I was wrong about MOO3

Silellak · March 2, 2003, 03:59

You may remember my post a couple of days ago entitled "Master of Orion 3 - What Went Wrong?". Well, I have a confession for you.

For those who said "Try it a bit longer, give it a chance", well...you were right. In the two days since I posted that message, I have become helplessly addicted to the game. After talking to a couple of my friends who had gotten into it, I sat down and started up a brand new game with the mentality "Okay. Don't think of this as a Master of Orion game. Don't compare it to the other ones. Just work with the interface and learn to play." Finally, it all clicked. And, since then, it's been hard to put the game down. I find it hard to believe that 2 days ago I was ready to return this game.

I want to modify my original statement about the game, too. The game does, in fact, have a soul. The trick is that it's a different soul than Master of Orion 1 or 2. Yes, all the little touches are gone. Yes, I wish they were still around. They key is that MOO3 is epic in scale. I find it hard to play MOO1 and MOO2, because the galaxy just seems so small. In the game I'm playing now - the game where it all finally "clicked", I've been playing for 400+ turns and no races have died off yet. Granted, I would have won the game earlier by being elected to the senate, but I disabled that option because I wanted to experience everything the game had to offer. And wow, once you figure it out, it does have a lot to offer.

I still mantain some of my original complaints about the game. The lack of the personal touches is sad, and the interface is still laughably bad. But the thing is, I find I just don't care. I've been overwhelmed by the epic scale of the game. For those who don't play it long enough to reach this point, or who have played it for awhile and still can't reach it, I understand. Don't feel bad if you don't like the game and take it back - it's completely understandable. You aren't "too stupid to get it", as some might imply. The game just simply isn't for everyone. MOO1 and MOO2 were much more personal games, and MOO3 is entirely different.

As for whether or not MOO3 should be considered a true MOO game, well, that's not my call to make. I tend to go with my friend who said "It's like MOO on crack", but that's just my opinion. Anyway, I just wanted to let you all know that yes, I did give the game one final chance, and damn, did it win me over. Thank you all who told me not to give up.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have an empire to run.

Ankh · March 2, 2003, 04:27

Yeah its fun, then you find out the AI cant hit back and the game gets boring.

Just think about it, when was the last time the AI conquered a planet from you?.

slitherin · March 2, 2003, 04:39

Also your sails on your tech one engines can virtually take you anywhere in the galaxy without refueling or limitation too! Hurray moo-moo-moo ah crap!

darcy · March 2, 2003, 07:01

Good for you. I wish I could see the light too.

mrbilll · March 2, 2003, 11:29

I've already returned mine. I invested the recommended 15-20 hours, and I wish I could have those hours back.

Frankly, Moo 2.5 would've been great, IMHO. Bring the AI and graphics up to speed, do some tweaks like more universe options and better balancing on the race characteristics, and we'd be in business.

Moo3 isn't your father's 4x- excuse me, 5x game. Would someone else please MAKE another "true" Moo game? I'd buy it.

darcy · March 2, 2003, 12:35

Quote:

Would someone else please MAKE another "true" Moo game?

Well, the license will probably be available again soon. At a very low price.

Proteus_MST · March 2, 2003, 13:35

Quote:

Originally posted by slitherin
Also your sails on your tech one engines can virtually take you anywhere in the galaxy without refueling or limitation too! Hurray moo-moo-moo ah crap!

It isn´t impossible to imagine.
In Battletech for example you have Jumpships which can jump to Solar Systems up to 30 Lyrs away and refuel by unfolding a giant Solar Sail and collecting Solar Energy.

Jason Beaudoin · March 2, 2003, 14:13

Well... like a lot of people here, I'm having a VERY, VERY hard time seeing that light you're talking about. I've played this game for hours and I still don't know what the F@&! I'm doing.

Plus... considering that people say that the AI is so bad, I'm not sure I'm going to be keeping this game. I'm probably going to return it too.

Proteus_MST · March 2, 2003, 14:54

Give the game a chance, Jason.

You really can figure most of the Game out for yourself.
I´ve been playing for two days now and I´ve learned a lot about the game mechanics.
Just try to experiment with the various sliders and setings, look in some threads at Apolyton or INA and read important parts of the Documentation (and the readme.txt of the game) and you´ll uncover lots of Informations.

As for the AI.
Yep, it doesn´t seem to be very agressive at least in "Easy".
The Ithkul try to attack me and the Solicoids also seem to be the one of the more agressive Races, but they are more likely to blockade your Colonies than to invade them.
(But I play the Psilons with their massive Diplo-Bonus, so most of the other races tend to be friendly to me

)
Maybe I now try it with a "Normal" Difficulty Level.

vmxa1 · March 2, 2003, 15:05

Unlimited range is not that uncommon in space games and is no big deal. Lots of peole whined about games like SE, that they need to have a means to extend the range. Some like it some don't
I have not tried all of the level, so I do not know if they get more aggressive as you move up. I do know that it is hard to conquer planets that have the planetary defense in place.

Raion · March 2, 2003, 15:12

Well, maybe this will help!

http://apolyton.net/moo3/preview/part6_day.php

wilebill · March 2, 2003, 15:14

Almost returned the game based on your negative review and those of others. The box from Amazon is still unopened, but I think perhaps now I will at least give it a try. But I have a question.

There are a few complaints that the AI will not attack. But are those people playing the game with the difficulty set on "Easy?" Most games have an easy mode where the gameplay is essentially shooting fish in a barrel so that new players can learn. How does the AI behave on higher difficulty ratings?

Jason Beaudoin · March 2, 2003, 16:45

Yes, I read some reviews about the game difficulty being non-existant, and I think you can find it in the What Went Wrong Thread.

Apparently, it doesn't matter what setting you have it on. I've even heard some people say that the "impossible" setting is easier than "Easy".

Arnelos · March 2, 2003, 18:25

Quote:

Originally posted by Silellak
For those who said "Try it a bit longer, give it a chance", well...you were right. In the two days since I posted that message, I have become helplessly addicted to the game. After talking to a couple of my friends who had gotten into it, I sat down and started up a brand new game with the mentality "Okay. Don't think of this as a Master of Orion game. Don't compare it to the other ones. Just work with the interface and learn to play." Finally, it all clicked. And, since then, it's been hard to put the game down. I find it hard to believe that 2 days ago I was ready to return this game.

Jason,

AWESOME! Told ya so

Glad it clicked for you as well. I have to admit I had a similar experience. I'll talk to you about it some time later. I'm really starting to love this game.

I miss a lot of the little things... but there's so much of the BIG stuff added that makes this game cool that I really just don't care - you hit the nail on the head.

Now - only problem... will this game become as much of an addiction for you as The Sims was for Karen?

starfox · March 2, 2003, 19:36

sillelak: what do you mean by the "scope" of it? It is because the galaxy is bigger? what's the difference with the previous MOOs

And now taht you saw the light, could you explain us what you do between each click of the "turn" button? what do you look at? change? explain us in easy to understand terms

Master-Mike · March 3, 2003, 02:07

Spread your good news man. All these people who play a game for a few days and dont like, well oh my god you spent a whole two days with a game wow you are a true gammer arnt you, you dont deserve to play this game. Come back in two weeks when you played all the different races on all difficulty levels befor you bag this game. For those people who like the game or are at least trying the game for a little long then 2 or 3 days, good on you, spread the good news about this game.

Booya2020 · March 3, 2003, 02:26

I like how people are getting rid of the game before figuring out how everything works. The AI in the game is a tool. granted, its not as good as you but it does make the game go quick. Instead of having to slog through every planet in my empire and taking 3 hour turns you just set a few development plans. It isn't perfect but all my complaints can be fixed in a patch.

darcy · March 3, 2003, 03:13

Quote:

It isn't perfect but all my complaints can be fixed in a patch.

But they remain valid complaints until the patch is actually released, don't they?

ACEofHeart · March 3, 2003, 04:11

Epic in scope, Give it time, Grows on you.. ???
Duh,,Can anyone be MORE specific on what is actually good in this game !!!

I played it for 4 days now and I still look at it as a chore, with no challege and an AI that is totally chicken-shi*

Oh I'm sorry, there is one endearing quality, it made me dig out MOO2.. which I'm appreciating all over again !!

Grumbold · March 3, 2003, 05:18

With an attitude like that as a starting point, probably not, AoH.

I like the massive scale of the game. I really am ruling 50+ planets that won't collapse, implode or stay frozen in stasis if I don't stop by to micromanage them every turn. Heck I've got more colonies that I've never seen except to order ships than worlds that I've actively steered.

Weighed against that is a couple of areas that I don't like much or I think could be improved in a patch. If you don't like the planetary management, don't like the tech system, don't like the space combat, don't like the diplomacy etc so there is nothing to build on then I can't help you. Some other space game is your cup of tea.

Araanor · March 3, 2003, 06:08

Quote:

Originally posted by darcy

Well, the license will probably be available again soon. At a very low price.

Only licenses that get sold are high-profile or come bundled with a company. Otherwise, the publisher will be satisified with hoarding them like a dragon hoards gold.

Bill_in_PDX · March 3, 2003, 13:08

Quote:

Originally posted by Grumbold
With an attitude like that as a starting point, probably not, AoH.

I like the massive scale of the game. I really am ruling 50+ planets that won't collapse, implode or stay frozen in stasis if I don't stop by to micromanage them every turn. Heck I've got more colonies that I've never seen except to order ships than worlds that I've actively steered.

Weighed against that is a couple of areas that I don't like much or I think could be improved in a patch. If you don't like the planetary management, don't like the tech system, don't like the space combat, don't like the diplomacy etc so there is nothing to build on then I can't help you. Some other space game is your cup of tea.

Grumbold,

I respect your opinion. Could you please comment on the agressiveness of the AI? Specifically the claims that it will not invade planets?

TF_Lothar · March 3, 2003, 15:55

I've played a few games so far. One on easy several on medium. So far i have not been seriously attacked by anyone except the New Orions. The NOs will come in and destroy a fleet of mine now and then but otherwise dont do anything else to take over my planets.

The other races send a colony ship or a few ships to attack a planet that has them way outnumbered and slaughters them. OR, they attack....sorry sit in orbit around the planet and do nothing.

Have yet to have any ground invasions of my planets.
If you can wade thru the IG boards others playing on impossible and hard settings are sayign the same things. The AI is just not aggresive for the majority of the games.

Proteus_MST · March 3, 2003, 17:00

I have yet to see Ground - Invasions on my Worlds,
but today on Difficulty Setting "Medium" I could observe the AI invading the Planets of another AI.
It was the Silicoid which invaded Worlds of the Ithkul.
I observed a large Transporterfleet passing one of my worlds on their Way to an System with several Ithkul Planets.
Some turns thereafter a world changed hand with the Silicoids as new Owner.
In the same system several turns earlier I´ve also seen massive AI Bombardment.
One turn there was a single Ithkul Colony with some 1000 Inhabitants. The Other turn the Colors of the Ithkul vanished from the System name and as I checked it out I discovered, that the World now only had 600 Inhabitants (0,6 Pop Points), too few to be a colony.
(but later the Ithkul had recovered and established Colonies on severeal Worlds in the System, those worlds which were later in the Game invaded by the Silicoids)

H Tower · March 3, 2003, 17:03

Quote:

For those who said "Try it a bit longer, give it a chance", well...you were right

Grumbold · March 5, 2003, 05:01

Quote:

Originally posted by Bill_in_PDX

Grumbold,

I respect your opinion. Could you please comment on the agressiveness of the AI? Specifically the claims that it will not invade planets?

Its not aggressive with its task forces but I have had planets invaded, and it always brings enough troops to get the job done when it does stir itself. The AI is currently optimised toward defending their major planets very effectively rather than going on the offensive. Provided you play with the Senate (and maybe X) win active you're going to have to push the pace just to avoid defeat while you're still expanding your way to victory. This passiveness is the major thing I expect to see adjusted in future patches so that normal mode upward gives you a tougher time.

Sole survivor mode badly needs a 'Warlord, we surrender' option when you've become super powerful. In anything except the smallest universes I simply would not have the patience to conquer absolutely everything.

Ianpolaris · March 5, 2003, 06:02

Grumbold,

That's a strange thing to hear because when I played Moo III (extensively before I gave it away!), the Senate and Ataran X victories were the easiest ones to get!

In fact, if I simply picked "Member of Senate==On" I was basically assured of winning by doing nothing but setting "AutoColonize" to "On" and scouting out my surrounding territory. If you took the time to place your DEAs by hand, your population growth (even as Psions) and technological growth far outstripped anyone elses....hence the Senate Win at least for me was even easier than normal (if that is even possible).

-Polaris

Lazarous · March 5, 2003, 13:03

I've been lurking around here (and the IG boards) for a while now, and just thought i'd pipe in my thoughts about the 'soul' of moo3 and its gameplay mechanics.

Moo3 does in fact have a soul, at least from my experience...if you let yourself get sucked into some of the broad decision making processes and sort of put yourselves in the shoes of a galactic emperor, it can have moments of glory.

Which always come to a crashing halt once you interact with the interface and the gameplay mechanics behind it.

This is the thing that truly turned me sour on moo3 - i can deal with bad, unintuitive UI's as long as they EVENTUALLY let me do what i want. I can deal with braindead AI...for a while, at least. I CANNOT deal with having no say in fundamental, empire-wide policies that determine the course my civilization is taking.

Some examples:

Lets start with spying. Oh, how broken spying is. First of all we have the problem of being TOTALLY UNABLE to change the intensity of a planted agents spying efforts. Really need for that science spy you inserted into the New Orions to lay low and prepare a groundwork for pulling off one major tech heist? Impossible. Need those military spies to focus exclusively on sabotaging ships? You wish. They took away the simplest interface i can think of for this sort of thing - the moo1/2 model where you picked whether your spy would hide, commit espionage or sabotage. Considering the gameplay mechanic that absolutely limits your spy pool (spies retiring on their own), giving more options for individual spies would not have increased the workload noticably.

on the subject of enforced limits...what is the logic behind the idea that spies take exactly the same amount of time to train (and that there is only one queue) if your empire comprises one half developed planet and if it comprises a hundred, fully populated and heavily developed planets? Assuming its a game mechanic, why make it so that active spies have lifespans measured in a couple of turns with no possibility of changing their orders to get more use out of them?

That brings us to diplomacy...where is the information on the various races? Tech summaries are buried on the tech screen. Military power summaries are nowhere, information on the type of leader a given race has (assuming this is even still in the game) is nowhere to be found. Further, the 'diplomacy matrix' is the most horrid example of an interface i've encountered in a long time. Is cassus belli/current relations easily visible for the current centered race? Nope, you have to click on all of their possible contacts and either memorize the values or write them down. Good job there.
I am ignoring the totally retarded AI that declares war on you when it has absolutely no way to execute such a war, or the face that it can UNILATERALY stop the war - these are probably correctable in some form.

Assuming you actually take one of the AI's up on their offer of war and start kicking the snot out of them. You then have to deal with the completely useless battle interface. First thing - Point Defence is broken. I won't belabor this point, but its a biggie. After that, how much feedback do you have in terms of useful information about how well your forces are faring in a given battle? Their health bar. Thats it. You have no way AT ALL to check what type/tech level of enemy forces you're facing. You have no way to tell how effective your defences are functioning. Then, after that, you have the retarded screwball AI in control of your task forces. Tell your LRA task force with extremely long range beams that outdistance the enemy by say 20% to attack something. It'll close to pointblank range, and get mauled. Why? Good question. QS took out the interface that would've let you designate target preference and engagement range preference for the various mission types. You can still see bits of code that would've been used in this interface throughout the .mob files, and you'll be desperately wishing for some form of interface that let you set global policies on how military engagments should be run. You can't.

Ship design and task force creation - victims of the same horribly UI design that gave us the diplomacy matrix. Is useful information always on screen? Nope. Information like range of weapons, the damage they're doing, their modifications, any specials the weapons themselves have - all of this is buried, and you have to click on individual components to see their various effects. Except for system speed. Cause this is so vital to combat. Really.

Task forces...the most amusing part of this interface is that its described in a halfway useable form on p.125 of the game manual. As it currently stands, it goes away from the idea of macromanagement in a big way. You can only build TF's with current reserves (instead of with ship types as stated in the manual) and then you have to follow the completely useless design rules to create a TF. What is the point of requiring a recon ship to be at the far perimiter of the TF if a core ship with a sensor installed will have the same exact effect? Why should i create dedicated PD ships to place in the escort ring if my core ships have more than enough PD to handle themselves? Especially considering the complete lack of control you have over how ships behave in combat (not even setting global policies) these restrictions seem assinine.

And here we come to the one, game-killing aspect of moo3. Those reserves that you build TF's from...there have been all sorts of posts about how to force the AI to create a halfway decent mix of forces that YOU want to use. Do you know why such contortions are necessary? Because military composition ratios are hard-coded. Thats right...no matter your tech level, no matter the ship designs you have currently available or the ground forces that you need...the AI will always try to bring your reserves up to pre-determined, UNCHANGEABLE IN-GAME ratios. Wondering why the AI builds so many transport ships and support troops? The hardcoded ratios require it to. Further, it seems these ratios apply across your total military forces so if you remove all ship designs except for some specific ones that you'll use (say an LRA type and an IF type) the AI will pitch a fit that it can't build all the other types of ships it wants to...and build up ground troops (mostly the support ones that you'll have 10 billion of by the end of a game). You have no say in this matter, aside from going in and changing AI files. Let me repeat -
you cannot tell the AI to build forces up to your specs...you have to deal with what the AI HARDCODING requires you to use.

This sort of thing is prevalent throughout the game...you'll see stuff in the mob files which dictates AI behaviour that should be in the hands of the player, but isn't. You can also see stuff there which gives hints as to how the game was originally designed to be played (you'll see various tables that dictate how the AI should've dealt with assigned target priorities for TF, for instance, or various spy missions that should've been possible).

So...moo3 does have a soul, for a few fragile moments after you figure out the tasks that the game seems to require you to do. Then you ran straight into the wall of constraints to your 'macromanagement' that QS obviously thought was too complex for our poor, pitiful consumer minds. I mean...being able to define target priorities for my task forces? My head would explode if i was able to do that...so much thinking required

. Good job QS.

I'm not trashing moo3 for not being moo2 or moo1...i'm trashing it because its not even true to its stated design goals, and its horribly inconsistent in the amount of possible control it gives you.

Laz

athorpel · March 5, 2003, 13:44

Lazarous,

Finally, someone gives details on what is broken. You have specific gripes, you give concrete examples of what is wrong. For that I thank you. I'm not kidding, no sarcasm.

Most importantly you have shed some light on what was intended with the game design compared to what we recieved.
This was very illuminating for me. I have lurked on the old quicksilver boards, the new IG board, and many fansite boards. After Emrich left QS, I have always been curious about the details of what got changed for the worse and for the better in the game design. You just poked a flashlight in the closet of 'what was intended'. I am very surprised that most of what you talked about is user interface related. Haven't designers been putting together GUI's since the days of Xerox PARC? Don't they know what kind of feedback a user/player needs to make a decision? This seems unforgivable to me, that the interface for this game could be so broken. I know how much QS cared/cares about this game, it was on the boards for all to see. This has got to be one long comedy of errors/bad decisions. Good intentions do not equal good game.

I am just glad that everything you listed sounds fixable with a patch. I can hear the snorts of derision even now.

Eric S · March 5, 2003, 16:01

I'll start off by saying that I'm enjoying playing MoO 3. With that said, I'm not blind to its flaws. The three things that can probably be most easily fixed with a patch are the rather passive AI (I won't say ultra-passive as I've been caught with my pants down by a carrier group), the AI's inability to commit to ground combat (there's a thread somewhere talking about the fact that the AI seems to be disbanding its transport TFs just prior to enemy contact), and the PD bug.

These are the showstoppers. On the other hand, I'd still like to see some of the UI improvements discussed here, some of which might not be too hard to implement.

Then we get to the stuff that would require a serious upgrade. Might not be patchable, might require a serious upgrade.

I'd like to see a way for me to be more specific than "Military" in the budgetting. Ideally, I'd like to be able to create a TF prototype, and tell the AI "build some of these" maybe with a location to assemble the TFs. Or say "I want you to put 10% of your shipyard capacity towards building TF type A, 30% towards TF type B, and 60% towards TF type C." Obviously, this would be the amount post-maintenance, as otherwise, you'd have maintenenace as an entry, and you'd have to fiddle with it constantly.

I'd like to see ship refitting, done in such a way that you say "refit design A to design B specs" and then allocate a percent of the Imperial budget to dealing with it, and let the AI handle the upgrades (only those units in the reserves). Include an option to replace all occurances of design A with design B in the queues, or just those occurances that aren't at least X% completed. Barring refitting, at least an ability to set a class to be scrapped as (specified) replacements are created. I got tired of the TF creation constantly grabbing my oldest, slowest transports, so I scrapped them. Not even 3 turns later, when all my newer ones were in use, I had a sudden need of more transports. It would have been nice to say "start phasing these out, but don't scrap them until you've got replacements."

One other gripe I've heard that I'd like to comment on: I don't mind the rapid rate tech advances come at you. Anyone that thinks that the military is composed of even a significant amount of the latest and greatest has never served in the military. Just about everything is outdated by the time it reaches the field. If you want a military that is mostly cutting-edge, then you're going to have to pay through the nose, and you still won't fully keep up, not in the game, and not in reality. In MoO 2, I usually had a military that was 90% equipped with the best tech I had. Fun to beat on someone with, but just not realistic. MoO 3 makes it about the timing of the upgrades (O.K., replacements in reality). I don't even redesign all my ships every time a new tech comes along, except for Warp drive techs, and even then, the only ships I always redesign then are colony and scout ships, and troop ships when I'm on the offensive.