End this MOO3 support

[Wooglin]

I would seriously consider deleting all of the MOO3 forums (fora?). There are very few posts and most ask questions that are more appropriate for a developer's customer support site rather than a fan site, as there seems to be few of those at this late date.

[Vince278]

Disagree

[macraig]

I'm rather curious to know what would motivate someone not directly connected with ownership or management of a site to suggest such a thing in the first place? What possible un-ill-intentioned payback or reward could someone receive from seeing that suggestion carried out?

As a lawyer might say, "it goes to motive, your Honor...."

[vmxa1]

I don't know about deletion of the threads, but the statement about the recent content is a fair observation.

I have been meaning to try this again with the patch, but finding useful information is not easy.

[macraig]

VXMA:

Hey there, fellow MOO II/III'er! I finally bought III about a week ago (Amazon of all places had it for $17, and I thought "what the heck"), and I also installed the v1.25 patch shortly after. Thus, since I didn't play it without the patch, I can't tell you just how much or how little improvement the patch actually affords.

However, I can tell you that I'm just as disappointed as I expected to be. Some aspects are just as bad as I'd been led to expect, a few are less so, and then there are some things that are so "broken" - like not being able to bombard outposts - that are utterly inexplicable and caught me by surprise.

I guess perhaps I've just gotten pickey? I bought GalCiv at the same time, and haven't found it to be much more enjoyable/playable either, but just for different reasons. I think I've played too many board and computer games in the last 25 years, and now with all that experience and insight I've become too jaded! I've seen all the mistakes and missteps many times over, and so now I expect the game designers to have seen them, too, and be developing games that go past them. But, of course, they're not, whether for reasons of economics, greed, or limited experience. I guess if I want it done "right", I'll have to spend a year getting my programming skills current and then try to do it myself, or maybe then join the Free Orion project....

As a MOO II aside, it was amusing to see that my old MOO II race submission, "What's in a name", is still loitering at this site! I needed that nostalgia right now.

[CharlesBHoff]

Originally posted by macraig
VXMA:

Hey there, fellow MOO II/III'er! I finally bought III about a week ago (Amazon of all places had it for $17, and I thought "what the heck"), and I also installed the v1.25 patch shortly after. Thus, since I didn't play it without the patch, I can't tell you just how much or how little improvement the patch actually affords.

However, I can tell you that I'm just as disappointed as I expected to be. Some aspects are just as bad as I'd been led to expect, a few are less so, and then there are some things that are so "broken" - like not being able to bombard outposts - that are utterly inexplicable and caught me by surprise.

I guess perhaps I've just gotten pickey? I bought GalCiv at the same time, and haven't found it to be much more enjoyable/playable either, but just for different reasons. I think I've played too many board and computer games in the last 25 years, and now with all that experience and insight I've become too jaded! I've seen all the mistakes and missteps many times over, and so now I expect the game designers to have seen them, too, and be developing games that go past them. But, of course, they're not, whether for reasons of economics, greed, or limited experience. I guess if I want it done "right", I'll have to spend a year getting my programming skills current and then try to do it myself, or maybe then join the Free Orion project....

As a MOO II aside, it was amusing to see that my old MOO II race submission, "What's in a name", is still loitering at this site! I needed that nostalgia right now.

Make any type of game is than art not than science. I also think they need new breakthought in computer hardware and softwares to go to the next level, I donot mean new graphic card. They need to go to 64 bits operation system with 64 bits hardwares.

[macraig]

Nah... what we need are better game DESIGNERS and PROGRAMMERS: ones not wet behind the ears in their twenties, and who have some serious gaming experience under their belts, especially in whatever specific genre they're developing. Me, my gaming experience goes back twenty-five years, to BOARD games like RISK and Squad Leader and Stellar Conquest.

That latter, BTW, is essentially the direct ancestor of ALL the 4X computer games that have ever been created; they basically all stole the concept and basic mechanics from that game. Surprisingly little has actually been added in all this time, since it was first published in 1974. In many ways that old board game was more playable than most of the 4X computer games, because designers Jackson and Thompson had a solid respect for "playability", in an era when there were no desktop computers to handle complex game mechanics.

I just wish most game designers had that much depth and breadth to them. Alan Emrich in theory DOES, because I remember him from my convention-going days in the early Eighties, but in the instance of MOO III it seems that his experience may have been hamstrung by altruism (on his part), greed, impatience and economics.

[Stormhound]

Of course, given the pay (poor) and the hours (long) there are a limited number of designers and programmers (especially the latter) willing to stay with it. People have this funny habit of eventually wanting a life outside the office, so turnover in the industry is a way of life.

[Admiral PJ]

MOO3 may not be as popular as Civ3, or as great, but I quite like playing it. Maybe the new 1.25 has helped, I only got Moo3 in the xmas shopping Sales last week,but so far it has been good . I'm a fan of science fiction so I like this type of game. I like the variety of species to play, and sub species.. the graphics actually look quite good - i'm a supporter of voxel like graphics, though it would have been nice to have multiple gfx for each shipclass type.. maybe we can edit this?
The senate with its Federal style laws is interesting, I started off in it with a Race that had a random chance of Senate membership. Science is quite good, although I've not yet found the AI willing to trade techs.. i probably need a higher Diplomatic Friendship level with the humans or someone else.
Its nice that there are some tech tree sections, but not enough really(I mean where one tech requres 2 others like in Civ, for an interesting tech strategy chart) . The spying section seems pretty good, with some plot elements like assasinations, and spy imprisonment.
I've yet to try many battles, the ground combat sounds like a good idea. The space combat isn't as good as Moo2 , but its nice to have more spacecraft development options.
I love the MOO3 style of spacecraft creation, although i can't find out how to upgrade my existing ships.

I think this type of game needs a support and fan forum like Apolyton, the problem is all the negative propoganda against MOO3 , maybe from some of us beardy weirdy Civ 3 players - well I sometimes forget to shave while playing it.

The forum was most useful to give feedback to the developers , although i'm not sure how much input actually went into the game - not enough people proposed ideas either. The forum has been around a long time, and it needs more people using it. Its nice that its independant from the Official forums, so people don't have to worry about upsetting the publishers - although unfortunately this forum isn't very independant in some respects, maybe i'm being paranoid.

STORMhound, I disagree with your ideas about gamedesign, you stated you thought there was too much time spent on the game Combat engine development, but this is one of the most vital areas of the game. I don't know if you meant you didn't like combat in games or what, but maybe its managers like you that are the problem with current game development, not us programmers. I think the designer of this game didn't have enough understanding of programming and gameplay, they were thinking a bit too much of simulation and overcomplex modelling.

Games design definitely needs long hours of development, but the salaries can be very good, although a lot does goes to publishers or company managers.
The major problem with current game software design is that it is all money based, only the games which are thought to be sure fire winners are made, and which will make the most money. There is not enough creativity or risk.. thats why mostly sequels are being made in all entertainment fields.

I'm a programmer , as well as games designer/artist. I feel i'd prefer to make an original and excitingly creative game.. and wouldn't mind an average pay and 5 year development time if the game was good, and the development team was skilled and motivated.

[CharlesBHoff]

First I think we are close to the maxium useage you can get out of 32 bits hardware, OS and software.

[Stormhound]

PJ,

First off...I wasn't a manager, I was an assistant designer. I've never been a manager, don't WANT to be a manager, and most of my career I've been a programmer. So if "managers like me" are the problem, you're going to have a tough time finding a solution.

I don't think I'll even address your comment about the designers.

I said that there was too much time spent on the game's combat engine because there WAS too much time spent on it...to wit, it got completely redesigned multiple times. You're a programmer...how many projects stand a chance of coming out on time and within budget if you have to go back to square one more than once? I'm hardly the only QS person to say what I'm saying...just the only one to say so publicly.

But hey, nice to hear from you.

[macraig]

IMO the combat engine didn't even need to have so much attention lavished upon it, because combat resolution is a tactics issue and thus not one that warrants intense focus in an alleged strategy game. (I thought you might have been alluding to that, so I thought I'd say it outright.)

I personally couldn't care *that* much how the combat is resolved. Visual combat feedback is nice and all, but as you hinted doing it right and automating the entire battle is almost an entire game unto itself.

My intent was to buy a strategy game; if I'd wanted tactics, I'd have dug up one of the computer renditions of the old Star Fleet Battles game, or something.

[Destroyer]

Bollocks to many of you!

I liked the combat engine in Moo3.

While it took several patches to work properly, and has room for improvement, it reflect the rest of the game:

Namely, the skeleton for a fantastic game now exists, and just needs to be fleshed out. Unfortuantely, this is not going to happen. Civ 3 has the benefit of having 2 makeovers on the same basic system. Moo3 started form scratch.

The combat, while I liked the moo2 version, is far superior. The game is based on a much larger empire, with more ships. How many people did not get fed up with moo2s half hour turn based combat sections in the later game. Pre patch, you could anhilate your enemy fleet of a hundred ships before they got a shot off.

Moo3 represents the future of strategic space combat, and is the best model available. Sure some people dont care; go play Galciv. moo3 tried to take a step forward, something Civ has not done for 10 years. They succedeeded in many areas. Unfortuantely there are too few of us left to appreciate this, or even understand it due to the ineptitude of the instuction manual.

It is unlikely we wil see another ambitious space 4x game for many many years. There are many people to blame, from the developers, Atari, and the fans, who didnt put the time in to learn to enjoy the game.

I must admit, at first I found it difficult, but after recently sitting and learning how to play Stars!, I also learnt the virtue of patience.

With 4x genre in the toilet and the RPG genre buried under the notion that"3d is cool", I can sit back and "enjoy" a further decade of 1st person shooters and rts, and the occasional crappy MMPORPG.

Or I can get myself a life...

... erm, maybe not.

[Vince278]

[macraig]

MOO III certainly has a better more robust planetary defense model than GalCiv, I'll tell ya what. GalCiv completely buys into the "traditional" paradigm that dumbs-down planetary defenses to make it easy to conquer a planet with one or a few ships. If you ask me, it's always been a sorry excuse for not implementing some really functional controls for fleet and ship design, grouping, movement, refit/repair/resupply, etc. MOO III could certainly still use some work in that area as well, but it's probably a better framework even as it is, as Destroyer said.

I may not entirely like the MOO III task force system, but I understand why it was important, especially to aid in creating a better AI combat model. Giving each ship a dedicated purpose, as opposed to each being multi-role, probably makes it much easier to create a system for automated combat resolution. It's a better approach than that implemented by most 4X games I've seen. The combat resolution was usually stylized and simplified just to make it feasible at all. I will admit that the MOO III CRS has a more realistic flavor to it, in spite of what I said earlier.

I am completely flummoxed, though, why MOO III fails to include any sorting or grouping options in Ship Design in particular. It has limited capability like that in Planets (and Shipyard|Fleets), but as already been pointed out that capability was better implemented in MOO II. It should have been very easy to include and certainly not something left on the cutting-room floor.

Destroyer is largely right: MOO III is a good framework in spite of it needing a lengthy tune-up. I hadn't recognized the feeling before, but that's part of what frustrates me, knowing it has/had promise but won't get any better now. (There's no economic incentive: updates don't get press or reviews and rarely woo back disappointed customers; a whole "new" game release with a new round of expensive advertising etc. would be required to overcome the lack of inertia problem).