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 , 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 dumb 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 and leaving the actual implementation up to the program is massively dumb.

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. 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.

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)

[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 , 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 dumb 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 and leaving the actual implementation up to the program is massively dumb.

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.

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 massively dumb.

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'.

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.

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.

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.

[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'.

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 MoO 3 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 MoO 3 is not a simulation. Simulation?

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

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?

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, MoO 3 will be far from a simulation. Shall we start discussing things such as flight models, population growth models, etc? 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!

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.

[dainbramaged13]

Originally posted by yin26


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

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.