Frogboy Frogboy

MOO3 problems

MOO3 problems

Posted by Grifman on Usenet:

Looks like the latest version of our space conquest series may be in
trouble. As previously announced, the game has been delayed another
quarter and this was posted on the official forum boards this week:

>It's here at long last. We have all of the major pieces assembled, and we're playing through the game. Our focus has turned from designing the game to fine-tuning what we have and making sure we have a polished, smooth end-user experience. As we've always done, I'd like to share with everyone the philosophy behind what we're doing and what you're likely to see in the game as a result.
>We've been working closely with the folks at Infogrames to play the game and evaluate what's working and what's not. The good news is that we all agree on our evaluations. We've independently come to the conclusion that there's just too much going on at the start of the game and that we need to streamline the play experience. The better news is that we also have a pretty clear idea of how we're going to achieve that, and it's not too difficult to do. I'll give just a brief summary now, with the intent of bringing out more detailed information once we've had another week or so to fine-tune these plans.

>For starters, we realized that we've been designing a game that's really cool and deep at advanced levels of play. We've created AI-based helpers to build your ships, move your fleets, fight your battles, and manage your planets. That's incredibly helpful in a big game and addresses one of the biggest concerns that advanced players have mentioned about MOO2 and other similar games. But we've now come to the conclusion that we've actually done _too much_ for the players, and that the resulting lack of things to do is causing folks to feel a certain lack of control or lack of immersion during the early turns of the game. Fortunately, there are easy ways to deal with this that don't involve significant changes to the game design.

>Secondly, we've also found that a few of the cool-sounding elements of the design worked better on paper than they do in code. That happens sometimes. We've designed some really interesting systems that proved either hard to understand or hard to present effectively to the user. Those are being simplified or removed. These are not core systems, but rather elements of the game that are not absolutely critical to play. You still have ships, fleets, task forces, star lanes, lots of planets, diplomacy, and so on. For the most part, you won't even realize they're not in the game.

>Finally, we want to streamline the user interface. There's so much on the main screen that people are getting scared the first time they open up the game. That's not what we intended, and it doesn't have to be that way. We realized that the wonderful "everything at your fingertips" design was overly broad and showed too much at once, so we're moving some elements around, putting others in more logical places, and generally reducing the number of individual buttons on the main screen. You'll see mockups of a much more elegant screen design as soon as we can settle on the layout. Short version of the story is that we've been able to keep the breadth of control without overwhelming you with buttons.

>Rantz and Cory are very busy at the moment, working on the UI issues and making sure the programmers have a clear idea of where we're headed. Over the next few weeks, we'll be happy to answer questions and explain the latest refinements in more detail. Rest assured, though, that the core of the game hasn't changed. We're editing and refining what we have and making sure it's going to provide the best possible end-user experience. We all want the best game possible, and I'm very pleased that Infogrames wants that as well and is willing to extend our delivery date in order to make sure that happens. We all believe very much in the game and look forward to sharing it with you as soon as we can. Thanks again for your support and enthusiasm.


>Bill Fisher, Executive Producer


In addition, the word is that money from Infogrammes has run out due
to delays beyond contracted development dates, and the game is now
being completed on Quicksilver's dime - never a good situation since
the inclination will be to cut losses and run. At least one member of
the team has been laid off, and others are expected. So are features
being cut due to bloatedness or lack of money? Either I think means
some serious potential problems with the game.

Then again, maybe the tighter focus mentioned above will help. It was
also noted that the game had 178(!!!) UI screens, which seems totally
insane. Though I love the series, this just confirms my initial
impressions that the original game design was too bloated and promised
far too much. I loved MOO which was simpler than MOO2, so maybe the
feature cuts will help in the long run.

The real question now is can QS retool the game in the time remaining?
It seems like there is alot to do in the time remaining, including
developing an AI that works with the reduced feature set. I am
hopeful, but I'll definitely wait for the reviews for purchasing.

Grifman
1,174 views 56 replies
Reply #26 Top
I am not disagree with anything you guys are saying. ;)
Reply #27 Top
Well, after seeing c.s.i.p.g.strategic for a while, the MOO3 forum starts looking a lot tamer. (g)

Anyhow, I figure I'm a lot more free to look around and talk now that I'm no longer "the competition", and I like what I'm seeing of GalCiv.
Reply #28 Top
Ditto on that Hound. So far this game looks to be very promising, even if it's not as "flashy" as MOO3. It probably won't exactly have the space combat I would like to see; but it does look to have excellent diplomacy and AI, which will more than make up for that IMHO. I'm simply amazed at all the work Brad & Co. are putting into this game.
Reply #29 Top
That's okay...space combat is probably the least interesting part of these games for me, anyhow. I like the diplomacy, the politics, the tech research, the economics...guess I'll never make much of a warlord. ;)
Reply #30 Top
That's funny, I would've said that *micromanagement* is the least interesting part, but to each his own.... ;p

Seriously, though, combat isn't that big a deal to me either, although for myself I'd probably rank it as a higher priority than economics (not that any of these aspects you mentioned are NOT important in this type of strategy game). I daresay that if *I* were designing my own space civ game (not that I could do so to save my life!) I would probably put diplomacy as being the highest priority, followed by politics, then combat tied with research, then intel, and economics last--I can always live with a simplistic econ system.

And I can definitely say I'm not the warlord type--unless another nation "angers" me, i.e. takes or destroys one of my star systems--THEN I'll get mad and make them sorry they were ever foolhardy enough to declare war on me. Otherwise I play nice with everyone--of course, at least half the galaxy will have declared war on me and the other half is my friend, so me and my allies usually have to conquer the galaxy anyway. :)
Reply #31 Top
That's pretty much my play style too, which is why I rank space combat so far down the scale. It's there for when I can't resolve problems by any other means (any other means that's favorable to me, that is ;) ).
Reply #32 Top
I wish the world would follow that philosophy.
Reply #33 Top
For me, I'm a gamer first. Masters of Orion 3 being a success is important to me. As some people know, I played MOO2 (I know when MOO 2 game out - October 1996 for this very reason) in teh delivery room on my laptop during the birth of my first child. (I kid you not).

My favorite part of MOO is the space combat. I really like building and designing the ships and then seeing them battle it out.

But I wouldn't like to develop that type of game. I.e. I like to play that type of game but for development, AI is what it's all about. I want the aliens to seem intelligent and I want a game that really makes the human player the star of the game.

Let me give you an example from something I'm working on now:

Technologies can give you, as a civilization, abilities. One ability is diplomatic ability. Now, MOO2 and other games have diplomacy attributes that have a very specific result - ability to bargain easier in diplomacy.

But in GalCiv, I really want it to go much further than that, be much more subtle. As your ability rating in diplomacy goes up, the way the AI talks to you and the choices you have in dealing with them change as well as the types of deals you can get. And I like the idea of having so many technologies that you have to make some tough choices -- i.e. going down the path of developing a mega diplomatic ability to smooze the AI players.

Only in a single player gamd where you're "forced" to choose humans can you have that kind of flexibility in the dialog.

I was always a big fan of the Infocom games and I think much of their success was because the games felt organic, you could say "slide the keyboard through the slot, floyd." Was it necessary? No. They could have just had it understand "slide card" or some other two word combo. Similarly, in the dipolomacy screen (and what you see so far is the result of only a day's work) it's really not necessary to have the game show you what you are saying. You could just have it list the things you're going to trade and be done with it. But having it parse what you're going to trade into English (or your native language) makes the game feel less spread-sheet and more organic.


When I played the OS/2 version, I actually didn't get into wars that much. I got the AI playrs to fight my wars for me. Gave them money, ships, technologies to deal with the messy business of war fighting while I destabilized enemy governments so that they'd break down into revolution and chaos where I'd just come in with my small but state of the art fleets and mop up.

That's not how most people play probably but that's the point, giving people as many ways to play as possible while makign the whole game feel personal and organic.
Reply #34 Top
Hound, I don't think I could have put it any better than you have! Your statement reminds me of a saying from Isaac Asimov's Foundation series: "Violence is the last resort of the incompetent." Not that *we're* incompetent, of course, but the AI players clearly are. :)

"I wish the world would follow that philosophy."

Indeed; if only that were so. Unfortunately, as the saying goes, "If wishes were horses, we'd all ride." Still, I personally think we could still make it. Call me a hopeless optimist if you will!

"...but that's the point, giving people as many ways to play as possible while making the whole game feel personal and organic."

As if the other races acted truly alive, so to speak, yes? If that's what you're getting at, then I completely agree. One thing I've always felt that's been missing from these games was a true sense of...interaction, for lack of a better term. It's hard to immerse yourself and suspend disbelief when your opponents behave so "robotically", and don't seem to change or grow one iota the entire game.

Brad, if you really do pull off what you're talking about here, I'll be snapping up a copy of GalCiv faster than you can say "organic AI"! :CONGRAT: What a truly marvelous breakthrough that would be....
Reply #35 Top
Howdy Hound. Nice to see you are still around and hope things are looking up for you.

Its hard to judge what is happening with MOO3 at this stage. I still visit the boards there every once in a while but the dearth of information coming out of QS makes me quite uneasy.

My favorite games are empire building strategy game with turn based having the edge over RTS. However, with my turn based I expected them to be a micromanagement dream come true. The proposed IFP system for MOO3 gave me the willies. I think the answer for micromanagement is to provide better tools for the player to make changes or have customizable build/colony templates rather then penalizing the player that wants to be involved with running their empire.

I did think that combat got a 'wee' bit over even my limits for micromanagement and look forward to seeing how the RTS aspect of space combat works in MOO3.

I look forward to GalCiv as much as I look forward to MOO3. They each bring a different emphasis or playing style to the strategy market, just as Stars! and Space Empires also provide a different twist.
Reply #36 Top
I think MOO3 will be a good game. I wonder how much like MOO2 it will be. It sounds like a much more in depth game than MOO2 was.

What I liked about MOO2 is that it was like cockfighting with space ships. ;) I didn't really get into the micro management part of it. Though I really don't like micro management in general. I would rather have UI designs that give me the option to do lots of things at once and that the game doesn't rest of mastering micromanagement.
Reply #37 Top
Brad, I don't think there's hardly *anyone* who cared for the micromanagement in that game (or any other). :) True, I know there are some players out there who really dig that sort of thing; but I'm quite certain you and myself are in the majority in wishing that *that* aspect of empire-building games could at least be ameliorated, if not eliminated entirely. That's why I'm glad MOO3 is going to have numerous macro-management tools, especially for the mid to late game. (If you want to know what they are, I can sort of explain 'em, but Stormhound would do a much better job of that I'm sure!)

In a maximum-sized galaxy of average density (256 star systems with 5120 colonizable bodies), and with the maximum possible 32 empires in play at once, each empire in the late game could still have over 150 worlds under its control--and even more than that if there are fewer empires in the game by that time (which I would guess to be highly likely). From what I've gathered it'll be entirely possible that a very large empire in MOO3 could have over 1000 colonies (planets, moons, and asteroids groups), and that would still be *way* less than half the game map! This is a scale unprecedented in space empire games, at least as far as I'm aware of. If there was ever a game that was begging for macro-tools, it's MOO3.

But I digress. As long I'm still sort of on the subject, are you guys doing anything to help deal with micromanagenet problems in GalCiv? Or do you not see this being as much of an issue? I admit I don't really have much concept of how "big" the galaxy in GalCiv will be. How many star systems? How many colonizable planets? Also, what will the scale of naval operations be? Because frankly, micromanaging your ships around your territory isn't always much fun either. Not that I don't want to see huge fleets in the game (that's a big part of the fun IMO, even if it's not primarily a wargame), but there's not much point to having them if deploying your naval forces is as about as much fun as getting a vaccination shot; although I love the game, BotF is an excellent example of what I'm talking about!
Reply #38 Top
We handle micro management through user interface, not AI. AI is my specialty but I can't imagine having an AI making decisions for the player.

I'd rather focus on having the game provide user interfaces that allow players to quickly manage groups of colonies and such.

Imagine it in RTS terms: Good RTS's let you group units together and control them. Early on in the game you may control individual units. But as time goes on, you begin to group units together into formations and deal with them as groups more (and only go to an individual unit when really necessary).

The same can be true of turn based strategy games. Let players deal with planets and stars and such as groups rather than individuals when they want.
Reply #39 Top
The screenshots I saw at gamespot were a real turn off. They had place holder text in! How can they say they're almost done when their technologies still have place holders?

Makes the game feel like it has no soul. Even the alpha of GalCiv has a fleshed out tech tree with descriptions.
Reply #40 Top
They could be saving it for the final release version?
Reply #41 Top
If you haven't noticed, many of the descriptions in the Galciv Alpha are from the OS/2 version. The most
prominent example I saw was the one for Spacial Rifts. There are a few others that refer to Earth as in another
galacy as well. Since the storyline in this version of GalCiv is that the game is within the Milky Way galacy,
it is obvious that the plan is to change the wording sometime soon.

Cheers,
Jack

Reply #42 Top
I have to admit I am not that happy with the space battles, I was hoping the combat was more like homeworld or something.

www.gamespot.com/gamespot/stories/screens/0,10865,2864668,00.html?page=4
Reply #43 Top
Althought it may look great it action, who knows..
Reply #44 Top
I've got the aplha build and the shipbattles are cool but with 500+ ships on a screen your not going to get homeworld. ;p
Reply #45 Top
Well that's good to hear!!
Reply #46 Top
The some of the tech messages in the alpha were from the OS/2 version, but these are only place holders until we finalize the tech tree.

The tech tree in GalCiv will be greatly expanded from the OS/2 version so we couldn't just use the old text, even it we want to.

Although we will keep some old gems we found such as Tech #88:
"A recent discovery was made on a small asteroid floating in Sector 1,2. The asteroid contained a message that required the use of our most advanced computer systems to decipher. The message itself remains confidential, but the origin of the contents appears to be from a Galactic Creator or a race of Creators. Many have hinted that this entire universe was created by a super race with extremely advanced technologies. A race... such as ours."

I love that one!
Reply #47 Top
Sounds cool. I wonder just what the message was....

In terms of MOO, there have been a bunch of new screen shots just released. I saw them on appolyton.net (or is it .com???) in the MOO3 forums there.
Reply #48 Top
A note of caution on those screenshots... We were just told on the forum today that some of them are already out of date, and that others aren't actually in use for the game, but are only used as "guides" for the UI programmers. And of course, most of the text and pictures are still placeholder art. I thought I'd point that out before anyone wonders why some of them might look a bit strange.
Reply #49 Top
WHAT!! YOU MEAN THERE MOCKUPS!!!!!! You have to be kidding me.. The game is going to be out this summer and they have yet to even code the ship battles..

Reply #50 Top
I think Martok is refering to the newly deigned User Interface that the MOO3 team has to put into the game. From other posts, it seems the ship battles are In-Game..at least I hope so. Those poor guys already have enough pressure on them to change the usability of the screens, let alone implement ship battles this late in the development process. (:(