 |
| |
|
|
starfox
|
|
An excellent review. It made me smile because everything the reviewer says is right, we experienced it. And then I thought about the people who still try to love this game, or even those who try so hard to persuade themselves that this game is indeed fun!
Yeah, right, right now I switched to freelancer, and this game IS fun right from the beginning. Of course it's not a MOO, but you actually do enjoy playing it.
Anyway, I guess all have been said except the doom that will befail that poor QuickSilver team. Thinking that they wanted some more time to refine their game. A dozen year wouldnt have been enough.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
booje
|
|
Los Angeles (Los Feliz)
Dec 2002
time: 05:26
|
|
Yes! Exactly so! This is an excellent article! Thanks for an article which points out what MOO3 was attempting to reach. That's why I've had the really odd feeling that there are so many POTENTIALLY cool parts to MOO3 and overall the game lacks focus. Know I understand what focus it lacks!
Know that we know this, can we operate on the patient in an attempt to graft functionality on him?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
kalbear
|
|
I guess I didn't have to persuade myself all that much that it's a fun game. I like it quite a bit, even though there are tons of flaws. I don't know if I'll be playing it for years like I did MoO2, but I do like it.
I like it more knowing that I can manipulate everything under the hood. So far there's been quite a bit of success in making the AI more aggressive and produce more useful ships to attack with instead of massive amounts of transports and support units. And that's by the fans of the game after a week of release. That gives me a lot of hope that the game will be better.
It is an excellent read, and a conclusion that I arrived at also. There's a LOT of things that feel like they'd make more sense if only there were IFPs.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
lockstep
|
 |
Vienna, Austria
Aug 2001
time: 06:26
|
|
I think Bruce Geryk's reasoning is flawed. Although he makes some interesting points about what a game using Imperial Focus Points (IFP's) could be like, these points do NOT explain Moo3's current shape (in Geryk's words a 'fiasco', IMO a potentially excellent game that needs some serious patching). Why do I think so?
To quote from Geryk's last paragraph: 'The bad AI, broken diplomacy, and ludicrously clumsy interface are all problems, and to some extent inexplicable. But in the context of Imperial Focus Points much of the rest of the design makes sense.'
At the moment, many posters on the different MoO3 boards seem to agree that the strategic AI for attacking - especially with ground forces - is nearly broken, and diplomacy actions lack any feedback. The interface is critiziced to some extent, mainly due to the many clicks needed to fiddle with individual build-queues. More serious issues (according to the discussion boards) are bugs in the combat system (point defense), the micro-management needed to build up decent fleets and ground forces (due to the lack of fleet/army plans) and the general lack of context-sensitive help and even documentation of some major game features (Huge Foot of Government).
Yes, Moo3 needs serious patching. However, I fail to see how most of these shortcomings (strategic AI, diplomacy, combat system, lack of fleet plans, lack of documentation) would suddenly fade away with the re-introduction of IFP's. Only the click-mania needed to micromanage planetary development would become less important with an IFP system, but planetary development seems NOT to be a major concern of Moo3's critics, because this part of the AI is quite solid.
And why would the rest of Moo3's design only make sense in the context of IFP's? Research, finance, empire management, espionage, ship design and (optionally) colonization are left to the player, offer a lot of strategic choices and seem to be quite fun at the moment. Bruce Geryk offers research project overruns as an example of a feature that makes no sense without IFP's, but while overruns are kind of 'fluff' stuff in the published version of MoO3, this is - IMO - due to a simplification of the research model itself, not due to the cut of IFP's. So, this is also no evidence that MoO3 is doomed to be a 'fiasco'. Surely, it could happen if Quicksilver isn't committed to patch this game ASAP ... but Moo3 could also turn out as the game that sets the new high mark in the TBS genre - because of its focus on macromanagement, which is a good thing even without an IFP system.
To quote Bruce Geryk a second time: 'Why have development plans at all, if you let the player control individual DEA's?'
A simple answer: Try to finish a game in Civ3 on a huge map, preferably by domination victory. You'll have to micro-manage hundreds of individual build-queues. Now, wouldn't development plans a la Moo3 be nice?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
yin26
|
 |
This space reserved for Darkstar.
Apr 1999
time: 14:26
|
|
The 'keygenerator' to his argument, of course, is *IF* you can have an AI (talking about your own here for the moment) that role plays convincingly. In other words, an AI that is so good that it not only can do all you'd want it to do but will actually NOT do what you want it to do so well that you'll be forced to make interesting decisions on what to go in and fix or simply let be.
You'd be an intergalactic administrator with various role-playing AIs that have their own interesting agendas.
Of course, without such an AI, the rest is academic...you'd be reduced to AI's that simply don't follow orders with no way to go back in and try to fix it. Faced with that, I'd take out IFP's as well.
Thus, if you designed the game HOPING you'd have role-playing AIs of this quality and then realized you didn't have them (who does?), you'd have a game that had to much, much later in the project go back in and allow the player more ability to micro ... of course, you didn't design it for micro in the beginning, so your UI is now in trouble.
That's his point as I see it: They shot for the moon but landed in somebody's backyard.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Hydro
|
|
Winfield, IL, USA
Jun 1999
time: 05:26
|
|
It may be personal preference, but from what I have heard I am absolutely delighted that IFPs bit the dust. All the complaints about the game may be right but I know one thing: I would have hated the game and not even considered buying it if it had IFPs. If I want to have a game for those with limited attention spans I’d play Age of Empires or some other real time game. There are times, particularly in the early game, where I want to be a micromanager – sating a vile compulsion, if you will. With IFPs or RT you can’t focus on anything – it is literally shoot and scoot, a veritable click fest. No thanks.
For SP IFPs would have been extremely exasperating for me. That said, I can see how IFPs would be useful in MP. But, there is this wonderful thing called a timer that would make IFPs totally redundant since it would do the same thing. Want to stop players from lingering, pondering each micromanagement detail? Well, then say you have X minutes then you are done. That seems simpler than and IFP system (and it is what MOO3 has now).
For me MOO3 does succeed in doing a few key things. First, it does intelligently automate an empire, which (as Yin pointed out in a previous thread) is no small task since that prevents micromanagement h*ll in mid and late games. Planets are built so they are productive, and you don’t need to fiddle with it unless you want to. Sure, you can quibble about when-to-build-what, but they do a decent job. Second, space combat is automated, which (like it or not) is necessary for MP for this type of game unless you want the move-one-ship-at-a-time irritation of MOO2. I’ve tried to control combat myself in MOO3 and it was not a happy experience – I fully approve of losing this control since Emperors shouldn’t be getting involved anyway. Give overall orders and trust your experts to do the job.
Some parts of Bruce’s review are irritating for me. He makes it sound like you have to delve into the details (of which there are many), poring through all the horrifying levels of minute until your brain explodes. Well, you don’t. All you have to do is let the AI do it, flaws and all. Isn’t that what he wanted with his IFPs – abstraction under the auspicious of various imperial functionaries that do your work for you? In fact, one of the primary complaints I’ve heard about the game is you don’t have to do anything – just hit the Turn button and let it go. I think that Bruce is on thin ground here since I don’t see any micromanagement h*ll he describes – I see the opposite. (If he is really criticizing the UI then he is right – it is complicated. But that is not how he presented his argument.)
Bruce also goes out of his way to describe the ‘bad’ AI. I found this to be amusing since in this same review he says that the AI should, under the IFP system, countermand your order and make ‘stupid’ decisions, or at least decisions you don’t like. I see a fundamental flaw in his reasoning – does he want an irrational AI or not? Right now the AI seems to overbuild transports and magazines. Bruce would have us think is a positive design feature, but then he goes on to criticize this exact sort of AI decision as ‘bad’. Sorry. You can’t have it both ways.
I will not dispute Bruce’s complaints about MOO3; they are real and hopefully soon to be fixed. Could MOOs interface be improved? Yes. Are there playability issues? Yes. Might these be the lingering debris from scrapped features? Maybe. Will these be fixed in the next patch? Probably most of them will be, or they will at least be addressed. I just do not see how IFPs would have fixed or improved anything since I view them as another useless layer of ‘stuff’ that would prevent me (as a player) from mucking around if I want to, and letting go if that suits my purpose. Again, I do not want another Age of Empires – there are LOTS of those types of games out there, and soon to be more, too, and for me IFPs would effectively make MOO into a RT game in TB clothing. For all its flaws MOO3 did make a stab at doing the CIV model differently. In my opinion they still have time to make some fixes and dramatically improve the game.
I just wish that the various players/critics out there were not quite so fixated on removed features, and that they could appreciate what has been achieved and wish the MOO team well as they strive to achieve the potential that I think MOO3 presents.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
kalbear
|
|
There was another reason - namely, IFPs actually made the player take longer to play their turns, when the desired effect was for them to take less. Seems players worried incessantly over how to spend their IFPs.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ianpolaris
|
|
Kalbear,
Of course players worried incessantly over spending IFPs. If I had a choice between 'doing it myself' and letting an AI handle it, I would worry too. The fact is a good gamer will want to maximize his effectiveness at each and every turn....so if you are only given a limited actions per turn (which is what IFPs do), you have to spend them sparingly....and that takes lots of (real) time.
That's also IMHO the real reason why the game and interface are so cryptic and why there is basically zero feedback. The designers will never admit this on a public forum (they'd be lynched), but it is my strong opinion that you were never supposed to understand what was going on in hard numeric terms.
That's right: The lack of feedback was supposed to be a feature 
The reason is simple: If a human is allowed to min-max in a strategy game to his heart's content, he will always beat any AI handily. To stop that (and *force* him to use the AI), you deny the human player information he needs to make good decisions. It is no wonder though why QS, Rantz and Co, and the BTs can't out and out tell us that though (because it nixes the point of being an imperial leader).
Then again, once you learn the interface, you can win just by hitting 'turn' anyway, so what's the point? :shrug:
-Polaris
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ianpolaris
|
|
lockstep,
I simply don't believe that. I am only a casual programmer, but even I know that it would not be that hard to put the instantaneous, numeric feedback perhaps accessable to a 'right click'. In fact that adjustment could be made with only 1-2 days of work.
That tells me that the lack of feedback was done deliberately and with aforethought. Of course the designers will tell you differently....because if they told the truth, they'd be lynched by angry gamers (although in large part it is happening now).
In short, I don't believe it was an oversight. Not when the solution is so simple and incorporated in every other TBS strategy game.
-Polaris
|
|
| |
|
|
|
kalbear
|
|
I'm really curious to see what happens when all I do is hit 'turn'. I've never felt this way when playing, and still feel like I can fine-tune and optimize the things early on to get better late-game results.
I'll totally grant that you can do this with senate victory on, as that's an incredibly easy win condition. But it's not the only way to do it. And if you turn that condition off, I can't see how you'd win.
So tell me, how did you do it?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ianpolaris
|
|
Lockstep,
I am not a professional programmer. I learned to program largely on my own for numeric modeling for Finite Temperature QED calculations. I am adding that just to be clear...I am *not* a game programmer.
Having said that, I doubt that this game is salvagable. There seem to be too many problems with the engine itself that seem to be too fundamental to the game. IMHO a patch that adequately fixed even half of what is wrong with this game would require an almost total rewrite of the code....which isn't going to happen.
Also given the negative feedback of late and the fact the game was grossly overdue and underdone, I strongly suspect that Infogrames is going to wash their hands of this proverbial mess and move on. That means that it doesn't much matter what QS wants to do....they won't have the support to do it.
Besides, after this four year debacle, I wouldn't trust QS to write a good game of 'pong'. Especially not when they stated that they were holding back the release date 'to make sure it was done right'.
In sum, QS lied about the status of the game, and so any hurt feeling are of supreme indifference to me. [I hate being lied to.]
-Polaris
|
|
| |
|
|
|
booje
|
|
Los Angeles (Los Feliz)
Dec 2002
time: 05:26
|
|
I ran that experiment of hitting next turn until. like turn 200, when I just got bored and went onto something else.
Out of mild curiosity, I loaded up ALPHA CENTAURI, nearly automated everything and did the same thing of hitting next turn. It is actually very fun to watch a game of Alpha Centauri unfold this way! Hey, the code stands for itself when almost five years later you can load a game and still have fun playing it. Will anybody be loading up MOO3 five years from now? Time will tell.
I think the article is good in that it finally puts together the picture of what happened. It easily clear to me that everyone involved with MOO3 had the very best of intentions to put out a product which stood head and shoulders above everything. I too would've put full faith behind Alan Emrich and the dev team at QS. But in the end, it came to be a train wreck. Sid, where are you when we need you?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
booje
|
|
Los Angeles (Los Feliz)
Dec 2002
time: 05:26
|
|
I (the "AI") was mostly kicking ass, building troops, building things (depending on how the governor was set to build), invading, getting invaded, lauching strategic campaigns, conquering cities, discovering new territories, basically all kinds of cool things.
I had it set to the easiest level so I'd expect as much.
The MOO3 version of tedious with a whole lot of nothing going on. Some empire declaring war, then not, then again, then not, over and over. I was "discovering" all kinds of research thingys but I couldn't tell the difference between them. Basically, pointless and boring.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
kalbear
|
|
Ian -
what do you see as fundamentally flawed parts that are not changeable by the community directly, and would be hard to do otherwise? Right now, the only one I see that isn't instantly changeable is right-clicking for info, which requires mouseevent handlers and whatnot. Diplo options could be fleshed out as well, but I think sending more useful messages (like including a list of 'why' a threat was sent) The AI aggressiveness, the ratios of ship types, diplomacy messages, tech descriptions, encyclopedia entries, graphics themselves all appear to be highly customizable, and that's just in the last week.
So I'm not challenging you, I'm trying to politely ask - what is it that you see is a developer-only change?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
booje
|
|
Los Angeles (Los Feliz)
Dec 2002
time: 05:26
|
|
Replacing the original IFP system AND making it a playable game. Maybe this was an experiment go awry which Infrogrames realized at some point and let Alan Emrich go?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ray K
|
|
Allen, TX
Nov 1999
time: 23:26
|
|
It was certainly an interesting article, but the obvious point needs to be stated...
A game that manages your colonies and your fleets for you can be fun if done properly, but it is certainly not a Master of Orion game.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
NHB
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Hydro
It may be personal preference, but from what I have heard I am absolutely delighted that IFPs bit the dust. All the complaints about the game may be right but I know one thing: I would have hated the game and not even considered buying it if it had IFPs. ..... There are times, particularly in the early game, where I want to be a micromanager – sating a vile compulsion, if you will. With IFPs or RT you can’t focus on anything – it is literally shoot and scoot, a veritable click fest. No thanks. |
While I can understand the desire to micromanage, I fail to see why you would think IFP reduced your ability to micromanage.
Yes, it reduces what you can do to and with your empire. So does Production Points, Reseach Points, Income and what have you. IFPs would be just another resource to manage. This could be both good and bad. I personally like the idea - However I don't need the 'Role-Playing AI' to like it (Though it might be neat). Being unable to adjust ship production due to lack of IFP's would be no more mysterious or unacceptable than being unable to buy ship production due to lack of money.
But hey - I can just code my own game if I want it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Spectrex
|
|
Arlington, VA, USA
Nov 2000
time: 05:26
|
|
That article didn't make any sense. Would someone be so kind as to explain to me how IFPs somehow make the poor AI more bearable?
As someone else stated, I probably wouldn't have bought MOO3 if IFPs had stayed in. With so many people complaining that the game plays itself even now, imagine what it would be like if that was actually the case. IFPs would make it worse, not better.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Xelvonar
|
|
Reading the article about IFP, I remember what made me so excited about MOO3 in the first place, and clarifies, for me, why the game is so vaguely disappointing.
Let me make this clear: I am a strategy gamer. I love big, complex games and simulations, both board and computer. And I love the idea of IFPs. It sounds like the original idea was to design a galactic empire simulator, rather than simply a game. It was the intent, apparently, to make you really feel like you were the emperor of a huge, sprawling interplanetary empire---an empire so large that it would be impossible to control every aspect of its governance. And not impossible because clicking every planet and doing everything would drive you nuts, but rather because you are limited by design.
I can understand why this could be hard to design and make playable. Maybe that's what they were initially aiming for. But I think it sounds like a lot of fun.
Think of the different ways the IFP ideas could be implemented and integrated into the game, based on your choice of race/government. Monarchy and Despotism could be designed as inefficient at generating large scale wealth and welfare, but IFPs could be plentiful---the centralized authority makes bullying your underlings easy. Democracy could be the reverse. And how would a Hive mind be implemented?
True, such a game would not be for everybody, and it would be very different from MOO2. But I think it would be fascinating, and better than the mish-mash "design" that we got.
-Xelvonar
|
|
| |
|
|
|
pg
|
|
i just wanted to say ifp's can work(that is if i understand them correctly) since it seems many here feel the whole concept of ifp's is flawed. romance of 3 kingdom games use an ifp like system which reduces micromanagement and focuses the game more.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
NHB
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Xelvonar
Think of the different ways the IFP ideas could be implemented and integrated into the game, based on your choice of race/government. Monarchy and Despotism could be designed as inefficient at generating large scale wealth and welfare, but IFPs could be plentiful---the centralized authority makes bullying your underlings easy. Democracy could be the reverse. And how would a Hive mind be implemented?
-Xelvonar |
An obvoius way to use IFPs would also be to price things differently according to government etc. So in democracies it might cost few IFPs to alliviate unrest etc. while despotism would have an easy time controlling their military, and hives would have cheap control over their production. Reversely depotims might have a hard time fighting corruption, and hiveminds would be hard pressed to affect their research.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
NHB
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Spectrex
That article didn't make any sense. Would someone be so kind as to explain to me how IFPs somehow make the poor AI more bearable?
|
The article didn't claim that IFPs would make a poor AI more bearable - Indeed it stated that for IFPs to work the AI would have to be quite good - at least at roleplaying.
Of course it also depends on what you mean by poor AI. If you are talking about the opponent empires AI, then this would have little relation to IFPs. If you are talking about the viceroy AI, then in an IFP system the 'misbehaviour' of the viceroy AI could technically be excused by saying that the viceroy is following its own agenda, and you have to use you imperial clout (Represented by IFPs) to bring him in line.
Yes, this would mean that your governor is in a sense also your opponent, and some may not like that. But then unrest - which I don't hear many complaints about - essentially says tahtyour own population is your 'enemy'.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CharlesBHoff
|
|
el paso texas
May 2002
time: 05:26
|
|
There is two main type of scienceist research basic and apply research. They are both equally inportance to sciecist advancement of any type. Basic research is pure science where than person or persons is doing research in what interest him or her the most. Apply research has than specif goal and focus on the work. There are except and suprise discovers.
Than explame: Than scienceist was playing around with electons in a glass that have than metal wire surround by than vaccuun. There was than screen in the way of the beam which was treated with certain chemicals which glow when hit by than electon beam. The scienceist put his hand by chance in the way of electron beam, he notice and decide
to look at the screem anyway exception to see no glow as his hand is blocking the beam. To his surpise he was the bones in his hand on the screem, He move his finguer and the image of his bone move on the screem move. This is than example of pure research with than suprise distoryer.
The first X-ray machine where not very perfect machine
they needed to be make better and more efficient. Scienceist and engineer set out to study the X-ray effect and ways to improve it over time. This is example of ongoing apply research to improve something.
You need both type of research to advance in technology.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:26.
Apolyton Time is 00:26. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
04-03-2003 22:17
|