To QS....

Daz · March 7, 2003, 06:16

I hope some of the developers of MOO3 does something about this awful situation we´re in.

People have waited sooo long for this game. They have given you sooo much input, and the beta testers have (i guess) lost their eyesight to try and help you. Most of the people have been extremely positive about the game, even about the late publishing.

What happens now is that these loyal people try to master this game the best they can. Everyone is wrestling with the AI, trying to get the DEAs to work propperly. They are doing it WITHOUT any manual (that thing we got with the game makes us laugh) which is veeeery diffucult because, and you´ll agree with me, it is probably the most complex game thats out there.

You could at least have the decency to show up at the forums and answer the questions asked. At least the most important ones like the Development plans or the planet classification. We cannot play without it!

Maybe you expect us to dig into your code and figure it out by ourselves.

Right now it looks like youre all sitting at a table, counting the money and laughing your pants off at us poor sods trying to put the pieces of this huuuge puzzle together.

MarkG · March 7, 2003, 06:58

Quote:

it looks like

you should have put that in bold, huge letters....

anyway, there is already an answer to your request

Rantz a couple of days ago

Quote:

Regardless of whether we respond to every post, we *are* reading them because the game is important to us, and it`s important that it`s enjoyable and as tight as it can be. We (QS) do NOT take a `well it`s out on the shelves, deal with it` attitude. It`s simply a reality that to do *any* kind of adjustment to an installed app that does not affect stability or adversely affect the game (fix one thing, break another syndrome) takes TIME.

btw, Qs is supposed to do the development ONLY. it's infogrames job to support the game

that said, see
http://ina-support.com/faq/moo3_pc.asp
http://ina-support.com/faq/moo3hints_pc.asp

Daz · March 7, 2003, 08:00

Mark,

It is very nice of you trying to be helpful and defend QS, or IG.
My point is:

All of us have great problems with planet classification. Nobody knows how it works. Would it be a big deal to post an article saying (for example):

"only the 2 named planet classifications matter. The development plans are simply added. primary factor is 1, secondary is .7 ......"

I mean, someone who knows this stuff will spend about half an hour writing this. But instead they prefer to keep us in the darkness.

There is no excuse for this.

Understand also that by no means I demand a patch being available next week. I AM being realistic here. But the above mentioned things. Its not such a big deal.

PS .. feel free to rename the thread "to IG"!

Proteus_MST · March 7, 2003, 08:14

They are working on a revised Manual in pdf-Format, Daz.

If they do a good job on it, those Classifications will be included, along with a lot of other things (further Descriptions of the Magnate Races, Tables with Values for Weapons [although you can read those in the Spreadsheets within your .mob-Files] and lots of other Stuff)
Át least I hope it is included

Daz · March 7, 2003, 08:45

Whoooo, hoooooo!!!

Hope it doesnt get delayd like the actual game...

Ack! *slaps his own hands* No negative thoughts, no negative thoughts, no.......

Hydro · March 7, 2003, 09:09

Daz – don’t know how planet classification works? It seems pretty simple to me: your planet is ‘classified’ by the planet’s pressure and temperature, and where your race falls within that spectrum. The planet itself is displayed on an x-y graph of pressure vs temperature, and your SS/G1/G2 (etc) preferences are portrayed as a series of colored circles around your preferred temperature-pressure center point (sweet spot). I am not clear whether some races have bigger zones, and hence bigger habitability, and think that could be clarified. It might also be nice to know if some planets are more common, therefore providing more possible planets with that range of environmental preference. Or, maybe I misunderstand your concern...

MarkG · March 7, 2003, 10:19

Quote:

It is very nice of you trying to be helpful and defend QS, or IG.

i'm not defending anything. i just pointed out some things that are simply out there, but you missed

and as Proteus_MST mentioned, QS(Rantz) already posted in the forums that the manual is being improved and will be publicly availiable.

now, given the limit amount of hands availiable in QS, i'd rather have them working on the manual update that will answer tons of questions at once than spend their time than answers questions one person at a time(most of which can be answered by other fans)

Daz · March 7, 2003, 10:42

Ok, i`ll drop it. But I still think time needed to post a message is equivalent to the time needed to write the same stuff for the manual. And we all know of Ctrl-C, Ctrl-V, do we?

Hydro:
I`m sorry if I used the wrong terminology here. By planet classification I meant "New, Primary, Secondary, Core....). We dont exactly know what these categories are, what the triggers for jumping from one to another are ..... Also does the DevPlan take into account only the 2 stated classes or all that apply? There is more but you know what I´m talking about....

As said. I hope we´ll get that manual soon. I thought there was not THAT much left unclear that we need a whole new manual, but I wont complain....

Hydro · March 7, 2003, 11:18

Ah - I agree. That is not clear. I haven't played around much, but I seem to recall you can specify planet types under the detail Planet screens. Then development strategy will be applied correctly. This is a good question - I'll try it out.

vmxa1 · March 7, 2003, 14:16

The DEA's are the things that the strat guide should have done a comprehensive job on. I mean the manual is going to be incomplete and eventually we figure out the DEA workings, but the Guide should have given us the complete details. If they had done that on a few issues and made a good tutorial, then the guide would have been worth the money and people would have gone out and bought it in bigger numbers.
The publishers should have leaned on the guide writers to do better, it would have reduce many of the complaints on this board.

protista · March 10, 2003, 08:55

I am certain that we will get more "support", (patches, Manual updates) by remaining as positive and unemotional as possible in our posts concerning MOO3 and perceived problems.

On the other hand, the detailed descriptions and problems concerning the game may prove valuable, even essential to those creating official patches.

Someone noted the lack of QS programmers at least responding to our inquiries, postings, and frustrations.
(With the exception of Rantz)

This reminded me of the frustrations I had many months (possibly almost a year) ago trying to communicate with QS about the game, beta testing, all in a positive manner. Never once did I receive any reply whatsoever. This after repeated inquiries. I also felt some of the statements at the official website were somewhat curt and blunt, such as "if you write to us about ...... your email will be deleted..." "Please do not inquire about beta testing for us....we will let you know...." etc. It gave me the impression that they were somewhat aloof, and very sure they had the situation (Game) completely in hand and were not interested in communicating with potential players about it.

It really would be reassuring to have some other members of the QS team, or INA support respond to some of our posts and concerns here, or on other MOO3 boards. Please help us! Remember that we paid our $50 in good faith!