starting to resemble the "Argument Clinic" sketch from Monty Python).

Yes it has, and I'm guilty for a good portion of it. :cool:

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by Stormhound
... and should help ratchet up the level of overall anxiety for the player another notch or so. The last thing we want to see is complacency. :)

I love games that support me in my already rampant paranoia. :)

A propos paranoia, I have a nagging suspicion you didn´t quite get my earlier (MOO-Alien) 'Three-Thumbs' joke. :D

[moomin]

Originally posted by Stormhound
Sounds like you're talking about the Event system mainly. There's certainly a big argument raging on the Delphi board about it (actually, it's starting to resemble the "Argument Clinic" sketch from Monty Python).

I don't know if Megalomaniacs are going to be pleased anyhow...remember that IFP will hamper that "perfect control", as will things like having to deal with factional support and people who move around when they darned well feel like it.


Mmm. But the IFP system plays straight into our magalomanic hands, that's the whole point. I'm not the PulseGun Mk 45 designer, I'm the Evil Overlord, I have hapless minions to attend those boring tasks. That's why I like the IFP, anyway. That it also reduces MM is a very nice perk. Megalomaniacs are not control freaks, you know. Not all the time, anyway.

But my personal beef with the event system is not only the skewed misfortune hitting the leader ("hitting the leader" is the duty of the other players, not of the universe, as it were) but the card metaphore itself. I quit playing board games because I found it tedious to deal with cards and dice - they empathically drive home that you're playing a game not running an empire. Gaming, much like other forms of entertainment is a mostly a matter of immerison and suspension of disbelief - and I think that both these elements are lost when you are forcibly reminded that you're dealing cards, not being Evil Overlord, all the time.

And I really, really hate that. Computers got invented so that we don't have to see the cards and the dice, dammit!

Oh well. As long as you can turn events of it's fine, I guess. Now that Civ 3 seems to be "more of the same", only slower and with additional sprinkling of even more AI cheating, I guess I should be happy that there is still a developer out there that's trying to do something interesting with a sequel.

[Comrade Tribune]

CivIII is actually better than many (including me) expected, but Istill prefer the innovative MoO3 approach. As to cards/immersion, that could probably be solved by not calling the cards 'cards'. :cute: