Can it get any more simplistic?

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by SeanV
On the other hand you rant and rave that ground combat has been given too much depth.

You got me wrong on this.

I have nothing against Ground Combat. I simply don´t consider it necessary. It´s a luxury. NOT bad -to clear this up-, but not a special reason to buy the game, either.

On the other hand, Social Engineering/Policies was the centerpiece of the design, at least in my subjective understanding, and for me the reason why I liked the idea of Moo3 in the first place.

I mean, if a game is good, it´s not really necessary to produce a successor at all. You can simply play the original. It´s the successor that must justify its right to exist, and the expense of my $$. Moo3 doesn´t, really.

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by BitMaster
Amen. Your words in [deity/similiar concept of choice]'s ear.

Nonsense. Cutting the real time part would have freed enough programming power to include all I would have to liked to see -which is mostly number crunching. Computers were CREATED TO DO THIS WELL. It seems some of you do understand less about the technical aspect than I do. I didn´t want any nifty graphics, quite the opposite.

Ask a real programmer what is difficult and what is not. Spreadsheets aren´t difficult.

[BitMaster]

Comrade, when I first saw their design ideas I had two thoughts:

1) Cool, very detailed (faster though)

2) I wonder if it's not perhaps an overkill... (took a few minutes to arrive after the initial excitement, but I weighed this one higher)


I don't like the current theme in games to make everything very lightweight and "accessable to the mass market". However, I neither like the idea to make everything as complicated as possible. There is more than one reason to throw an idea out of a design document. "Too difficult/expensive to develop" is one. A much more important one (for the actual player) is "wrote it, tried it, was no fun".
I have read what they all have been planning. I'd say I'm neutral to most cuts and actually slightly positive to others. There are a few things I can't agree with right now, but I'll withhold judgement until I have actually played it and seen the whole picture myself.

[BitMaster]

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune Nonsense. Cutting the real time part would have freed enough programming power to include all I would have to liked to see -which is mostly number crunching. Computers were CREATED TO DO THIS WELL. It seems some of you do understand less about the technical aspect than I do. I didn´t want any nifty graphics, quite the opposite.

Orion without some form of tactical combat wouldn't have been Orion, I for one NEVER used the combat-by-ship-value function in Orion 2. On the other hand, the Orion 2 version of tactical combat was completely useless between huge empires. You just could press "Z" and hope to finish the other fleet on first strike. It had great tactical depth if both sides only had a few ships though.
They needed something else, especially since the galaxies (and so the possible empires) can be much larger now. I would never have considered real time as an option to solve it, even considered it "evil". However, after reading a lot from the beta testers and other sources, I'm withholding judgement. I believe it could actually work. If it doesn't I will complain after I played it.

Of course simple spreadsheets are simpler to program. But that doesn't mean more fun (and that's why I play a game). And no MoO was like that.

If you want something else, perhaps visit www.sourceforge.net (or something else if it's suits you better) and search for a free moo-like game on spreadsheets with highest possible complexity. I have seen games were people sacrificed playability for absolute control and detail. I see no point to play a game like that.

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune Ask a real programmer what is difficult and what is not. Spreadsheets aren´t difficult.

Dunno if I count as a "real programmer", being a computer scientist, but I don't understand this argument anyway. First you tell us most of the cuts were already programmed already (don't know about this, and to be honest: don't care either if I like the game) and then you say removing resources from other aspects of the game would have allowed them to implement these concepts they already had implemented? I'd say if they already had so much implemented then we have two very likely scenarios, because I know first hand that a redisign (on the scale they did) causes much more work then going ahead and finishing as planned:
1) IG pressed them to make it simpler for the mass market (possible, but then you are complaining about the wrong people)
2) they found that it didn't add anything to the game while making it overly complicated.
I'd personally favour a combination of those two, but with 2) being definately the mayor factor.

[TCO]

I feel vindicated in saying that the design was over-grandiose and that Alan was not a good program manager because he went overboard on the design and made something that wasn't really codeable. Candy Bra should take note. But of course they won't. If they even still exist.

[Xentax]

Some points to consider:

1) Yes, it does appear that the game was simplified to appeal to a broader audience. I won't debate the wisdom of that decision, since you can't judge something like that without looking at sales, customer satisfaction data, etc. In fact, you probably won't ever be able to strongly argue that it *would* have been better a different way, etc.

2) Several of those sliders went away BECAUSE of the other simplifications, rather than being simplifications themselves -- factions and leaders were vastly simplified for example, so they no longer need their own sliders.

3) The TWO sliders that are left are:
- The general "Oppressometer" setting -- which manages the tradeoff between popular unrest due to oppression of freedoms (press, speech, assembly, etc.) vs. the tightness of internal security when it comes to foreign espionage and sabotage.
- The FLU slider, which manages how hard FLUs are worked vs. how long they last, and I believe it affects unrest as well.

4) Comrade: It's just silly to think that the real-time combat is what made the other complexities of the game TOO demanding to keep. You might be able to make a case for the combat engine sucking MANPOWER away from the other areas, but that's about it (and it's a dicey position, since the space combat programmer is probably a graphics specialist and wouldn't be as effective doing the more abstract data-crunching stuff).

I see no reason technically why all of the formulae in the design doc can't be implemented; only time/budget constraints and the challenge to create a USEABLE user-interface to the whole thing.

I'm not saying that this COULDN'T have been done; only that, apparently, this attempt didn't succeed. The reason we all heard was that the effects of user changes were too subtle, or too delayed, for the user to feel in control. So, obviously, that's a problem that needs to be solved if someone wants all of that complexity -- you can't sell the game to 100 people, so you have to either simplify, or find a way for the UI to wrap that complexity in a way that still makes it either accessible to the masses, or easy for the masses to *safely* ignore.

At some point, you HAVE to nail down where along the continuum from "masses" to "grognards" you want the game to be. I mean, they could come up with a massive scheme where the complexity level is a game setup option (so the masses can play it on one setting, and noone is even *allowed* to tinker and min-max their empire to that degree, and the grognards can play it to the max, pitting their ability to manage EVERYTHING against the others).

Somewhere along the way, either time, money, or the chosen approach fell short of that. I'm guessing it was some of all 3.

[campfreddie]

CT:

Before you carry on moaning about the data dumps, please realise that they were put up by Alan as a 'design in progress'. They were not meant to be complete or represent the final project.

They were put there so that the fans had something to read, and so that we could help by pointing out anything that seemed 'wrong' or out of place.

By complaining about the cuts that are an inevitable part of any grand programming scheme, you are providing the *antz and Irenes of the gaming industry with a solid argument for NOT seeking fan feedback or even bothering to keep the fans informed.

[booklord]

Gotta say I'm looking forward to this game. A lot of good stuff seems to have remained.

R-T ship combat: If they can pull it off I like it. As I understand it this is not going to be a face paced game so it won't devolve into a click fest. Furthermore you can assign hotkeys to your various taskforces so that you can instantly switch from one to the other.

Ground combat: In Moo2 ground combat was a wash. Opponents rarely engaged in fair fights. They'd bombard the planet and then send in the troops to pick up the pieces. In Moo3 they're apparently going to flesh it out a bit. Rumors have that ground combat can be extended over several turns. Unfortunately there seems to be a pattern of multiple combat manuevers. Things like enveloping attack, prong defense is a little involved for me. I'd rather they just give the options of just telling the troops which regions to invade or defend.

[Don K Hotay]

So when is the tentative or guestimated release date?

[Comrade Tribune]

Xentax: I even agree with much of your post, but:

Originally posted by Xentax

The reason we all heard was that the effects of user changes were too subtle, or too delayed, for the user to feel in control.

Wanting to feel in control versus wanting to understand. My entire complaint with Americans in a nutshell.

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by campfreddie
By complaining about the cuts that are an inevitable part of any grand programming scheme, you are providing the *antz and Irenes of the gaming industry with a solid argument for NOT seeking fan feedback or even bothering to keep the fans informed.

So, what? I gave them a lot of initial positive feedback, and they cut everything I liked.

AND I believe they have a honesty problem: They repeatedly promised no further cuts, and then came the next round of cuts. That the internal politics are out was never even announced; I was really aghast to learn this from the Wargamer screenshot. Which means QS has descended to the level of Firaxis: Letting people believe they will get something (such as scenario editor and MP in CivIII) they never intended to deliver! The moral equivalent of fraud, imo.

Promising the hardcore strategy gamer´s game, thriving on the goodwill of this crowd and then deliver something entirely different is what I will never forgive Firaxis. And QS is now doing exactly the same thing.

To abuse fans for hyping a game that then doesn´t deliver is something I can do without. If this is their idea of feedback, they can shove it.

[mactbone]

I partially agree with CT on this. MoO3 could've been one of the more famous games, either because it completely changed how you played a game by giving you an approximation of the powers you would have in real life or for being a game that reached so high that it got burned. Either way, that would definiely get attention. Now, this is just another MoO game that could've been done before.

I soooo wish internal politics and IFPs were still there. It made so much sense that you would be a sort of President or Dictator and have to get your subordinates to do the things you wanted them to do. You hire a number-crunching account and you'll know exactly what effects what - but you won't make any bold changes, you pick a succesfull entrepenuer and you can really take risks and either make a lot of money, lose a lot of money, or be party to illegal and fraudalent acts. Plus you would only be giving fairly general outlines on what you would like done, and the human factor would kick in and the job may or may not be done the way you want it done.

[TCO]

The design was too ambitious. They should have just concentrated on updating the graphics and adding a few new units.

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by GP
The design was too ambitious. They should have just concentrated on updating the graphics and adding a few new units.

***

***

Second thoughts: This WAS meant to be sarcasm, right?

[ashbery]

Originally posted by GP
They should have just concentrated on updating the graphics and adding a few new units.

QS & Infogrames agreed with that very statement and thats what your get in a month or so.I get the feeling that MOO3 will get the same reaction that CIV3 got ,good reviews from gamemags/sites due to backhanders etc but the fans will be dissapointed.