Moo3's Death by a Thousand Cuts

[Kc7mxo]

[EDIT: Nevermind]

[RolandtheMad]

Originally posted by Harry Seldon
Ahhh! But both specific scenarios you mention were wins for you (I'm a little suprised by the moo2 one; that good fortune never fell my way).

Well, speaking strictly from Moo2 experiences it is hard to find one that wasn`t a win for me. The Ai generally wasn`t trust worthy enough to be left as the more powerful ally. Once I allowed this and it turned out to be fortunate however - A Psilon empire and my Human empire split up the galaxy, then we voted the Psilons president of the Senate. It was a good game.

In SMAC I`ve went the game with a loyal vassal a few times, and I`ve held some good allies in CTP2, but like I said usually the Ai isn`t trust worthy enough to be allowed to have more power than myself.

And I would agree to a point that if I had no real chance to win I'd prefer one of my allies to win. I just wouldn't want it set in stone.

Yes, that is why the middle path must be taken. Some computers must remain loyal and others must be less than trustworthy. Not knowing which is which add spice to the game.. but the loyal Ai must be seen and proven to exist first!

That almost sounds like forced alliances that MUST be honored.

Yes, making them your vassal isn`t an even handed alliance. They are basically in servitude to you. The reason that it must be included is that it isn`t always feasible or desirable to completely obliterate an enemy. Sometimes you can force them to be your friends, and sometimes this is profitable. One reason for vassalhood that comes to mind is keeping them seperate from your empire to reduce administrative costs of occupying and managing their conquered planets.

I said, I'd like to keep the option open to attack an evenly matched opponent after lulling them with an alliance than racing for resources to see who will be the dominant force in our relationship.

This is the middle path that must be taken. Will your ally be loyal, or when you`ve grown fat and complacent will they decide to harvest your decadent colonies? The thing is that the loyal empires must be proven to exist first! Otherwise there is no point in ever letting the guard down because we know that no allies are ever true allies.

As to racing for resources, that is your perspective I suppose. If it bothers you so much to be in the lower position in an alliance I guess there isn`t much I can say to you. Being in the lower position isn`t anything bad. An alliance is an even handed agreement to cooperate between two friendly empires. If the smaller empire is abused then it should be a vassal or protectorate instead of an equal partner in alliance.

[patrickjb53]

I think this will be a great game, especially after reading what the BT have had to say. It's always possible that some of the things that were cut could show up in a patch. After we start playing MOO we should start putting pressure on IG for MOO4 and the things we would like to see in MOO4.

[Deus]

"I think this can be summed up best by this phrase:
A game is not the sum of it's feature set.
I'll say it again:
A game is not the sum of it's feature set. (...)
I'm not saying that lack of features makes good games. Far from it. But by the same token, adding features doesn't necessarily make a better game, and often detracts from it by adding complexity over fun. Some people like that; personally, I err on the side of fun. "

I like strategy games to be complex. With more complex rules you, as a player, have more freedom to make plans with imagination and strategy. There are more ways to win, and more deep and interesting. BECAUSE of that, in such games complexity IS fun. No one sacrifices fun to complexity. They use complexity to make the game fun. BUT lots of people, in fact, feel treatned by complexity. That's why moo3 is going to be much worst than it could be.



"So the most important thing that you should be asking yourself is not whether the features that were cut sound cool - because without implementation details or testing, ALL features sound cool - but whether the game, as you've seen it and heard it, sounds like a winner."

What do you mean with winner? A sales winner or a quality winner? Moo3 could have been both, but, because the managers went so obsessed with the first one, it is less likely going to be the second, and, in this kind of segmented market, maybe not even the first. Witch would be ironic.


"Does (...)?
You bet your ass it does. At least to me. (...).
(...)"

yes, it does. That's why I still have some hope. BUT I sure hope there is still some complexity left.

[Jack Frost]

Amazing. The number of people passing solid judgement on a game they've never played.


Cutting features does NOT make for a less complicated game, some features are failed ideas.

Here is an example:

If you have ever played EU2, the trade system is completely pointless. Cutting the trade system completely would have made for a better game. It added zero depth to the game, was nothing more then an annoyance to the player and was a task that had to be repeated every min or two over, and over, and over.

another example:

Pollution in the Civ series. It wasn't realistic, it didn't effect your style of play, it didn't represent anything, it didn't require anything except a few clicks once in a while. Zero thought. It was an annoying task you needed to deal with every other turn late game. Pointless.

I mean there are thousands more, failed ideas, annoying implementations, in HoI the tech tree has like 400 seperate technologies to research. The fact that there are 400 seperate highly detailed technologies instead of 40 abstracted ones makes almost no difference in STRATEGY or play, but is a micromanagement nightmare since every 30 seconds you need to que up 5 more technologies that each individually have very little impact on the game.


Look, screw you with this "BUT lots of people, in fact, feel treatned by complexity" bull****. I am just capable of understanding that complexity for the sake of complexity doesn't add **** to the game, doesn't make the strategy deeper, and doesn't add in any way to the game.

Just because you have endless paitence and are willing to devote days of your life to micromanaging mundane details in a game doesn't mean that somehow you are going to win the "hardcore gamer" award.

[Harry Seldon]

Just because you have endless paitence and are willing to devote days of your life to micromanaging mundane details in a game doesn't mean that somehow you are going to win the "hardcore gamer" award.

Damn. I'm going to have to find something else to put in that space on my mantle.

[Grumbold]

Originally posted by Jack Frost
Cutting features does NOT make for a less complicated game, some features are failed ideas.

Here is an example:

If you have ever played EU2, the trade system is completely pointless. Cutting the trade system completely would have made for a better game. It added zero depth to the game, was nothing more then an annoyance to the player and was a task that had to be repeated every min or two over, and over, and over.

I disagree. The system was far from perfect but it allowed countries with historically strong trade links to punch harder than their weight. Venice would not be a player in the early game without its Centre of Trade, nor would it decline as easily were that CoT not diluted as time goes by. Ironically the system was much smoother as first conceived and released. It was a certain type of player that persuaded Paradox to make many nations far more competitive over trade in patches that led to some of the repetition you refer to.

Games should be applauded for striving to raise the bar even if they sometimes fail to smoothly jump their own self imposed hurdle. There are times when I'll happily play a streamlined 4-8 player game that can be reliably finished in an hour and enjoy its clearcut system. There are other times that I would prefer to pore for evening after evening over a more complex simulation struggling to achieve victory.

At the moment I'm undecided about MoO3. There certainly seems to be a lot going on. Whether the features turn out to be useful when we get to play or we find ourselves longing for something that is not there remains to be seen.

[dashstar1972]

Not so bad

Well, disturbed as I am by some of the cuts that have been made, I am still going to buy the game – no doubt about that.

IFPs seem to have some convincing arguments on both sides. On the one hand, they encouraged a personification of one’s role in the game and brought a new type of strategic choice to the game; on the other, as someone already pointed out, why put a whole lot of depth in a game and then prevent people exploring it? Then I read a post on the IG forums by Chantz where he pointed out a much more elegant implementation of the same strategic constraint: have ‘real’ limited time rather than a conceptual implementation of it. So, my understanding is that if you want to play a game with ‘limited time’ constraints, you can do it by way of setting a ‘real’ timer (however, I am not quite sure if this only applies to MP or SP as well).

As for the other issues, no refit does seem strange and even QS seems to acknowledge this. Many hints have been given that this is top of the patch list.

The other things I will sadly miss are those that allow for greater ‘personalisation’ and ‘player identification’. Things like renaming systems, choosing ethical systems, hiring and firing governors.

Lets just hope enough people buy this version to make an expansion pack (or heavy duty patch) worthwhile.

[dashstar1972]

Not so bad

Well, disturbed as I am by some of the cuts that have been made, I am still going to buy the game – no doubt about that.

IFPs seem to have some convincing arguments on both sides. On the one hand, they encouraged a personification of one’s role in the game and brought a new type of strategic choice to the game; on the other, as someone already pointed out, why put a whole lot of depth in a game and then prevent people exploring it? Then I read a post on the IG forums by Chantz where he pointed out a much more elegant implementation of the same strategic constraint: have ‘real’ limited time rather than a conceptual implementation of it. So, my understanding is that if you want to play a game with ‘limited time’ constraints, you can do it by way of setting a ‘real’ timer (however, I am not quite sure if this only applies to MP or SP as well).

As for the other issues, no refit does seem strange and even QS seems to acknowledge this. Many hints have been given that this is top of the patch list.

The other things I will sadly miss are those that allow for greater ‘personalisation’ and ‘player identification’. Things like renaming systems, choosing ethical systems, hiring and firing governors.

Lets just hope enough people buy this version to make an expansion pack (or heavy duty patch) worthwhile.

[viciouscycle]

Complexity is an interesting issue. The most complex game that I have ever played is chess. Seriously. The core rules of chess are simple enough but the way the game works as a whole is incredibly intricate and incredibly fun. If you don't think the game is complex then please come give me lessons, show me the error of my ways... and beat Gary Kasparov while you're at it. Complexity does not come from rules; complexity comes from the strategies and tactics that one may employ in a game.

It seems to me that some people who are whining about MOO3 cuts are equating the number of features and rules to complexity and in turn equating complexity to fun. Have a little faith... I know this sounds crazy but what if the developers cut features because those features in question didn't add anything to the game, weren't any fun, were redundant, or led to unacceptable levels of MM? Crazy!

I'm not saying the game will be amazingly good but I hope it will be. Give the game a chance to succeed on its own merits rather than prejudge it by what features it may or may not have. If it turns out that it sucks, then we'll all move on and find other cool games to play.

[Kc7mxo]

Complexity is an interesting issue. The most complex game that I have ever played is chess. Seriously. The core rules of chess are simple enough but the way the game works as a whole is incredibly intricate and incredibly fun. If you don't think the game is complex then please come give me lessons, show me the error of my ways... and beat Gary Kasparov while you're at it. Complexity does not come from rules; complexity comes from the strategies and tactics that one may employ in a game.

You ought to give Go a try. I started playing a few months ago, its quite interesting.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by viciouscycle
Complexity is an interesting issue. The most complex game that I have ever played is chess. Seriously. The core rules of chess are simple enough but the way the game works as a whole is incredibly intricate and incredibly fun. If you don't think the game is complex then please come give me lessons, show me the error of my ways... and beat Gary Kasparov while you're at it. Complexity does not come from rules; complexity comes from the strategies and tactics that one may employ in a game.

It seems to me that some people who are whining about MOO3 cuts are equating the number of features and rules to complexity and in turn equating complexity to fun. Have a little faith... I know this sounds crazy but what if the developers cut features because those features in question didn't add anything to the game, weren't any fun, were redundant, or led to unacceptable levels of MM? Crazy!

I'm not saying the game will be amazingly good but I hope it will be. Give the game a chance to succeed on its own merits rather than prejudge it by what features it may or may not have. If it turns out that it sucks, then we'll all move on and find other cool games to play.

There is a difference between breadth (SMACX) and depth (Chess). Chess is simple enough in breadth (number of rules, size of playing area, number of mobile units, terrain etc.) for a computer to absorb and analyse in depth (numbers of turns). SMACX is not, it is many orders of magnitude more complicated, so much so that it cannot even choose this turn's moves particularly wisely, even without wasting one nanosecond thinking about next turn.

I like this sort of breadth, because it is impossible to analyse the game in the same manner as chess, whether I am trying to do it or the tireless AI is trying to do it. You are left with something that approaches art rather than science in the way you might approach it. There is no perfect move, or rather there is no way to prove that any particular set of decisions made during a turn is in fact the best set of decisions, simply because you don't have the time to calculate all of the alternatives. Neither does Big Blue for that matter. This I find somehow freeing. I don't have to build my decisions from the bottom up, but can entertain thoughts about where I want to be in X turns, and try to get there via a hundred decisions that carry toward that goal over time.

To me this models grand strategy much more effectively than a purely tactical game like chess, and I like grand strategy. I like it not only for the difference in the modes of thought, but because it stirs my imagination. Chess has never really given me that sort of pleasure, and though I have a great deal of respect for Chess, it is really not my cup of tea.

[viciouscycle]

Originally posted by Sikander


There is a difference between breadth (SMACX) and depth (Chess). Chess is simple enough in breadth (number of rules, size of playing area, number of mobile units, terrain etc.) for a computer to absorb and analyse in depth (numbers of turns). SMACX is not, it is many orders of magnitude more complicated, so much so that it cannot even choose this turn's moves particularly wisely, even without wasting one nanosecond thinking about next turn.

I like this sort of breadth, because it is impossible to analyse the game in the same manner as chess, whether I am trying to do it or the tireless AI is trying to do it. You are left with something that approaches art rather than science in the way you might approach it. There is no perfect move, or rather there is no way to prove that any particular set of decisions made during a turn is in fact the best set of decisions, simply because you don't have the time to calculate all of the alternatives. Neither does Big Blue for that matter. This I find somehow freeing. I don't have to build my decisions from the bottom up, but can entertain thoughts about where I want to be in X turns, and try to get there via a hundred decisions that carry toward that goal over time.

To me this models grand strategy much more effectively than a purely tactical game like chess, and I like grand strategy. I like it not only for the difference in the modes of thought, but because it stirs my imagination. Chess has never really given me that sort of pleasure, and though I have a great deal of respect for Chess, it is really not my cup of tea.

Comparing the AI for a TBS and an AI in a chess program is like comparing apples and oranges. Chess programs have evolved greatly over the past twenty-odd years or more. Think about how much research has gone into designing AI for one single game, chess, compared with the amount of time put in to developing the AI for another single game, say SMAC. If there was an AI for SMAC (or any other TBS) that was as good as even a freeware chess program (i.e. GNU Chess which can play at International Master strength) the game would routinely kick most everyone's a$$.

Chess is not a purely tactical game. Not even close. At least chess as played in standard tournaments. Blitz games... that may be different. The less time you have for moves, the less grand strategy can be considered and you are left with little other than pure tactics. I can see the same thing happening for MOO3 with multiplayer timed turns. The shorter the time span allowed to make moves in MOO3, the less long-term planning you will be able to accomplish and you will have to rely more upon tactics, reactionary measures, and short-sighted strategies.

With shorter and shorter time allowances in chess, the game becomes something else. People play entire games in a matter of seconds. Is this chess? Maybe... maybe not. Will the same thing happen with MOO3 when using time allowances that get shorter and shorter?

[darcy]

AN: Read: Off-road has (for now) one snag - once you have a "better" way, the AI pathfinder will plot the fastest course - even if it's through obstacles such as Guardians, New Orions and enemy AIs

(from latest AAR)

It's stuff like this which makes me lose faith in Moo3. After all these years, after thousand cuts, the developers still fail to provide a simple manual override for the apparently horrible pathfinding AI. It doesn't even matter how important offroad travel is: I want the freedom to make my ships take whatever route I want.

No, I haven't played the game, no, perhaps it doesn't affect gameplay all that much (although the beta tester had to sacrifice 180 ships to get past the bottleneck the AI forced him into). It's the mindset behind these decisions which bothers me. Apparently lots of eyecandy, alien languages along with deliberately erroneous translation, jealously guarding these silly little spoilers, in short, all this "eXperience" nonsense is more important to the developers than providing a simple key to force direct ship travel.

And the worst thing is, if Moo3 really does turn out to be crap and doesn't sell, the "market analysts" will conclude that nobody wants to play TBS anymore, although the only thing we don't want to play are badly designed TBSs.

[/paranoid rant]

[Craig P.]

Originally posted by darcy
It's stuff like this which makes me lose faith in Moo3. After all these years, after thousand cuts, the developers still fail to provide a simple manual override for the apparently horrible pathfinding AI. It doesn't even matter how important offroad travel is: I want the freedom to make my ships take whatever route I want.

It's a definite annoyance (and has prompted about the only worthwhile thread in the bugs/suggestions forum on IGMOO), but it seems to be a relatively rare occurrence. At least one BT has stated that this will seldom be an issue.

I wonder if it's something that they just didn't run into in time, or if it was on the "gee, it'd be nice" list and just didn't make it in.