Moo3's Death by a Thousand Cuts - Page 2

kalbear · December 21, 2002, 21:10

I've as well, and I was thinking about it - save that that can make the game simply TOO defensive. I think that's not all that fun, personally - the best games are the ones where the opponent can challenge me somehow.

Gods, ascendancy was a dull game...such great concepts that were so badly meshed together. There's definitely a feeling of 'less is more' that I hope Moo3 does get.

Asmodeous · December 22, 2002, 03:42

Ascendancy was a dull game because the AI didn't bother to DO anything.

It was a really good game with retarded AI, that's what killed it for me. The way the game worked and the style of play was beautiful, the problem was you'd finally find the bad guys and they'd still have two planets with nothing on them.

MOO3 has reminded me a lot of Ascendancy, by what I've been reading up on it, which is a-ok by me, as long as the AI actually puts up a fight.

Me.

vmxa1 · December 22, 2002, 04:27

I still love the sounds that the battles make in Ascendancy. It had many problems, such as no AI and lots of micromanagement, but was a great looking and sounding game for its day. I fire it up once a year to listen to the nanomanipulator and the Plasmatron.
It had great atmosphere, like a true space game. I also like the way the ships went through the star lanes.

RolandtheMad · December 22, 2002, 15:57

Mine fields & deep space engagements.

http://www.ina-community.com/forums/...hreadid=245037

TheMaestro · December 22, 2002, 16:04

So no more minefields...no deep space engagements...what has been going on for three years?

I fear we will all be very disappointed, but the only damage it will do is to the company itself -- so I guess you get what you give.

RolandtheMad · December 22, 2002, 20:14

Can someone who can post on Infrogrames ask if there is a ship limit or not? Not ship design but actual ship limit.

H Tower · December 22, 2002, 20:17

i'd ask but i'm afraid of the answer

RolandtheMad · December 22, 2002, 20:37

I`ve heard vauge mention of one but not a confirmation by a BT or Mod.

Arnelos · December 22, 2002, 22:54

I have to agree that Ascendency was a pretty good game that suffered mainly from a beyond-braindead AI. That said, it was pretty fun for a few games (largely due the ambience aspects) before things started to bug you.

DanM · December 22, 2002, 23:05

Quote:

Originally posted by vmxa1
Maybe we will have lane blockers ala Ascendancy.

Wow.There's a game I haven't played in ages.I still have it...
One thing about that game though,it was far too easy.

DanM · December 22, 2002, 23:13

Haha,I didn't read what others said before I posted.I see I'm not the only one who thought Ascendancy was too easy.
I couldn't believe the restrictions I used to put on myself in the hopes of getting a decent fight out of the AI;like colonizing only the smallest planets etc,and still the AI got kicked.
The funniest thing I ever saw was a couple of months after I got the game,I saw a strategy guide for Ascendancy

To this day I can't believe that anyone would be so lame that they would need a strategy guide for Ascendancy...

vmxa1 · December 23, 2002, 04:17

I know you all must have loved it when you capture a planet and see the Dig was sitting near the colony and was never even used. I guess that is brain dead. In spite of all flaws I had fun. One move that can be used is to play say 200 or 300 turns and not do anything to give the AI a good start.

Capt Dizle · December 23, 2002, 20:21

No ship refiting. No upgrading.

Might as well scrap Moo3 and start on Moo4.

Bummer to the nth power.

Main_Brain · December 23, 2002, 21:54

I remember Ascendancy finally got a Patch which should made the AI better?
it was stil too easy but MUCH better than before? :=)

H Tower · December 23, 2002, 22:59

Quote:

Originally posted by jimmytrick
No ship refiting. No upgrading.

Might as well scrap Moo3 and start on Moo4.

Bummer to the nth power.

come to share your optomism with the Moo3 croud?

Kc7mxo · December 24, 2002, 04:27

Quote:

come to share your optomism with the Moo3 croud?

croud? is that some kind of an insult?

and after the most recent update from QS, i think we need all the optimism we can get.

Gelvan · December 24, 2002, 05:27

Thanks for the info. Now I know that I definately WON'T buy MOO3.

And yet another great game being destroyed by greedy publishers...

Skanky Burns · December 24, 2002, 11:18

I don't think JT was being too optimistic there.

H Tower · December 24, 2002, 12:12

Quote:

Originally posted by Gelvan
Thanks for the info. Now I know that I definately WON'T buy MOO3.

Now look what you've done JT

H Tower · December 24, 2002, 12:14

Quote:

Originally posted by Kc7mxo

croud? is that some kind of an insult?

that's me not being able to spell the word crowd

Quote:

and after the most recent update from QS, i think we need all the optimism we can get.

and we won't be getting it from Jimmytrick

Skanky Burns · December 24, 2002, 18:45

Urban Ranger · December 25, 2002, 05:26

Quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheMad
Lets remember the old IFP cut. This is one thing I`m really glad was cut. All the time fanboys (I hate that term, but yes) argued in favor of IFPs when anyone that really thought about it could clearly see how IFPs would not bring anything good to the game (like FUN).

Ah, QS has finally seen the light. I have argued against the entire IFP idea ever since they put it in.

Now we`re getting all these small feature cuts and the same kind of people are putting down anyone who says these small cuts are important. Well they didn`t know anything about IFPs either! I believe some people so fervently want this game they`d take ANYTHING with the name Moo3 on it. I wonder.

Quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheMad
Ship refitting & upgrading

(and subsequently experienced crews)
Bombs
Ability to rename systems
Ability to choose empire color
Ability to capture ships
Colonizable Moons
No choosing ship apperance
Old Style star maps
Warp Interdictors
Starlane upgrading/degrading
No Astroid Belts converted to Planets
Mine fields
Deep space engagements
Ship limit (?)

It's amusing that some of these features are in MoO 2 or even MoO. I think the word for this is... regression.

Xentropy · December 25, 2002, 15:51

Quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheMad
Ship refitting & upgrading

(and subsequently experienced crews)

I'll miss having the ability, but I honestly didn't use it much even in MOO2. It's not like it was very cost-effective. Spend 25% of the cost of a whole new ship just to add one extra mass driver now that you've miniaturized a bit? I always just built new ships anyway and kept the old ones in service until significant upgrades were available, by which time the cost of a refit was about 98% of a new ship and I just scrapped for the cash anyway.

Quote:

Bombs

Well it's not like bombing is out, just bombs. I'd imagine missiles, mass drivers, etc. will fill in nicely.

Quote:

Ability to rename systems
Ability to choose empire color

Both would be nice but not game makers/breakers. It looks like in games vs. the AI, the player is always red based on the beta tester screenshots, so color isn't tied to race (unless all the testers like the same race LOL).

Quote:

Ability to capture ships

This is a shame, but I didn't use this in MOO2 any more than I did refitting. It wasn't all that effective. The AI rarely had decent ship designs so all a capture would amount to is *maybe* some tech (though rarely; I tend to be a tech hound and would outtech the AI even in huge impossibles) and a few credits in scrap.

Quote:

Colonizable Moons

This I would miss if IFP's were still in. Without IFP's, though, I breathe a sigh of relief that the number of colonies is about four times lower than it would have been with colonizable moons. See below for more on my opinion of IFP's.

Quote:

No choosing ship apperance

This was one of the most important parts of choosing colors in MOO2. I liked the purple ships best if I remember correctly, but haven't played in a year or two so I'm not sure.

Quote:

Old Style star maps

Not sure what you mean by this one. As in, without starlanes? I kind of think the new starmaps look like a total kludge, to the point that I hope very much they don't make the map impossible to read like the one of Star Control 1's strategy minigame.

Quote:

Warp Interdictors

These were too powerful anyway. Anything that makes it impossible to ever attack someone's empire, even with good tactics and intelligence like watching where their fleet is, is a bad idea. To the person who complained that a defensive strategy was completely killed by not having these, I argue that such a strategy would still work, but it wouldn't be an automatic win like it would be with interdictors.

Quote:

Starlane upgrading/degrading

Same as interdictors, you could slow the approach of an opposing fleet so much as to be invincible.

Quote:

No Astroid Belts converted to Planets

I hope asteroid belts are useable for SOMETHING, though. In real life, the asteroid belt is going to be a source of great mineral wealth once this silly species realizes there's more to the universe than planet Earth. An asteroid belt should be minable to add a bonus to industry to the entire system in which the belt resides. I wouldn't miss the possibility of making it a planet if it were a bonus item instead.

Quote:

Mine fields

I'd imagine this would be a ***** to code, except maybe like the Artemis system net, only placable in-system. Not all that much use, either. May as well build a bunch of tiny weak ships and tell them to ram as soon as battle begins hehe.

Quote:

Deep space engagements

Pity, this. I'd love to be able to "cut someone off at the pass" as it were.

Quote:

Ship limit

The only limit, if it hasn't changed since about 8 months ago when they first mentioned it, is something like 65535 ships. It's an unsigned 2-byte integer, per player. A limit has to exist (unless you want to go upgrade your computer with 4GB of RAM, and a new motherboard since your current probably wouldn't even accept that much), but they set the limit where it won't make a significant difference to gameplay anyway.

Quote:

IFP's

Now here I disagree entirely with the sentiment of most of the people here. Personally, I love strategy games, but removing IFP's has officially killed the potential of MOO3 to move to the next level, since it will be burdened with the SAME problem MOO2 had: rediculous boring micromanagement after the first few turns.

Arguments that there will be AI to control parts of your empire are a moot point, because NO MATTER HOW GOOD THE AI, IT WILL NOT BE AS GOOD AT MAKING DECISIONS AS I CAN BE. Therefore, I am FORCED to micro every last spec of a colony in my empire or else my empire will NOT work up to its potential. So removing IFP's have just made this game a 4-hour-per-turn lategame, and I'm not sure that I'll be buying it because of that. I still may buy it, but do something similar to what I did in MOO2; start a new game, play about 100 turns, see that winning is inevitable but not feel like going through the days of tedium to play those turns to win and start a new game again. Lategame in MOO2 practically didn't exist, because I never got there in a situation where the endgame wasn't a foregone conclusion and wasn't boring to play due to large numbers of colonies to control.

At least with IFP's, everyone could control the same amounts of their empires, large or small, heavy micro or light micro players. It leveled the playing field. FORCED everyone to use the inferior AI to control the majority of their empire and only focus on the threat areas, like most people will do anyway. Instead, with IFP's out, I am hella glad that colonizable moons are out, because it's bad enough I'll have 900 colonies, each of which to spend 30 seconds looking over every single turn and deciding what they should be doing, (for a total of 7.5 hours per turn lategame in a huge galaxy), without also having 2700 moons around those colonies to also check up on.

JMHO, and I know it's an opinion no one else on the planet shares, so I'll take my lumps and just doubtfully buy the game. Like I said, maybe I'll get it once it's on the budget game racks, just to play the early game over and over again...

RolandtheMad · December 25, 2002, 16:43

I hope you can make the leap of faith with the colony management AI. Just close your eyes and focus on space combat or something.

IFPs are still present in the way that you must practice self restrant and not try to manage every single colony in your dominion. Also, the BTs have said colony management AI is decent if that is any consolation to you.

moomin · December 25, 2002, 17:05

Quote:

Originally posted by Xentropy
Now here I disagree entirely with the sentiment of most of the people here. Personally, I love strategy games, but removing IFP's has officially killed the potential of MOO3 to move to the next level, since it will be burdened with the SAME problem MOO2 had: rediculous boring micromanagement after the first few turns.

Actually, many people here tend to agree with you. I sure do. The worst IFP-bashers all seem to come from the official forums

Anyway, I agree that my interest in Moo3 kinda died when I heard IFPs where out. Now all we can hope for is a more polished Moo2, and while I'll probably buy it if I see QS support this game with a patch or two post-release, I'm not particularly excited any more.

IFPs had the potential to revigorate the entire TBS strategy scene, not only this game. Such a terrible pity it fell pray to the dreadful mismanagement of Moo3's development process.

RolandtheMad · December 25, 2002, 17:59

The main reason I personally loathed IFPs was because it took away the POSSIBLITY of total micromanagement. Some people like that. I don`t in particular but I wouldn`t be too happy if I couldn`t micromanage one more critical colony because of some arbitrary limit (in the form of IFPs). This is really an old debate though. No use in revisiting it.

vishniac · December 25, 2002, 23:20

I finally found the thread about economics cut:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

ScreamingDoom
Member

Posts: 56
Registered: Aug 2002

quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Idealy I was hoping to find out more about exchange rates (pegged vs a float) and can this decision be changed in game?

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Unfortunately, this aspect of economic policy has been cut. You can no longer determine if your currency is fixed or floating. The currency is always considered stable, no matter what.

quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Also is there a "central bank" which can make engage in free market activites to stimulate the economy and also adjust exchange rates?

------------------------------------------------------------------------

This originally was one of the things the New Orions could do. Thus why having a fixed currency was a bit of a trade off; the New Orions could crush your economy with one swift stroke if you crossed them and had a fixed currency. With that aspect cut, I'm guessing it no longer matters.

quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------

How is inflation factored in?
------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm guessing inflation and it's effects also went the way of the dodo when this aspect of economic policy was cut. Originally, inflation could only happen when you had a floating economy (thus why it might be good for you to accept the New Orions keeping an iron fist on your pursestrings -- at least then the currency is stable). Everything was calculated on AUs, though, so even if you had a floating currency, it would be measured in AUs. Having runaway inflation may cause your planetary reserve to begin shrinking at an alarming rate, even if you're taking in a lot more money then you're actively spending.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Mainstreaming, Folks, mainstreaming!!!

Xentropy · December 25, 2002, 23:30

Quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheMad
The main reason I personally loathed IFPs was because it took away the POSSIBLITY of total micromanagement. Some people like that. I don`t in particular but I wouldn`t be too happy if I couldn`t micromanage one more critical colony because of some arbitrary limit (in the form of IFPs). This is really an old debate though. No use in revisiting it.

I know the BT's have said the colony AI management is good. But my point is it will NEVER be *as good* as me controlling the colony. So, a multiplayer game between equally experienced players will be won by the player who can click fastest and micromanage the most of his or her colonies in the turn time limit. I want a TBS, not an RTS. There are a billion RTS's on the market. But no, here we are with another clickfest to be released...someday.

With IFP's, the STRATEGIC DEPTH was there, because not only did you have to make the right decisions, you had to make the right choices as to which decisions were the most important. No one could, by right of being faster with a mouse, out-micromanage another player. Sure, you wouldn't be able to control every colony you want to, but part of the game would be making sure that one last colony you can't control is the least important of the group of ones you want to. Now, that's out. You'd better have great click speed and a fast computer to update pages of information more quickly since that'll be a major factor in winning a timed-turn multiplayer MOO3 game. And you'd better have a day to set aside to play each turn later on in single player.

Sorry to bring up old arguments, but since as soon as IFP's were cut I lost total interest in the game, I pretty much left all the boards in April and am just now sticking my head in again since the Gamespot preview reminded me of the game's existence. So I missed out on putting my two cents in on all the arguments. It's sad that one cut made me basically completely forget the game existed until reminded, especially since I consider MOO1 to be quite possibly the best computer game ever, and didn't think MOO2 was as bad as most people make it out to be either. >sigh<

MOO3 may still be a good game, but its *potential* to be excellent has been cut down to a potential to be merely good, by not just the IFP cut, but also the roll of Alan Emrich's head, and by all the other cuts that went along with that. A man's vision was slashed to bits and turned into another clickfest to make the masses happy. I wait--fervently, with bated breath--for Alan's name to be brought up with a new game project of some kind so I can follow that one closely and pray he ends up under a management that will respect his art and creativity.

RolandtheMad · December 26, 2002, 00:05

Ah yes, that is another important point to be made in the arguement. IFPs for multiplayer's sake. I don`t play multiplayer, so I can`t really say much for or against that. You haven`t missed much at infrogrames btw..

Craig P. · December 26, 2002, 00:48

The argument against IFP was that instead of micromanaging everything, the micromanagers micromanaged what to spend their IFP's on. I'm willing to trust the testers.

I don't recall that deep space engagements, as such, were ever in the game. I think the only kind of engagement that got cut was warp point engagements, which is a necessary cut with the enter narrow/wide thing cut.

I don't think we'll miss minefields. Heck, all the Artemis System Net ever did was inflict a relatively minor amount of damage to the attackers. I can see solid backstory reasons to exclude minefields, anyway, considering just how -big- space is.