too deep? too complex? read on...

[Master Marcus]

well, not much activity in the Moo forums ( aside Urban Ranger's project ). Civ3 is monopolizing a lot of attention, but there's still a much more rate of posts elsewhere about MoO3 especially orbiting the official site. Why not discussing it here???

Even if not updated since a month, at http://moo3.quicksilver.com/official/index.html you'll find of course tons of info to be read again . Believe me having the patience to trim all the data in there is worth awhile: do you really corner the ambitious Religion system ( that Ethos thing )? How is it going to work with all the rest? Then the Data Dumps, the QSI posts ( part One especially where you find the most precise answers ). As things are going right now, it seems to be the deepest game developed and even if you macromanage a lot and let the AI do the job ( supposing it will be adapted enough ), you really have to know what is to be done or not , and why, and in what order ...

The learning curve is gonna be very extensive, and I wouldn't be surprised if Civ3 's only a warm-up. Be prepared.

Any thoughts???

[General Ludd]

Re: too deep? too complex? read on...

Originally posted by Master Marcus

The learning curve is gonna be very extensive

I deffinately agree with that. Although, QS has said many a time that they are trying to make it as user friendly and easy to use as possible. Probably to off-set the complexity of the game.

[loinburger]

The learning curve is gonna be very extensive

I'll reserve judgment until the game comes out, of course, but I can see the game as going to either extreme; it may have a steep learning curve, but it also might have the problem (often expressed on the MOO3 forum) that the game will auto-manage too much, that the player will be a vestigal presence.

I'm assuming that the learning curve will be moderate-to-extremely steep, otherwise I wouldn't bother posting on the MOO3 or Apolyton forums regarding the game's development (although recently I've mostly been posting in the OT at the MOO3 forum, but then again there haven't been any new posts in the "MOO3 team asks the fans" section for quite awhile). However, I will not pre-order the game; there is still a very real possibility that the game's learning curve will be too shallow (and that there will be little to no challenge and/or that the game will not be replayable).

[Urban Ranger]

It seems that the Quicksilver team has missed the main goal, which is to make a fun game. I really would like to see how they pull this off with what seems to be an overly complex design.

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
It seems that the Quicksilver team has missed the main goal, which is to make a fun game. I really would like to see how they pull this off with what seems to be an overly complex design.

Remember that a complex game can be fun for some people!

[SerapisIV]

I think the problem of complexity is where this whole "Imperial Focus" stuff comes into play. While there is a ton of complexity underlying everything, the player is forced to make sacrifices in terms of tweaking for the interests of the whole empire.

But again, the point should be fun. I just hope that auto-AIs (governors and admirals, etc) that are expected to dominate the control of the MOO3 details for you are strong enough to be useful and not ruin a potentially great game. I'd love to hear Stormhound's comments on how fun the game is with Imperial Focus as opposed to without, or if you can even play the game without imperial focus.

[Master Marcus]

Originally posted by SerapisIV
But again, the point should be fun. I just hope that auto-AIs (governors and admirals, etc) that are expected to dominate the control of the MOO3 details for you are strong enough to be useful and not ruin a potentially great game. I'd love to hear Stormhound's comments on how fun the game is with Imperial Focus as opposed to without, or if you can even play the game without imperial focus.

Yes. Stormhound, please we're awaiting some feedback about this... although I'm pretty sure the game is too huge to be playable without the IFPs ( anyway they can't be disabled...so far). So the AI MUST be strong enough in order to run a VERSATILE MIX of things for you; the game's success is almost entirely dependant upon that.

[Stormhound]

You can't turn off the IFP (at least not as a game option, if you want to get in and hack the code that's your affair). It's not just the micromanagement aspect; there are also activities the player can choose where spending more than the minimum IFP will increase the effect and/or the chance of success. There's also the macromanagement that's being put into the game (ways of giving orders to groups for just one cost). All of this helps allow the added complexity.

Yes, I expect there'll be a fair learning curve on this title. On the other hand, you'll be able to choose which details you want to explore first...the flip side of IFP is that the AI will have to be able to keep things generally on an even keel. That's a key right there: the subordinate AI doesn't have to be brilliant; that's YOUR job. It just has to be able to keep things moving in a reasonable manner and let you step in to improve decisions where necessary. You're the visionary.

So far as "how fun"...such an answer would be supposition, because it's not like I've gotten to actually play the game yet; we're not in beta. However, I found the IFP concept to be quite intriguing when I first read about it, and I've seen nothing since that would make me think the game would be better off without it. I've played enough other games with heavy micromanagement loads; making one more certainly doesn't appeal to me. Given MOO3's added complexity, I wouldn't touch it (as a player) without IFP.

BTW, I brought this up over on our forum: from the standpoint of game design, IFP are just another resource to manage. Nobody seems to have trouble with having to manage cash or energy or grain, or with the concept that when you run out of one of those you simply can't do whatever requires them until you get some more. Well, when you run out of IFP for a turn, you can't go change things until you get some more...but you'll ALWAYS get some more next turn. Patience and long-term planning in MOO3 are virtues.

[SerapisIV]

Thanks for the response. I'm really looking forward to the game, but it just worries me that the game seems to be completely dependent on whether the IFP concept works or not. It seems like a huge risk for a multi-million dollar production. Has there been any prototypes yet to validate the concept? Not being in beta doesn't mean that there aren't some playable game components.

[tniem]

I think imperial control if executed properly could be very fun. I hate having to tinker with everything to such a minute detail. I look forward to the game this spring (however if you need more time please take it .

[Stormhound]

Originally posted by SerapisIV
Thanks for the response. I'm really looking forward to the game, but it just worries me that the game seems to be completely dependent on whether the IFP concept works or not. It seems like a huge risk for a multi-million dollar production. Has there been any prototypes yet to validate the concept? Not being in beta doesn't mean that there aren't some playable game components.

Would you like a list of all the board and computer games I've ever seen that limit the player to a certain number of actions per turn? The concept is anything but new, folks.

As to playable game components, there's ongoing testing but I have to rely on the weekly status reports to know much about that. If you'll look at my little info box on the left, you'll note that I'm all the way out in Missouri, while QS is in California...

[Master Marcus]

Also my thanks for the answers. I guess the team is also working very hard for pounding the IFP system where NO particular type of gamer ( i.e. warmonger, hybrid, builder, peacemaker, and others...) can have a significant advantage over another. For example, in MoO2 a warmonger has a much more chance at beating easily the Impossible level with 7 AIs. In SMACx the design ( particularly in larger maps ) suits more the peacemakers and builders. My wish for MoO3 : every kind of player should have the same challenge when managing its IFPs; that means an equal IFPs commands distributed either for colonial management and military ops. I know it's discussed in their forums, but not bad to be reminded from time to time here also.

[Stormhound]

Correct. You're going to have to be a little bit of everything to be good at MOO3. There's been a lot of weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth by the warlords over on the forum who don't like seeing their edge taken away. But the builders don't have it easy either...if you don't keep some garrison fleets, piracy can eat you alive. A lot of work is going into making the decisions tradeoffs..."no-brainer" is something of a dirty word.

[Master Marcus]

I have one final question for this week ( I'll be off tomorrow night for a few days, be back next weekend ). With an anticipated learning curve so high, can we expect a complete tutorial ???( the newcomers are going to need it , and maybe some addicts like ourselves).

Thanks again and keep up the good work

[loinburger]

Half the fun of a new game comes from discovering the hidden complexities (or even the simple things that hit you in the face right off the bat) on your own. Playing a game tutorial is equivalent to reading a book on chess; you're better off for having done it, but where's the fun in it?