Moo3's Death by a Thousand Cuts

[Harel]

An important announcement (or not so important, but I would like some trumpets, please):

MOO3 officialy does not intrest me anymore. For the past few months I stayed well away from MOO3, taking a long deserved break (with the help of the army, somewhat). Only today did I learn about all those recent cuts.

As of today, I have given another writer the task to write the review about the game. I no longer reserve the game for myself, no do I want a copy. No large fleets? No refitting? This isn't the game I helped create.

This is shameful. I don't know what goes over QS minds right now, I really don't - but this game has lost all it's goals and drives.

I miss Alan.

[Deus]

Well, I was REALLY EXCITED about moo3!!!

It was sure it was going to be the best strategy game EVER.

And, when there were those cuts related to IF, I was a little disappointed, but still very anxious to see the game.
IF was the major thing that would make MOO3 trully unique in strategy games, but, even without that, moo3 could still be a GREAT game.

And then I've seen the cuts we are now talking about.

((

I liked SO MUCH the economics system! I was thinquing: "wow! The designer got to have guts to put such a system, because its great, but complex.

Now I find that it was taken out.

Boarding was taken out. hum... It affects a bit game play, but affects much more the ambience. In spite of not using very much the boarding, I always thought that it was very cool to have that possibility. That dimension in space battle strategy. If I wanted, I could bet on that factor.


I could say much more...
and probably I will say it in other post soon.

[Bane99]

*Sigh* I wish Stars! Supernova Genesis would find a publisher. I also find it strange that we never see any screenshots of ground combat occurring. Let me guess, they've cut that as well?

It's hard to stay interested in this game.

[booklord]

--- No large fleets? ---

I have to wait til the game comes out before I can make any serious judgements on that. Perhaps it won't make a real difference.

( Though if this is so multi-player games work I really wish that they would have made it so single-player games could have more ships. )

--- No refitting ---

No crew experience, ships that can be built much quicker and a high mortality rate among ships seems to me that refitting might not be as appropriate as it was in Moo2.

--- boarding ---

I'll miss it. But to be fair I was abusing it. ( Nuerton blasters and transporters and telepathy and a properly armed Battleship can take out a doom star in a single turn )

--- economics system ---

I didn't real get into learning about moo3 until the strategy guide came out. ( Then I spent a lot of time reading on the net to fill in the blanks ) So I don't know what economic system you're talking about.

--- IFPs ---

I've mentioned it before. They sound good, but when it gets down to details I really don't see how adding a new level of complexity will make a game go faster.


To sum up. Good games have a certain energy. For some reason Civ 2 worked for me while Civ 3 failed. Moo2 has stayed on my hard drive longer than any other game. The only way we're going to know if Moo3 has what it takes to be a great game is to play it. Perhaps they've found a way to get RT space combat work

[Deus]

"We have to wait til the game comes out before we can make any serious judgements."

-- If I KNEW the game would be great, I would buy it right on.

--Because I have some doubts (the cuts were HUGE, but maybe there is still much left), I guess I'll have to pirate and try. If the game is (in spite of all this discussing cuts) great, I will buy it anyway. If not, I'll regret much more these cuts.


In my previous message, when I said IF I meant IFP.

[RolandtheMad]

Originally posted by Bane99
*Sigh* I wish Stars! Supernova Genesis would find a publisher. I also find it strange that we never see any screenshots of ground combat occurring. Let me guess, they've cut that as well?

It's hard to stay interested in this game.

Visual ground combat has been out for a long, long time. I don`t know if it was ever in even. What you get now is something like a radio communication while you move your troops from block to block (which represent planet regions/dea). Anyway here are recent screens of combat in general.

Originally posted by booklord
I have to wait til the game comes out before I can make any serious judgements on that. Perhaps it won't make a real difference.

I don`t really think we have to wait to play the game. Alot of people are saying 'lets wait and see' but why do we need to do this if it is explained for us? We know the exact numbers of the original fleet sizes and the new, smaller sizes.

I`m pretty sure they were reduced to make planetary defences more viable (and not a joke like in Moo2), but I consider that a folly. You can already build multiple starbases of greater effective size than the largest star ship coupled with defensive system ships. A system shouldn`t stand alone with no supporting fleet against a massive invasion anyway. Take away the ability to have a massive invasion and the problem is solved (coupled with the fact that we can`t have reinforcements now).

Besides that this means we can no longer have fleets and/or armadas. Some astute person may claim a group of TFs would qualify but I think not. Also this completely removes the viablity of the small ship swarm tactic.

It has been theorized that the numbers in a TF were reduced to make combat simpler. I find that *really* hard to believe. The purpose of TFs in the first place was to simplify combat, and no matter how many ships are in the group the group always acts as one unit as you cannot control ships individually.

No crew experience, ships that can be built much quicker and a high mortality rate among ships seems to me that refitting might not be as appropriate as it was in Moo2.

Perhaps, but from one source we were assured refitting would be in a patch. However, Rantz recently said that if we even had a patch it would be small, and he didn`t confirm refitting.

Originally posted by Harel
Only today did I learn about all those recent cuts.

I`m beginning to think that none of these cuts are 'recent'. The feature lock has been in effect for quite awhile now and the mods over on IG are also alluding to this fact (that the cuts are old). It appears that the old cuts are just slowly leaking out and are really only news to us - the unwashed masses as it were.

It is probably a very good thing that these cuts are being kept under wraps because of the impact they are making on the community. I don`t see anyone who is glad to see most of these cuts gone. The best thing that is being said is that 'they probably have a good reason' and 'lets wait and see'. The cuts aren`t malicious of course, they are being made for the sake of gameplay and poor planning. This still isn`t a good excuse.

Anyway, enough rambling. I`m sure it will be a decent product in the end, but all these cuts are really bringing me down and the secrecy behind them makes me wonder how many more we are going to see and how bad they are. I`m sure there will be quite a few more between now and the time it hits the shelves (or the fan maybe).

[Bane99]

Visual ground combat has been out for a long, long time. I don`t know if it was ever in even. What you get now is something like a radio communication while you move your troops from block to block (which represent planet regions/dea). Anyway here are recent screens of combat in general.

I was aware of that. The link you posted has no screenshots of ground combat as far as I can tell. Just spying, ship combat, and sitrep. I was talking about screenshots of you moving your troops from one planet region to another.



Edit: Whoops, found the ground combat screens. He let his field commanders handle the ground combat. I guess there would be more detail if you decided to handle the ground combat yourself?

[Arnelos]

This thread has gotten far too whinny for my tastes...

Yeah, there are features taken out that I wish had stayed in and I REALLY miss the absence of Alan... a lot went "wrong" from our perspective because he left (and Storm...).

But let's face it, it sounds like it's still a great game. Yeah, it's a the "light" version of what we were originally thinking it would be, but for a "light" version of the original, it will still likely beat ANYTHING ELSE out there.

So I'll buy it.

[RolandtheMad]

Who whines? I`m just lamenting the fact that so much is being cut. I still believe this game will be 'decent' no matter what, but good enough to 'beat anything out there' is coming into question.

[kalbear]

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.

Compare the 'features' with, say, Warcraft 2. If you like RTSs, War 2 was phenomenal, and continued to be so for a very long time. But in terms of features? It was pretty bad.

War 3 had originally the idea of what, 6 races? At least 5 I know of - the demons. That entire race - which would amount to basically 1/5th of the game, given it's format - got cut because that wasn't working as a game element. And I hear that game didn't turn out so bad.

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.

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.

Does dealing with various types of task forces, up to 216 ships per side per fight, with potentially thousands of fighter craft, missiles, + starbases, ground bases, and system ships sound appealing to you? In a 3-d, real-time based game system, where maneuvering, stealth, angles of attack, range, fire rate and morale factor in sound fun to you? Do the beta tester reports of huge battles vs. the New Orions and each other sound like they had a good, challenging time?

You bet your ass it does. At least to me. Heck, I'd be happy to play a game revolving around basically that concept, and as it turns out, a lot of other people were as well - turned out well in Homeworld and looks decent in Orb.

Continue to ask yourself the same questions about Planetary governing, spying, the research tree, the techs themselves, the starlane system, the diplomacy system, the micromanagement options, the races, the backstory, the orion senate - do these things sound like a good time?

Does causing everyone to shun a race you hate and are at war with, forcing your allies to fight your war for you, sound like fun?

Does finding the 5 Xs sound like a cool thing to do after so long?

Does beating the New Orions via massive physical combat sound neat? How about out-voting them? How about voting them off the senate?

Does using various magnate races to do cool tasks in your empire sound cool? Does that AAR that Avatar posted about the bulrathi militia - the friggin militia! - sound awesome?

Does the backstory, as we know it, sound interesting and fun? Did that (crappy) Real Audio clip about the creation of the Ithkul seem like an interesting pretext and intro to the game?

That's what it's all about.

[darcy]

bleh, I don't care about the Ithkul anymore. All this secrecy alienated me to the point where I just looked up what they are and then forgot them.

That said, features getting cut is a normal process. It's somewhat like what a good editor does to a author: Cutting all superfluous text to make the story flow better. It's a harsh process, authors usually care a lot for what they write, but it's necessary for the end product, and it's also why you need *external* control, like beta testers. Take the Apolyton Moo3 preview as an example, it could gain *a lot* from a mean editor cutting, say, 75% of the words. But the guys who actually thought up the features love them too much to let go of them:

I can't comment on how all the pieces come together without actually playing the game. It's the experience that must be right.

However, I do know that lots of visual feedback is necessary for me to enjoy a strategy game, I can't stand numbers. All I've seen of ground combat so far is a huge pitch-black screen. That ain't too exciting, really. When my soldiers are fighting, I want to see them. I don't care if they are arrows or little pixel-men... but audio clips alone will *not* do, so much I know. I put so much effort into conquering this damn planet and I won't even see the enemies drop down and die?

[RolandtheMad]

Chaos Avatar's new AAR tells of a base he has in a friendly empire's home system. The empire, being friendly, probably wasn`t conquered, though it may have been purchased.

Anyway, I`m thinking he just went in and colonized the planet. If this is so then it is a bad omen for border security. Dunno about the rest of you but this is a serious flaw/cut in my eyes.

[Daveybaby]

Originally posted by RolandtheMad
Who whines?

You do. Incessantly.

[RolandtheMad]

Hmm.. now that they have a suggestion forum on IG, I wonder if they will come here for suggestions?

[jscott991]

I don't know how you guys can complain about fleet sizes without knowing the scale of the game better. Who knows how long it will take to build 216 ships? In MOO2, I'm not sure I ever had anywhere near that many even with my largest empires. MOO1, however, had thousands of ships. Does anyone know for sure what MOO3's scale is? What economies will support? What build times are? I'd be surprised if anyone but the betatesters had any true appreciation of how large or small 216 ships is. That being said, if it turns out to be a major limiting factor in single player, then it either will be patched out or the game will stink. Its a huge "cut" but it remains to be seen how damaging it will be.

If border security is weak that will be a major problem in the game. I don't know how many times I had to break alliances in MOO3, SMAC, and Civ2 because they colonized or built a city right next to me. I don't see what's so hard about setting up a system where you claim territory and if someone wants to dispute your claim, its a declaration of war.

The other major fear I have about MOO3 is the same fear I have about all the Civ-type games (including the previous MOO's) and that is that as you grow more powerful, the AI will just hate you for no reason, eliminating diplomacy. I can't imagine that has survived in a game as complicated as MOO3, but I was shocked it was in SMAC, so who knows?

[darcy]

as you grow more powerful, the AI will just hate you for no reason, eliminating diplomacy

But your growing power *is* the reason. If we ignore all roleplaying, the only point of allying with enemies is to buy time while keeping the balance of power. If one player grows more powerful than all others, he is the biggest threat and the natural target of all attacks. I can see no error in that strategy.

That said, I do hate it when the AI treats me differently just because I'm not an AI, but I don't think that is what you meant here.

[jscott991]

Really? So Canada and the United States should be bitter enemies?

Relations between countries are usually defined by historical factors and friendship more than balance of power concerns. Even if Britain, Canada, Australia, and Mexico became concerned over America's growing economic power vis a vis the rest of the world, do you think they would break alliances with the United States or go to war to chastise them?

Its a pretty child-like simplification of diplomacy. Even Europa Universalis has a more complicated version of diplomacy than this and EU has some serious flaws with the "badboy", balance of power issue.

Originally posted by darcy

But your growing power *is* the reason. If we ignore all roleplaying, the only point of allying with enemies is to buy time while keeping the balance of power. If one player grows more powerful than all others, he is the biggest threat and the natural target of all attacks. I can see no error in that strategy.

[Grumbold]

Countries should hate and fear you if you are more powerful than them and do nothing to appease them on a regular basis. What they shouldn't do is declare war against you unless they have a lot of allies or somehow feel they can gain something from it.

I think people are annoyed about the maximum fleet size because one of the main reasons given for the necessity to take starship combat into hands-off realtime mode was the size of the battles. If the maximum size falls from thousands to 216 then the fear is that typical battles might be say 10-20 ships, and under those cercumstances the players feel willing and able to micromanage their activities. There's also that feeling of grandeur in fielding a vast space armada. If the US can deploy hundreds of naval vessels to defend it, an interstellar starfaring society shouldn't be limited to a few hundred. That was the feeling of scale that MoO1 got right and MoO2 lost.

[jscott991]

I agree with you Grumhold about the space battle scale. The scale should be larger and favor thousands of ships rather than smaller and favoring dozens. But, its hard to say how this will effect the game without knowing how many ships you will be building and maintaining over time. If you can only build a few ships a turn, like in MOO2, 216 is not going to be a big deal. If you have thousands of ships but can only use a few at a time, that will ruin the game easily.

Personally, I have trouble believing this change has anything to do with multiplayer. QS and IG are not my favorite companies, but they surely realize that MP is going to be a very small part of the MOO experience. I can't believe they would make a decision that would harm single player without other reasons (like the game running too slowly or the AI not being able to handle lots of ships).

[vmxa1]

I am not sure if Moo2 have a limit on ships other than that impossed by command points and cash.
Well it does have a limit of 100 per side in a given combat.

[kalbear]

Because of the way initiative works, MOO2 might as well have an upper limit of about 30 ships. Maybe 40. Playing with any more doesn't make it any more epic, it just makes the battle long and stupid.

Moo1 didn't have an epic feel to me because of the stacking rule. It was nice to have swarms of 32K scoutships, but it was also kind of grotesque how effective they were (go BHG go!). To me, they felt like one big ship. They certainly maneuvered like one.

[darcy]

Relations between countries are usually defined by historical factors and friendship more than balance of power concerns....

You're roleplaying a political leader again, whereas I treated the game as an abstract set of rules. These two approaches are mutually exclusive. I agree with you that the behaviour would be unrealistic for a political simulator; however, in the context of a strategy game the concept of friendship is irrelevant.

[jscott991]

You are simply wrong Darcy. I'm sorry to be so blunt. You are treating MOO3 like chess or bridge, an abstract strategy game. It is not an abstract strategy game in any sense. If it were, why have races in it? Why not call the sides "red, blue, green, black, etc."? The MOO games and even Civ all are trying to varying degrees to be more than the type of game you seem to think they are.

[Apolex]

Yeah, but do you want the AI to be a roleplaying simulation of a race, or the best competition that it can be? If you were playing MP with 5 other people, and you became the big dog in the galaxy do you think your nice "Canadian" neighbor next door would be happy and helpful with your success, or would they secretly plot with your enemies to bring you down and at least have a chance at winning? If he/she's trying to win, the latter. An AI trying to win should do the same.

However, again it comes down to personal preference. Do you enjoy and prefer the game to be more like Risk, or more like a pretend role-playing galaxy? On one hand I do get annoyed in Civ and MOO when your 'friend' turns on you. However, if I was playing a game and managed to make 4 other allies with no other ambition than to see their big-brother win, then that would be unchallenging.

I do feel that multiplayer will allow people to play the game types of their preference. You can probably find 4-5 roleplayers and have a great time in a game like that. Some of the more strategic-only minded people will likely find each other as well and play games of their fancy.

[RolandtheMad]

It is simple enough - the middle road should be taken. Some AIs should be loyal until the end and other AIs should ruthlessly backstab you, just like in real life. You never really know which is which but we should be told if the truely loyal AI exists. This would be beneficial for both types of players. Risk type players could go on about business as usually with no true allies anyway, and role players could try to figure out who is truely loyal and who isn`t.

[jscott991]

I have never heard anyone defend the irrational turncout AI that Civ and previous MOO games featured. I guess people have individual tastes, but this seems a little bit of a stretch. You want a game to be challenging, but at the same time you want to feel that you are playing something worthwhile. Having the AI turn on you irrationally is not a fair way to increase the challenge rating of a game. Why not just deduct 25% of a player's resources when he gets that powerful? Why not change the math calculating his combat results? Having the AI turn on you for no reason other than that you are growing in power is just as arbitrary as any of those methods.

The AI is supposed to represent the leaders of their race; leaders who, if not responsible to their people at least have interest in staying in power at home. That is the whole point of having races and government types and a setting to begin with. No ruler would foolishly throw his people away in a war with their former friends just because of their increase in power. What is the point of the elaborate diplomatic model if this is what diplomacy is all about? It makes no sense and it has business being part of a game that purports to be a serious strategy game, rather than Risk or Chess.

[Kc7mxo]

It is simple enough - the middle road should be taken. Some AIs should be loyal until the end and other AIs should ruthlessly backstab you, just like in real life. You never really know which is which, but we should be told that the truely loyal AI does exist if indeed it does.

I agree. They should be assigned personality attributes at the begining of the game, like in civ. Maybe you could have spies peek at his autobiography during the game to find out what his attributes are. Or each race yould just always be the same.

Like those darlocks. Grrr. I hates them. Sneaky thievesees. I hates them forever! Glasses their planets i will, yessss. . . .

[Apolex]

Originally posted by RolandtheMad
It is simple enough - the middle road should be taken. Some AIs should be loyal until the end and other AIs should ruthlessly backstab you, just like in real life.

I like that idea too Roland. Randomly assign play-types to your AI opponents. That's just like what happens if you randomly join a MP game: you're not sure how each person is going to play. That would give both styles of play a good fun challenge. We'll have to wait and see if MOO3 has anything like this, or if the races are all governed by basically the same diplomatic strategy (ala Civ 3).

[viciouscycle]

MOO3 is just a game. It may be a complex strategy game but it is still a game with one goal and very specific parameters. Games are competitions above all else and the diplomacy mechanics will always need to be geared toward that simple fact. Diplomacy in life is so much more complex because life isn't just a competition. There are no victory conditions in life. Comparing diplomacy in a game to diplomacy in life is pointless.

MOO3 may be far more complex than Risk but the ending is still the same: somebody wins, somebody loses. MOO3 isn't a simulation that is trying to be as realistic as possible... it's a game that's trying to be as enjoyable and competitive as possible.

A game where other players simply go on about their merry business while you rise in power and win the game isn't very fun. MOO3 is a game about conflict... a game about competing empires. If there were different victory conditions, say a team victory condition of some sort, it would make diplomacy different.

In the end, every action you and your oppents take in a game are done with one thing in mind: winning the game.

[Kc7mxo]

There are no victory conditions in life.

That is most assuredly disputable.