one last question i have, for a buying decision

[vee4473]

Hi there,

I have read alot in this MOO3 forum over the past 3 months.

I posted my feelings in the "acceptance curve" thread, but I have one last question that I may need to take into consideration before I decide to pay 50 dollars.

Sorry if i am boring you guys with my posts, but I trust what many of you have to say about a game.

Anyway,

I have been reading the various threads that ask questions about the gameplay...such as I can't control this or why can't I find a way to do that..

And the replies seem to indicate that the control of different aspects or the access to various info is indeed there...


but, you have to click this tab on this menu which brings you to this sub-menu which has a tab in the corner to click and then you get the screen where the info or option is located.

Is this the case, or are some people exaggerating?

because, if this is the case....WOW!

[Spectrex]

The build queue screens are buried the deepest of all, and they require navigating four UI screens (planets->planet screen->economics->military).

[duisigh]

LOL

[vee4473]

Originally posted by duisigh
LOL

what does that mean?


that you are bored with my questions, or you are tired of the moo3 interface?

[John-SJ]

Originally posted by vee4473


what does that mean?


that you are bored with my questions, or you are tired of the moo3 interface?

It means that he is a forum newbie who registered at Apolyton just today apparently for the sole purpose of bashing MOO3.

I was quite skeptical about many of the things I heard about MOO3, but one thing I kept hearing was that this game is different! Expect Macro-management, not micro. Expect a STRATEGY game, not just another micro-management hell game, and that is what sold me. I bought it, I love it! This is BY FAR the best TBS I have played in YEARS! I would have to say that Civ 2 is the last TBS I have enjoyed to the degree I am now enjoying MOO3.

If the idea of a new TBS game style appeals to you, then give MOO3 a try, I'll bet you will be glad you did!

John

[Malleus]

Fine. I am not a forum newbie who registered today to "bash" MOO3.

I will be returning this game soon.

The build menu, one of the few that the computer allows you to use (sometimes) is four clicks deep. It is likely the most used feature of the game, and yet the furthest from your base spot.

The features the game would like you to use:

1) Build menus (four clicks away -- PER PLANET!).
2) Ship design (specifically, you must allow the auto-design to make the ship for you, yet you must tell it to do so).
3) The development stuff. Not explained ANYWHERE except in cryptic references. Ideally, we should have been sent here in the tutorial and explained THIS is where you are INTENDED to do YOUR MOST IMPORTANT WORK.
4) Espionage. You must keep your queue full of building spies or you will pay (in enemy spy attacks). It is a click (Personnel) then a tab (Active Spies).

Uh, is that it? Anything else and you are fighting the interface even more and not playing the game as the developers intended.

K

[asleepathewheel]

I kinda like the UI

I personally don't find the UI to be that intimidating or annoying. Could it be streamlined? Probably. OTOH, I can make an extra click here and there, I don't care.

To address some points:

Originally posted by Kromwel
1) Build menus (four clicks away -- PER PLANET!).

Doesn't really bother me, as I usually am building things that take multiple turns to build and therefore don't have to check each planet every turn. And use the 5x builds occassionally, but always for the ground forces. And I've found that the viceroy do a decent job with construction.

Originally posted by Kromwel
2) Ship design (specifically, you must allow the auto-design to make the ship for you, yet you must tell it to do so).

I don't understand this comment. I am not that impressed by the autobuild ships, either you are stuck with long range or missles, or whatever. I prefer a mixture, more versatile ships, so I try to build each ship myself. I would say that a link to each weapons capability would be very helpful as I feel like I'm flying blind sometimes.

Originally posted by Kromwel
3) The development stuff. Not explained ANYWHERE except in cryptic references. Ideally, we should have been sent here in the tutorial and explained THIS is where you are INTENDED to do YOUR MOST IMPORTANT WORK.

Agreed, I think.

Originally posted by Kromwel
4) Espionage. You must keep your queue full of building spies or you will pay (in enemy spy attacks). It is a click (Personnel) then a tab (Active Spies).

For me its only couple of clicks every what, 13 or so turns? Not a big deal. 3 or 4 spies get built then I refill the menu. No need to do this every turn or even every other turn, wait for the box to be empty.

While I agree that the menus can be confusing or even daunting a first glimpse, once you get the hang of it, things are a breeze.

[Arnelos]

Originally posted by asleepathewheel
I don't understand this comment. I am not that impressed by the autobuild ships, either you are stuck with long range or missles, or whatever. I prefer a mixture, more versatile ships, so I try to build each ship myself. I would say that a link to each weapons capability would be very helpful as I feel like I'm flying blind sometimes.

Funny. I have the opposite opinion. I think the autobuild does a pretty decent job. I prefer my ships to be mission-specific because I can use that differentiation between roles to vary my tactics more (have the group of "missile ships" do this, the group of "beam ships" do that, etc.).

Given my preference for role-specific craft, the autobuild does a nice job in my eyes. The only thing the auto-build doesn't do (and shouldn't be expected to do) is to anticipate what types of technology your enemy is using and use the specific weapons and specials for those weapons that would be best suited against a particular opponent with a particular force composition. To take care of that, you just have to tweak the autobuilds. They at least give a pretty good template to work with.

I honestly think QS did a decent job with the autobuild ship design AI... Preference for role-specific craft goes all the way back to the original MoO. Read the strategy guide written for the original MoO by Alan Emrich and you'll see what I mean. Craft that have multiple capabilities (some beams, some missiles, some torpedoes) SEEM cool because they can handle themselves in a fight. The problem is that it's more efficient to think in FLEETS rather than to think in SHIPS. If you're thinking in fleets, splitting up each of those weapons and roles to different craft (which can then specialize the functions more) is FAR FAR FAR more efficient. The game system is also purposely weighted to give an advantage to specialized craft.

So that's one part of this game that I actually really like...

[John-SJ]

Sure, the menus could be streamlined, and probably should be. To tell the truth though, I have never even noticed the problems with the menus that you mention because, even with these problems I am clicking so much less than in the average TBS game. Even with the menu clicking this game moves at a much faster pace than most TBS games I've played.

Of course, if you want to deny yourself this game because of a few menu clicks that is your right. Go for it! For myself though, this is one of the most entertaining and completely engrossing games I have yet to play. I'll put up with the mouse clicks until it is changed, and if it's never changed, ow well, MOO3 is still a fantastic game!

John

edit: spelling

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by Arnelos
Funny. I have the opposite opinion. I think the autobuild does a pretty decent job. I prefer my ships to be mission-specific because I can use that differentiation between roles to vary my tactics more (have the group of "missile ships" do this, the group of "beam ships" do that, etc.).

....

I honestly think QS did a decent job with the autobuild ship design AI... Preference for role-specific craft goes all the way back to the original MoO. Read the strategy guide written for the original MoO by Alan Emrich and you'll see what I mean. Craft that have multiple capabilities (some beams, some missiles, some torpedoes) SEEM cool because they can handle themselves in a fight. The problem is that it's more efficient to think in FLEETS rather than to think in SHIPS. If you're thinking in fleets, splitting up each of those weapons and roles to different craft (which can then specialize the functions more) is FAR FAR FAR more efficient. The game system is also purposely weighted to give an advantage to specialized craft.

So that's one part of this game that I actually really like...

I agree with your points. I'm not yet sophisticated in the game enough to decide what types of weapons for what types of battles. So thats why I put a couple of beams and missles on ships. And put some weaponry on carriers. Yes its a heavy handed approach to the game, probably quite wasteful in resources as well. More documentation on what weapons do against what would be helpful.

The auto build ships that I've seen just have the two latest beams or missles or whatever. They are decent platforms to build off of, but I like to take advantage of some of the interesting options, ie all the missle options or the multiple spinal mounts, even though I have little knowledge of performance.

[Malleus]

Let me clarify:

The AI controls EVERYTHING except designing ships. The AI will happily make Hawk defense ships for the entire game if you never go in there. Because of the pace of tech, you must go into the ship design and redesign your ships.

Now here is the kicker: The developers intended for you to gve the AI the opportunity to design your ships.

So we have a conundrum. I am required to tell the AI to design me more ships every few turns. Given the automation everywhere else, this is just silly. The AI doesn't force me to give it permission for more important things, why this?

And:

The ship design area is designed to make you not be able to min/max (a hallmark of TBS), redesign, compare designs, rename designs, update designs. It exists so you can do extra clicks to get there and hit "autobuild."

K

[ChaotikVisions]

I don't know what all the fuss about the UI is, its a TBS game, not an RTS/FPS. The only part of the UI thats annoyed me has been not having a screen where I can look at/change current/upcoming build queues for all colonys. The planets screen works fairly well for this. Allows an overview of everything being built/eta and once you've gone to a planet you can scroll through all other colonized planets changing their queues too if you want.

[QuackQululu]

Simply put...the interface is poor and outdated compared to its predecessor. I'm tired of people who keep missing the point...its clunky..get it? Look up the word "intuitive" if you say it does not bother one personally to click 13 times. It does bother alot of people and so to answer the original post for this thread, you can have fun if you do not mind hunting around alot to get things done. A MOO gamer will kill 5 hours, but he wants to kill it intelligently. Will I play it? yes...Is it disappointing?..well..just look around the forum and the general mood speaks eloquently.

P.S. For all you who wish to fight the roaring tide and cry that others are whining, keep in mind that we were all satisfied with the last two. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
On the more reasonable side, if they DO patch it up, they should be accorded the decency of waiting to see how they fix it. They ain't wicked people ya know?

[darcy]

I can tolerate clunky UI design, I sure do when playing Dominions. It's just inconvenient to jump through all the windows and tabs for every menial task, but I could live with that if the feedback, the most imporant part of any UI, actually made any sense. But all the friggin numbers in Moo3 simply don't!

They don't say where they are coming from, they don't say where they are going and of course they never add up correctly. On top of that they are constantly multiplied by invisible modifiers and secretly changed by helping hands of the AI.

It is never explained why something is happening. That's especially sad because Moo2 excelled at that! You could right-click anything and it told you why it's there.

The one word that describes Moo3 best for me is opaque.

[lockstep]

Originally posted by darcy
The one word that describes Moo3 best for me is opaque.

I had to grab my dictionary, but you're absolutely right.

At least, this is a problem that can be patched away. Revise the manual, revise the in-game encyclopedia (i.e, at least triple its content) and include context-sensitive help a la EU.