A new review of MoO

[Nephilim]

Thought I'd bring this to your attention... any piece of information to ease the wait is more than welcome.

Now, as someone who has closely followed the game's development since day one, I'm relieved, and frankly amazed, that the good folks at QSi have managed to stick adamantly to the original design elements without making major compromises along the way (save for IFP's, which were a bad idea to begin with ) BUT (there's always a "but"), it appears diplomacy still falls short of the ambitious goals they intended to reach:

"The computer controlled players generally act very smart, and coldly calculate each action. When relating to their human counter-parts, however, they can react very strangely. Some alliances can quickly deteriorate into aggression and sometimes players will receive angry and confusing messages from an ally ambassador for little or no reason. This can be very frustrating when all the time invested in building an ally's trust is dashed by a single random event."

Great. The most hated flaw of all 4X'es, and MoO2 in particular, has been carried over. AGAIN. I hate to say it, but precisely this type of AI behaviour can totally destroy the singleplayer experience. *If* it rears its ugly head in MoO3 with the same alarming regularity as it did in its predecessor, I'll definitely be holding out for a patch.

[darcy]

I'm really surprised this comes up again and again.

I'm happy if the AI acts like a real player, trying to win the game, instead of simulating a loyal subordinate. It's just too easy to buy friends with lots of gifts. The only question for me is if those diplomatic shifts are in fact _random_ (that would suck) or if they occur when the AI thinks it can exploit a weakness and get an advantage by backstabbing you (that would be cool).

[Main_Brain]

i cant acess the Review

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by darcy
I'm really surprised this comes up again and again.

I'm happy if the AI acts like a real player, trying to win the game, instead of simulating a loyal subordinate.

Why do you see the only alternative as "simulting a loyal subordinate"?


An AI ought to simulate an empire, and act apropriately. It shouldn't just play out a sort of "powergaming" strategy every time, like in Civ3 where every civ just expands like mad and then often acts agressively towards the human player for no logical reason. It breaks the atmosphere of the game, and ruins it for those who don't "play to win".

[Main_Brain]

just like the US...
;=)
Nations dont act rationally everytime.

[darcy]

Why do you see the only alternative as "simulting a loyal subordinate"?

Because AIs are already less skilled than humans in these kind of games. Artificially restricting them with some loyalty/race relation variables makes them even worse players, which means they will _always_ be manipulated by humans to serve their interests. It's ok if you don't play to win, but the AIs should, especially since they're supposed to compete in MP when humans drop out of the game.

Hmm, making the perfect AI is really impossible as long as people have so many conflicting expectations towards them. Customizable AI scripts, now that would be a great thing.

[Sarxis]

If the AI is better than SMAC's diplomacy wise, I'll be happy.

Besides, like darcy said, if the AI goes berserk on you, then so what? It is obviously responding to the growing threat that is YOU and its neighbors, and a sudden change in diplomatic relationship is not unthinkable.

I mean, look at the U.N. today!

[wildman45]

Originally posted by Main_Brain
i cant acess the Review

Try this.

http://www.activereviews.com/moo3/moo3.html

[Main_Brain]

Thnx wildman :=)

// i like the Pic with the Guardian in it :=)

[kalbear]

So it's odd to me that this came up as an entirely different answer in the other review by B Brenesal on IGN. He was very pointedly specific about how good the AI was in most cases. PA said it can be frustrating.

I wonder more and more whether this is a function of how much you've played it and gotten used to the diplomacy system.

It was a decent review. I would have liked more depth overall, but there was nothing glaringly bad about it. Nice screenshots, for sure.

[Sarxis]

Perhaps they are playing on different difficulty levels too. Who the heck knows. Who even cares anymore? Reviewers these days can't agree on nuthin.. just like the Dems and Republicans.

[rhofman]

just like the US...
;=)
Nations dont act rationally everytime.

You must have them confused with Germany, France and Belgium.

[Mr.Moustache]

Also remember, some species dislike other species in MoO3. The Saurians have a natural hate towards the Ichthytosians for an example. It is possible though, to form peace treaties and trade pacts with the two species, but the Saurians will still have that cautious eye on the Ichthytosians. So if a Ichthytosian race does something that a Saurian race doesn't like (say, by not agreeing to the demands of the Saurians or maybe espionage/sabotage against the Saurians) then of course they could just declare war on the Ichthytosian race and try to eliminate them.

[dulahan]

Yes, remember the 'so called artificial numbers' reflect on even the PLAYER. Your people won't be happy with you (Read: Unrest) if you are trying to maintain good relations with a race they don't like. It is possible those ratings will improve over time. But it goes down to the waiting game of "Is the unrest worth it" and hoping the other side thinks it is too.

I know the beta testersa nd developers have said multiple times that there IS ALWAYS a reason the computer goes to war with you. One thread over on the IG forums today even goes so far as to say that yes: You are poorly defended and a good target / We're Saurians, you're Ichthyosians are both good enough reasons. So there are some trivial matters that can lead to war.

Plus racial tendencies. You have a weak military and are trying to be on good relations with the Saurians? You're not strong. What use are you as an ally? You're an easy target, thats what you're most useful for.

So apparently there are reasons, and with practice you will learn what they are (eXperience anyone? ). It is just that they don't TELL you what the reason is so it seems out of the blue.

This said, even the BTs mentioned they would like to see that matter addressed in a patch - having them tell you why they are going to war.

[darcy]

Your people won't be happy with you (Read: Unrest) if you are trying to maintain good relations with a race they don't like.

Wow, really? That would be a cool feature. I've read so much about the various stages of development now that I'm completely ignorant about what's actually in, rumoured to be in, got cut or was never in in the first place....

I'll better keep my mouth shut until I've actually played the real thing.