Jump to content


Nitpicks and Suggestions

Nitpicks Suggestions Feedback Uber Biomes Ship Design Combat Tweaks Food Production

  • Please log in to reply
14 replies to this topic

Razmoudah #1 Posted 03 May 2016 - 05:21 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Players
  • 13
  • Member since:
    04-16-2016

Err......this is a Copy and Paste of the topic I created in the other Master of Orion Feedback & Suggestions board, the one that links from the support page but apparently isn't findable from within the forum for some inane reason (explains why the thread was so empty though).

 

 

Quote

This is just going to be a copy and paste of the Steam Discussion of the same title I made.  I'm putting it here now since when I was submitting my crash reports this was listed as the suggested location to place it.

 

 

Quote

Okay, I'm being lazy and just startng a new Discussion for this, instead of trying to find a half dozen relevant discussions, so please bear with me.

I'm going to start with my Suggestions, as they cover most of my Nitpicks.

Suggestion 1: Special traits for Uber Biomes. This Suggestion has two core parts to it. A special trait added to each Uber Biome that affects every world with that Biome and a Racial Trait that is linked to an Uber Biome Homeworld. Each of those two parts is then sub-divided for each of the Uber Biome types.

Suggestion 1-A: Jungle World enhancements: Okay, for the Jungle World how about adding an inate food production to the world? Essentially this is a world with massively prevalent life on it, such that you could support a modest population without even needing to actively produce food. With how the Colony Stats work I'd say a simple +2 or +3 would be plenty. Yes, it would also speed up early population growth, but that makes sense when food is ready available.

Now for the Racial Trait, how about a +1 health to Marines? Yes, I know that in MoO2 this was linked to the High-G Homeworld trait, but honestly it never quite made sense to me. I can far more easily see a High-G Race as having a ground combat bonus, not a marine health bonus. Then again I can see a Marine Combat Bonus being the linked Racial Trait instead because of the greater degree of physical ability needed to get through combat traning in the vast jungles.

Suggestion 1-B: Cavern World enhancements: This one is a bit more straight forward. I think it would be perfectly fine to add a Ground Combat Defense bonus to these worlds. It perfectly fits in with the roughly equivalent bonus from MoO2, and it makes sense. If you don't like that then how about a Bombardment Protection bonus, making it harder to take out Population, Ground Forces, and Buildings with Bombardment (Note; Bio-Weapons wouldn't be affected) and possibly even cause it to gaurantee that once the Population, Ground Forces, and Buildings fall below a specific value (based on Planet Size) they can no longer be hit forcing you to send in troops. Heck, if you go with the +3 food for Jungle Worlds I'd say it is practical to have a bonus to both.

And for the Racial Trait, why a simple population cap bonus that is linked to Planet Size. This still falls nicely in line with the MoO2 bonuses.

Suggestion 1-C: Inferno World enhancements: This one is the easiest of them all. Inferno Worlds should have a bonus to Production, something like a +2 or +3 as a mirror of the Jungle World's food bonus. If you want to know why, how many metals and alloys can be made with temps as low, or lower than, the average temp of magma? Why, nearly everything real world science and industry can currently make. So not neading special equipment for heating metals for production should obviously give a natural boon to production, but I'm avoiding per-population bonuses right now for a reason.

The linked Racial Trait is just plain Tolerance. That trait is missing at present, and the only race that had it by default was the Silicoid, who you have given the Inferno bonuses to. Also, lets face it, if your race evolved on an Inferno world what kind of environment out there would be a hazard to you? Maybe Toxic, but even that requires a bit of a stretch and still doesn't make sense for Lithovores. Radiated? Doubtful, the evelotionary changes needed to survive on an Inferno world would most likely render your race immune, or nearly immune, to any forms of radiation you'd encounter on a Radiated world. Also, Tolerance enabled a race to ignore the affects of Pollution, which would have an even bigger impact in this MoO than it had in MoO2.

Suggestion 1-D: Grassland World enhancements: Okay, this one took me a bit to figure out, because the only bonus left at first glance is Research, but that just doesn't make sense. Then I realized that a Grassland World would have lots of open space, enough to give everyone lots of room. Yes, arguably this also applies to Cavern Worlds, but unless you evolved to enjoy being in Caverns they might not be a comfortable fit. Because of this I realized that there was another unused bonus that could work just fine, Population Growth. I'm not really sure how much of a modifier would be needed for it to balance well with the other Uber Biomes, but it wouldn't provide as much of a boost at low population as the food bonus does for Jungle Worlds, but provide more at high population, while still requiring you to produce enough food for everyone.

The linked Racial Trait was easier to come up with, even if it was harder to 'justify'. Either a per colony increase to Command Points or a percentage increase to Command Points. The Mrrshan had the Warlord trait in MoO2, which gave them +2 Command Points per colony. I can honestly say I've been missing this bonus when trying to place 'basic' Mrrshan in the new MoO, and really this makes a good way to introduce it without it being too overpowering.

Suggestion 1-Conclusion: Now, I realize that although the bonuses from the Uber Biomes themselves are fairly balanced the linked racial traits from the Uber Biome Homeworlds aren't, so either they'll need to be tweaked to be evenly balanced, which would mostly mean greater bonuses/additional bonuses for the weak ones, to balance against Tolerance better because it just doesn't make sense for the Silicoid to not have that trait in some manner and you haven't included it. It wouldn't take a lot of tweaking, as you have to have the No Food trait for population growth to utilize the Inferno Homeworld (your equivalent to the Lithovore trait from MoO2), so it limits the other picks you can take rather harshly, but I can still see some tweaking being needed. Of course, if this means the Uber Biome Homeworld traits become more expensive then just add in the missing Repulsive trait, which is a negative trait, and give it to the Silicoid to balance it out. You have all of the positive Diplomatic traits, but you've dropped the only negative, even though it was a necessary gameplay balancing feature for the race.

Suggestion 2: Uber Biome Upgrades: Okay, I'll admit that I haven't taken a close enough look at the tech tree to see if there is an already existant Uber Biome Upgrade, but since with the latest update you can Terraform them without having acquired Gaia Transfomration I'm betting that there isn't, and for Inferno's in particular it doesn't make sense that the 'upgrade' would be to become a Gaia world. The other three are fairly balanced against Terran, and I can understand a race that has any of them as a homeworld seeing a Gaia as wonderful, but not a race that calls an Inferno its homeworld. So, how about a 'Second Tier' version of the Uber Biomes that gets unlocked a tech tier or two before the Gaia Transformation? Yes, I realize that the Uber Biomes are actually Fourth Tier biomes, going by your little bars in the world descriptions, but I think everyone understands wha I mean.

Suggestion 2-A: From Jungle to Star Trees: Okay, first let me start out by saying that when I'm picturing a Jungle world I'm think of something more like the Forest Moon of Endor, so this leaves the room for an upgrade to look more like Kasheek. Also, if anyone doesn't get either of those references use Google, and prepare to have everyone here who does get them to kick you out of the Nerds and Geeks Club. Also, for the additonal affects of the Transformation, how about a further base food bonus, such as a +4 or +5, and/or a food per farmer bonus? It reflects the massive availability of food on the world, which would be needed to compete against a Gaia, especially as this is a heavily restricted world type to have (I've seen games in MoO2 end before anyone had researched Gaia Transformation, so I don't find it that inappropriate).

Suggestion 2-B: From Cavern to Hollow: This is a very straight forward enhancement. It is just a further increase to the Population Cap, Bombardment Protection, and Defensive Combat Bonus. Not much more to say here.

Suggestion 2-C: From Inferno to Hell: Okay, you might want to come up with a different name for the Ultra Biome Transformation on this one. It's just a further boost to the base production bonus, with a per worker bonus. Just the production mirror of what the Sky Jungle has, and mostly for the same reasons.

Suggestion 2-D: From Grassland to Floating Lands: Now, first you probably want a nice scientific explanation, right? Well have one, by tweaking and altering the magnetic fields of the planet you are able to create areas where landmasses with heavy concentrations of certain magnetic metals/alloys will naturally float in the sky. This further increases available open space to further increase the Population Growth bonus, as well as creating isolated areas to give a Research bonus (only a +1 or +2 with a small per colonist bonus).

Suggestion 2-Conclusion: Basically this is just an extra technology that is linked to having the Uber Biome tech that helps the Uber Biomes to compete against Gaias in the late game when you are close to having or have Gaia Transformation.

Suggestion 3: Government Types: Okay, this is something that was introduced in MoO2, and became a much bigger thing in MoO3 (as well as getting brought into Galactic Civilizations, this one has really brought home the similarities between the two series). I really feel that it could help to have the Government Type pick brought back. This pick set, where you had to have one of them, had a very pronounced affect on how a particular race played, and what strategies worked for it. You have decreased ship costs as a stand-alone pick, but this is where it was originally sequestered. Not saying I'd get rid of the pick you do have, instead allow it to be paired (so I don't have to go Feudal to play a Hyper Expansion race, actually it'd be nice to be able to do that). As well as keep your current morale picks, as that could help counter the downsides to going with Feudal and Dictatorship as well.


Now it's time for the remaining Nitpicks.

Nitpick 1: Creative and Uncreative: Yes, the research system of the new MoO isn't as conducive to how those picks originally worked, as there are very few choice spots in the tech tree.

Nitpick 1-A: Uncreative Suggestions: There are two ways to go about the Uncreative pick. The first way is that all of the choice techs get a randomized choice. This is a somewhat underwhelming negative pick like this, but it would represent the Uncreative pick. The second method is to have the research fields hidden, with just the time to research shown, or maybe just one option for each research cost value currently available and the actual field researched gets chosen at random, with a random pick on the fields where you don't get all of the items. For people like me who tend to get all of the techs at a particular tier before going to the next this isn't a huge problem, but it could be a bit disruptve if you get something like a new-ship hull and not a production, food, or research bonus structure that you definitely to arguably need.

Nitpick 1-B: Creative Suggestions: Now for the possibilities with Creative. You could just have Creative always give you all of the tech options when you have to choose, but those choices are so few it's barely making a difference at times (although there are a few where it'd make a notable difference). The other way is that if you follow up with a tech along the same line, or at the same research tier, you get a reduction to the total amount of RPs needed to research the tech, with the greater bonus being from staying in the same field. This would cause a continuous, flowing bonus, and if paired with getting all of the options when having to choose it'll make it a more meaningful pick, although it would have to be a carefully managed bonus or it could be overpowered, or else need a rather high cost.

Nitpick 1-Conclusion: Really, this Nitpick is mostly ignorable. It makes the racial traits of the Psilon and Klackon more meaningful, but with how the game currently works this isn't a major issue.

Nitpick 2: Special Slots in Ship Design: This one is a hybrid Nitpick/Suggestion (really, I try not to nitpick about something until I have a suggestion for fixing it, so this isn't unusual for me). What I'm Nitpicking about here is how few Special Slots there are on some ships. I understand part of the reasoning for the restriction, as it really isn't practical for a Frigate to have more than 2 Specials. Actually, it is hard to justify even that many at times, until you have Battle Pods, and then they eat up one slot on their own. So, what I'd like is for either the Battle Pods to be a checkable option on the ship design, but don't require a Special Slot, or for the number of Special Slots to increase every Hull Size above Frigate. So a Destroyer would have 3, the Cruiser would keep its current 4, the Battleship would get 5, the Titan would have 6, and the Doom Star would have 7. Yes, it is a bit hard to justify some of those counts on the larger ships, but at the same time those are the ships that can really make a large number of Specials work well without severely limiting their combat effectiveness.

Nitpick 3: MoO2 Innates as Specials?: This refers mainly to the Dauntless Guidance System, which in MoO2 was actually a modification to the guidance systems of Missiles and Torpedoes, not a Special, that was automatically included once researched without altering the space or production costs of the systems. This also applies some to the Automated Repair System, but that is more because I haven't seen an Advanced Automated Repair System that gets automatically included on all ships and automatically fully repairs them between Strategic Turns. Maybe have it so that once the system is gained in research your ships do a partial auto-repair every turn if they are not at a colony, that is added to the repair rate of a Military Outpost.

Nitpick 4: No Speical Weapons category: You have this wonderful drop-down menu when designing ships, and for the weapons you have a Weapons Systems category that is all weapons or more precise Energy Cannons, Energy Beams, Missiles, or Torpedoes. The problem is that when creating a custom desgin using a Bomb, Bio-Weapon (which should be paired with Bombs), Bay (Fighter, Bomber, Heavy Fighter), or Anti-Missile Rockets they are only listed under All Systems or Weapons Systems, you don't have a precise category for them. Once you get enough weapons researched (or traded for) this becomes a rather cumbersome system to use, and it would be helpful to have at least a Special Weapons category, and maybe a Bombs category as well, like MoO2 had to get to them more easily. Mind you, MoO2 combined the Energy Cannons and Energy Beams into a single Beams category, likewise the Missiles and Torpedoes were combined into a single Missiles category, with a Bomb category for anything that was specifically an anti-colony weapon and a Special category for anything that was mounted as a weapon (meaning it could have multiples) and didn't fit in the other areas. This MoO could definitely benefit from those being added.


Whew, that covers all of my Nitpicks and Suggestions that I have regarding the current build of the new MoO, so now to see how badly I get flamed for being lazy and starting a new discussion and to see if any of it ever gets implemented. Also, back to playing the game, as I do feel that with some more tweaking it could manage to properly catch the spirit of MoO2 while still being something new and distinct in its own right (and it really isn't that far off at present, unlike earlier builds which felt more like a MoO skin to some of the newer 4X titles that didn't play or feel like MoO).

 

 

 

 

Okay, that covers the original Steam Discussion post.  Now for the new Nitpicks I've got (since I had a game play long enough to come across these problem).

 

New Nitpick 1: Production and Food Values:  I've noticed that the production costs of structures in the new MoO are based off of what they were in MoO2, although many maintenance costs are higher, but we're working with only a fraction of the production values that you could achieve in MoO2.  At first this didn't seem like that major of a balance issue, but in the later game, when you're trying to actively max out population on a Large/Huge Terran/Gaia World this does start to become a problem, especially since the population growth system seems to be the same as the one used for Endless Space, rather than the one used in MoO2 (then again, the Freighter Fleets are missing so you can't send excess food to a colony that can't produce food to keep it from starving to death).  This essentially forces you to pick between population growth or production on worlds with higher population limits instead of having just enough farmers to keep everyone fed (I can see a surplus of food accelerating population growth, just not being the sole factor) and even if you pick population it takes an inordinate number of turns to get things built at colonies relative to how MoO2 played.  Really, there are two things I'm nitpicking on here, and the only suggestion I have is to strive to return to a system more similar to what MoO2 used.

 

New Nitpick 2: Lack of Morale Bonus:  This one is a bit more significant to me.  You have a hard cap on the Morale, of 100%.  Now, with how the Morale system of the new MoO works I guess it makes some sense, but it is a rather strange departure from what I'm familiar with.  MoO2, Endless Space, and Galactic Civilizations II & III (not as familiar with I) all used the same basic morale system.  Essentially an 80% morale meant you only got 80% of the Production, Food, Research, or Income from the planet, but morale could go above 100% so a morale of 120% got you an extra 20% of those (Endless Space has a small quirk, where the Dust, its version of BC, gained wasn't affected, but the others all were, with other factors that impacted Morale, those other factors I will gladly do without).  Now, you did get more income from raising taxes than boosting morale, but then you just lowered morale and hurt the other three.  Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing a return to that system, as otherwise being able to give your colonies a plus 30% or greater morale from morale structures is meaningless unless you want to drive up your tax rate, and once you can Terraform and have a Colonial Revenue Service and Space Port on a colony you can frequently keep the income there positive without such methods.  The last game I was playing until the pre-/post-combat infinite loop bug (I have reported it in game) forced me to force quit the game I had an empire income of over 200 BC a turn at a tax rate of only 2BC a pop, with very few planets having a negative income obviously, and if I'd had a third morale boosting structure to build on planets it wouldn't have done me any good, as I save buyouts for the initial production structure of a colony or a ship(s) that I am in desperate need of at present, this lets me keep the taxes lower and morale higher, but that isn't how this MoO works, yet a high tax rate makes it harder to quickly develop new colonies, so the system in the new MoO ultimately penalizes you for developing more morale boosting structures than  just the Government Support Facility and the Holo Simulator.  Actually, if you do a custom race and either take the No Morale pick or a high Morale boost pick you can make them mostly to completely meaningless and easily create a race that easily over-dominates the others by being able to do frequent high-cost buyouts.  In fact I don't see how that would notably harm a race and could potentially be used to create an uber race that is unbalancedly powerful.

 

New Nitpick 3: Trade/Research Treaties:  Okay, this is more of a complaint on how they don't work remotely like how they did in MoO2 than anything else, but I do have a couple of points to bring up.  First, why is it that you don't seem to actually make any money on a Trade Treaty until it ends?  And for that matter why can't you select how long the treaty will last for instead of it having a fixed duration?  Second, why does the Research Treaty have such an insane cost?  In my last game I wanted to create a Research Treaty with my ally, and our combined savings wasn't enough to cover the cost of creating the treaty for just one of us, forget both.  Really, to me the system for these two treaties from MoO2 was far more practical, although I'd like to be able to see the expected duration of any treaty that isn't treated as indefinite when offering/being offered it and being able to change that duration.

 

 

Okay, that finally gets everything caught up again.

 

 

Correction, since I made that post I have come up with a couple more suggestions.

 

New Suggestion 1: Altered PD weapons:  Okay, I didn't think of this until arguing with some people elsewhere regarding the combat system used in new MoO.  I think what we need is for the PD weapons to work more like they do in Sword of the Stars since this is a RTWPS game and not a TBS game.  So, instead of the PD mod making a weapon super small and reducing damage it gives it a super fast rate of fire and reduces damage.  Heck, with this you could even through in an entire series of PD specific mods to act as counter points to the Continuous, Auto-Fire, Armor-Piercng, and Enveloping mods (yes, enveloping was only useful on a PD weapon in MoO2 if the enemy had Heavy Fighters, but once the enemy did it made a massive difference).  I guess we could make the PD mods be Rapid Tracking, Multi-Fire, Tight Focus/Flechette, Multi-Frequency/Detonating.  Rapid Tracking would be an accuracy mod, as the faster the turret can track the target the more easily it can adjust for variations in flight patterns.  Multi-Fire would cause each weapon mount to actually have three to five active barrels firing at a time, which would give potentially three to five times the damage and since each shot would be in a slightly different arc improve the overall odds of getting a hit, although it would lower the odds of getting multiple hits until the target is very close.  Tight Focus would be for the actual energy weapons, such as lasers, while Flechette would be for the ballistic weapons, such as mass drivers, but both would give an Armor-Piercing effect (or you could just leave the Armor-Piercing mod instead).  Multi-Frequency would be an energy weapon specific mod that would boost damage against shielded targets (obviously only really useful against Heavy Fighters) while Detonating would be a ballistic weapon specific mod that would cause rounds to detonate near the target to try and damage multiple targets, slightly reduced damage but nearly guaranteed hits.  The last one is a mixed bag thing, and could even just be added as an additional set of mods for normal weapons instead, although if you can come up with a reason to justify the Detonating trait on energy weapons than seeing that added to all 'Energy' Cannons wouldn't be a bad thing, with the PD version just being a smaller damage radius.

 

New Suggestion 2: Drone Cam for Cinematic Mode:  Okay, the missile cam can be fun, at times, but when a fight gets to the point that you don't really need to be giving any orders and it's just a drawn out slug fest it does get boring.  Instead, how about a Drone Cam, or maybe in addition to if you prefer, that rapidly moves around showing off the action and occasionally focuses on one ship when it is either receiving or giving out a greater amount of fire (say more than 30-50% of the weapons fire going on, depending on the size of the engagement).  Maybe even have multiple drones out there that it switches between.  This is mostly to help make the Cinematic Mode more entertaining, so it's more fluff than anything else.

 

New Suggestion 3: Combat Camera Follow:  Now, for the second most useful suggestion I've got here.  Being able to focus the camera on a particular ship in combat so that it auto-follows that ship.  Even better would be being able to do this for a fleet, but a single ship would be adequate for me.  This is one of the two most useful features of combat in Sword of the Stars that you are lacking here that I feel would be appropriate to implement.  Although this one doesn't have a big impact on the gameplay it can make a notable difference in the right circumstances, and the rest of the time it is completely ignorable.

 

 

Okay, this time I might actually have all of my nitpicks and suggestions caught up and made, I hope.



Razmoudah #2 Posted 03 May 2016 - 08:04 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Players
  • 13
  • Member since:
    04-16-2016

And I just had another Nitpick come to mind.

 

Firing Arc Selections:

 

Would it be possible to get the Forward Extend and Rear Extend options?  the Sides option wasn't in MoO2, instead you could have Forward, Forward Extend, Rear, Rear Extend, and 360 (what you have called Any).  I'd rather have Forward/Rear Extend mountings over Sides mountings, so that I don't have to try and balance between forward and side fire power (note: I do have a few dedicated forward weapons until I'm working with Titans and Doom Stars, but those are my Heavy Mounts) and instead can just drop a slug of weapons in there and they have access to both arc sets.  With the restriction on the number of weapon mountings you can have in new MoO this is a rather difficult thing to deal with, so I've been going heavy on Any mountings (even though they are the largest) for my non-Forward/Rear weapons, but it'd be nice to have Forward/Rear Extend as well for the lesser space consumption to get some more fire-power on my ships (not that they are necessarily lacking), especially since you don't need a lot of both Forward and Rear fire-power.


Edited by Razmoudah, 03 May 2016 - 08:06 PM.


Razmoudah #3 Posted 03 May 2016 - 09:02 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Players
  • 13
  • Member since:
    04-16-2016

And yet another one came to mind (seriously, expect this to not trickle off for a day or two, or I get sucked into playing a different game for a while).


All Techs Tradeable:

This one caught me rather by surprise in a recent game.  The only techs that can be traded are the ones that you have to choose between?  What the......?  This is the only 4X title I've ever played (and I've played most of them on Steam, and a few that weren't on Steam when I played them, it is so hard to find a good 4X fix after MoO2) where you could trade techs and couldn't trade any tech you wanted.  What if I am in an Alliance, and my ally is in a war that isn't going well for them, but I have a tech that could make a decisive difference while I get my fleets over to assist them?  In the new MoO if that tech is a standard tech I can't gift it to my ally to help them survive, and that just doesn't feel right to me.



ApolloArtemis #4 Posted 03 May 2016 - 10:51 PM

    Player Experience Specialist

  • Administrator
  • 598
  • Member since:
    01-28-2012
Going to take the time today to read all of your posts, but out of curiosity. Which support page took you to the wrong Feedback forum?

fourteenfour #5 Posted 04 May 2016 - 12:55 AM

    Rear Admiral

  • Players
  • 556
  • Member since:
    01-09-2016

https://na.wargaming.../articles/610  

 

that has a fun link :P

 

I bet other FAQ have bad links too.


Wargaming Labs, taking the money and running. Abandons MOO CTS after their contract development staff could not deliver without ever one word to players.

Razmoudah #6 Posted 04 May 2016 - 04:07 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Players
  • 13
  • Member since:
    04-16-2016

The FAQ page with the bad link is https://na.wargaming...kb/articles/610, which I think is the one the previous person posted.  The page that it links to that is a problem is http://forum.mastero...ck-suggestions/ and now there aren't any member created threads in that board, so apparently it gets cleaned out on a semi-regular basis.

 

I know it's an awful lot to go through there, but there were two reasons I got the new MoO.  The first is because MoO2 was included in the package deal and the second is to help make the new MoO be the best game it could be.  I'm not as much of a hardliner for the system of MoO2 as some are, but in most aspects I still consider it one of the best 4X titles I've ever played.  I don't expect new MoO to be just a graphically polished version of it, I expect a few changes and alterations to help bring it up to modern standards while still keeping the spirit of what made MoO2 great.  I just hope that the various things I've mentioned here help to achieve that.


Edited by Razmoudah, 04 May 2016 - 04:45 AM.


LeadfootSlim #7 Posted 04 May 2016 - 04:35 AM

    Commander

  • Players
  • 220
  • Member since:
    03-27-2016
Thorough feedback is awesome,  but bro... formatting.

I very much agree on Morale needing adjustment, and it's been a topic of personal interest.

One idea would be to make it like Pollution, leading to eventual Revolt if left unchecked- if it's not also spurred on by enemy spies, blockades, or other factors. Workers on strike could generate dissent/a stacking morale penalty, and Security could counter/"clean" it up so it pulls a double duty besides passive spy defense that may never be needed... or, as a far simpler option, make Strike citizens pay fewer or no taxes to put a diminishing return on cranking taxes without Morale structures.

Uber planets could use unique traits, and Bomb/Invasion resistance for Cavernous is great. I'd still prefer the old Pollution resistance for Inferno, though.

Razmoudah #8 Posted 04 May 2016 - 02:50 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Players
  • 13
  • Member since:
    04-16-2016
The original post was done through the Steam client, and this was just a Copy & Paste of that.  I don't know how to do much for formatting for posts there which is why this doesn't have any fancy formatting for it.  If I'd originally started everything here it would've had some formatting done for it, as there are quick tools available here and I don't know the BBCode or HTML for much beyond [b]bold[/i], itallic, underline, url (don't worry, that's just Google), and the quotes I used above (although I only know the BBCode for those, but I don't think HTML has a quote specific tag).  When there aren't formatting buttons displayed I tend to ignore doing much for fancy formatting, although I agree that I probably could've done more than I did it just wouldn't have been much as at that point I was treating it as a basic text document, you know, like Notepad handles if you have a Windows box.

un4tuner #9 Posted 04 May 2016 - 06:16 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Players
  • 12
  • Member since:
    02-26-2016

In original series there were several different costumes for scientists, war generals and spies. That was pretty much amazing by that time and very atmospheric in general.

Please do so. =)

 

Also will battle trophies added later in the development?


Edited by un4tuner, 04 May 2016 - 06:25 PM.


Razmoudah #10 Posted 05 May 2016 - 01:33 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Players
  • 13
  • Member since:
    04-16-2016
That's the type of minor cosmetic change that doesn't directly affect gameplay, so I don't expect that to happen until just before official release.

LeadfootSlim #11 Posted 05 May 2016 - 03:40 AM

    Commander

  • Players
  • 220
  • Member since:
    03-27-2016

View PostRazmoudah, on 05 May 2016 - 01:33 AM, said:

That's the type of minor cosmetic change that doesn't directly affect gameplay, so I don't expect that to happen until just before official release.

 

Not necessarily - look at all the modeling and voice detail they did for the Advisors. They tapped ALAN TUDYK, for chrissakes! Doing a second advisor for a "war general" would take just as much work... Granted, I'd argue it's worth it - offering a "hardcore" counterpoint to some of the "silly" advisors would work better than replacing them.

Razmoudah #12 Posted 05 May 2016 - 04:54 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Players
  • 13
  • Member since:
    04-16-2016

Actually, I'd say that it's more of a case of them putting effort into the fluff before having the core game working smoothly (there is a very annoying infinite loop I can't seem to get away from) and the expanded game mechanics decided on.  Yes, a fair portion of that work can be done at the same time, as in a big production title you can have different people working on different parts, but what they have done with the advisors and leaders feels more like they got a bit ahead of themselves.  On the plus side they are putting the effort into fixing the problems in the core game and are actively working on the expanded game mechanics, so it isn't like they ignored them.

 

Now, I would love to have a group of various advisors that it would change between depending on circumstances, as that would be spectacular and a great atmospheric touch, especially when working on establishing the feel of each of the factions.  And who knows, maybe they are working on some of that right now but don't have an additional advisor finished for each faction yet so they aren't implementing it yet, but it could be we'll see some in EA4.


Edited by Razmoudah, 05 May 2016 - 04:55 AM.


Razmoudah #13 Posted 06 May 2016 - 09:00 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Players
  • 13
  • Member since:
    04-16-2016
Well, I just took a look through the latest Steam post regarding the tweaks and updates that have been implemented as of EA3, the ones that are still definitely being worked for EA4, and the ones that will be introduced in EA4.  I have one comment to make, allow the player to adjust some AI settings for ships in ship design, or create default stats for them, so that we don't have to tweak every ship once we get into combat.

Razmoudah #14 Posted 06 May 2016 - 10:16 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Players
  • 13
  • Member since:
    04-16-2016

Ah-HA!  I figured out what is causing the pre-/post-combat bug!  For whatever reason sometimes the game isn't loading a fresh set of ship information before combat begins, but is still trying to do the fight anyhow.  Basically, at times when it calls the combat module it isn't sending new data for the current combat to the module, so the module is displaying information as if the combat is already over, but trying to start with the one side not having any 'living' ships.  The reason I finally managed to get this one figured out is because I attacked an enemy scout, and I'd done so just a few turns before, but it was listing the forces I'd had at the other location, not this location.  Now to get this properly submitted through the correct channels so that it can be fixed.

 

 

 

*EDIT*And now it has been submitted.  Apparently a new driver for my vid card was released earlier this week, so I've had to update it and tell them if that fixed the problem of the game's core module not correctly sending data to the combat module.  Obviously that didn't work, and now I get the fun of spending an hour or so straightening out my icons because they got shuffled again (with no rhyme or reason to how they get shuffled, it isn't alphabetical, it isn't by creation date, and since the majority of them are just shortcuts the difference in byte sizes is nearly negligible, and it doesn't seem to be by that either), but I guess I may just have to give up playing new MoO until EA4 because it just won't let me finish a solo game without this error popping up.


Edited by Razmoudah, 07 May 2016 - 12:17 AM.


Razmoudah #15 Posted 08 May 2016 - 03:44 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Players
  • 13
  • Member since:
    04-16-2016
It took a few back-and-forths, but that pre-/post-combat error bug is finally going to the developers to have them work on fixing it.  I might get to play through a complete Single Player game yet.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users