31 replies to this topic

[voidstalker_woe]

Hey folks, I'm getting kinda tired of all the back and forth's with MoO4 and its EA forums, and the lack of a belief that the problems that have been allowed to find their way into the games code can or will be addressed and resolved using this current (to late) mechanic.

 

My idea here is to call for the creation of an official MOO5 Forum to be created, well before any actual design work is even started, so that we can all know what is going to be put into the next game, CORE feature wise, so we can both get the game that we want, and avoid the whole mess of only getting our voices heard after the wrong thinking folks have already set in stone key, fundamentally flawed, game ruining concepts.

 

Any interest in such a thing?  Post in this thread your support and what you would want such a posited FORUM (not game, that needs it's own forums) should focus on.  Like working to define areas of common interest, identify which areas need 'tweak-able' game setup options (probably most) so that everyone can customize the game to their own play styles and interests, and build the games GUI/OPTIONS first, and then flesh it out as the game gets underway and nears EA, but an EA where the voice of the players/future customers have been heard and incorporated into the design right from the get go.

[MasterOfOrionConquerTheS]

Sorry but no. 

 

If Moo4 fails, there's still Stellaris and a lot of other bright stars in the horizon. No need to rush a fifth version of this. 

[Mathias_Zealot]

I'm not specifically against the idea, but I don't think it will solve the concern you have. Those "wrong thinking" folks will still be in there.

That aside, a few concerns I have, if you'll allow:

• There's limited common ground even between whether 1, 2, or even 3 has better game mechanics
• Somewhat related, a large group of people will inherently want a variety of game mechanics, wouldn't this generally lean toward either a bloated game or a long line of people annoyed their preferred feature was cut?
• Not to sound elitist, but you're polling a large body of people to design a game's core systems who have limited experience with designing a game
• If you're disappointed at the pace of development on MoO4, how is getting on the development line even earlier going to help the matter?
• Wouldn't such a polling be inherently biased toward the players of the previous games, likely both guaranteeing that no new mechanics are allowed and preventing the game from finding a larger audience?

[voidstalker_woe]

Interesting thoughts, and thanks for the reply!

 

Mathias_Zealot, on 08 May 2016 - 09:36 PM, said:

I'm not specifically against the idea, but I don't think it will solve the concern you have. Those "wrong thinking" folks will still be in there.

That aside, a few concerns I have, if you'll allow:

• There's limited common ground even between whether 1, 2, or even 3 has better game mechanics
• Somewhat related, a large group of people will inherently want a variety of game mechanics, wouldn't this generally lean toward either a bloated game or a long line of people annoyed their preferred feature was cut?
• Not to sound elitist, but you're polling a large body of people to design a game's core systems who have limited experience with designing a game
• If you're disappointed at the pace of development on MoO4, how is getting on the development line even earlier going to help the matter?
• Wouldn't such a polling be inherently biased toward the players of the previous games, likely both guaranteeing that no new mechanics are allowed and preventing the game from finding a larger audience?

Perhaps, and perhaps not.  I'm not talking here about a NGD forum, but here at WG.net, so perhaps we can all put our heads together and make sure that the next design team does NOT have any "wrong thinking" people on it.

 

Let’s do this:

 

• We need time to reach a point where the project can put some numbers to what the majority want.  More time, in a dedicated public forum = good thing, check?
• There will most definitely be folks that don't get what they want, as well as those that will see things included they don't care for.  But time to get these things worked out = good, check?
• Sorry, not asking anyone to code anything, just get a consensus for what should be in the game, along with a list of alternative options for customization to suit playstyles.
• Not sure what you are asking here, frankly.  I am currently disappointed BECAUSE I didn’t get into the games development before the “wrong thinking” folks had already decided upon mistakes.  Whole point here is to get a clear idea of what lots of folks want, and won’t spend their money on if they don’t it, as well as a list of the things they DON’T want, and will not spend their money on if they do get into the game.

 

On this last part, while yes any such effort is expected to be participated in almost exclusively by players of the first games, no, that does not necessarily follow that nobody is going to want something to be changed nor improved, In fact, my experience is that there is always going to be someone wanting something else/more/different.

 

The whole point is to provide a place for folks to 'get involved' before mistakes and bad ideas make it into the code, at least for the games core elements.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by voidstalker_woe, 09 May 2016 - 02:20 AM.

[Zenicetus]

This isn't how new games are developed.

 

Now, if a developer with the IP rights wants to start a new version as a Kickstarter, then early backers sometimes have more input in the early design stages because they have some skin in the game. And sometimes, KS  projects start at a point where it's just sketches and ideas, not even early code. But it still doesn't guarantee that what the KS backers want will show up in the game. Just ask the KS backers for Elite Dangerous who wanted an offline mode. They did have some input on the fast travel mode though, and a few other things.

 

Anyway, you want more input on a future game? Suggest that it's a Kickstarter instead of publisher funded. Put your money where your mouth is. 

 

[LeadfootSlim]

This is not constructive.

 

Offering constructive, well-detailed criticism with solutions and options for going forward - while keeping in mind the developers' resources and what's the lowest-hanging fruit in terms of fixes and adjustments - is the best way forward.

 

Suggesting the addition of an entirely new race with custom special game mechanics and expensive art assets is not necessarily constructive, for example.

 

Suggesting refinements to existing systems and small, far-reaching changes is definitely constructive.

 

Crying and declaring you want the devs to fail - after literally digging the IP up from the grave and putting effort into it when literally nobody else was willing to - on the assumption that "someone else" will make a sequel to amend what you see as a current failure - is somewhere between spoiled entitlement and outright sabotage.

Edited by LeadfootSlim, 09 May 2016 - 03:47 AM.

[MasterOfOrionConquerTheS]

What I don't understand is why don't you just form your new forum.

[voidstalker_woe]

Zenicetus, on 08 May 2016 - 10:37 PM, said:

This isn't how new games are developed.

 

Now, if a developer with the IP rights wants to start a new version as a Kickstarter, then early backers sometimes have more input in the early design stages because they have some skin in the game. And sometimes, KS  projects start at a point where it's just sketches and ideas, not even early code. But it still doesn't guarantee that what the KS backers want will show up in the game. Just ask the KS backers for Elite Dangerous who wanted an offline mode. They did have some input on the fast travel mode though, and a few other things.

 

Anyway, you want more input on a future game? Suggest that it's a Kickstarter instead of publisher funded. Put your money where your mouth is. 

 

I've heard this term "Kick starter" before, but what is it exactly?

[MasterOfOrionConquerTheS]

Nothing good unless you are a game developer with a serious business plan who for some reason wants' to avoid known publishers to keep complete ownership of your project and appeal directly to the customers who might put their faith on you at the risk of getting nothing.

 

Also, you can't kickstart the making of a game of a franchise that's not currently for sale.  

[Mathias_Zealot]

voidstalker_woe, on 09 May 2016 - 04:11 AM, said:

I've heard this term "Kick starter" before, but what is it exactly?

 

A popular crowdfunding website (kickstarter.com). People propose projects that they need funding for and generally offer rewards to those who offer some funding to the project ("backers&quot. Many independent game developers have used it to successfully start projects outside the common developer/publisher model. Some lucky groups have gotten, frankly, ludicrous amounts of funding from backers for their projects (cough, Star Citizen). It's an interesting funding method, but since MoO is an owned piece of intellectual property, the only group that could use it to start a MoO project would be Wargaming.

[Lucian667]

Mathias_Zealot, on 09 May 2016 - 01:36 AM, said:

I'm not specifically against the idea, but I don't think it will solve the concern you have. Those "wrong thinking" folks will still be in there.

 

This! As long as those same people continue to call the shots, they will always end up churning out a game inconsistent with what the fans want in a MOO sequel. Its not as if we didn't give them enough hints this time round. They simply dont WANT to listen, they dont want a faithful sequel, they want a simple, casual-friendly money-making cash-cow that milks MOO nostalgia for everything its worth irrespective of the actual product. And in another 15 or 20 years they will likely still be there. Waiting.

 

LeadfootSlim, on 09 May 2016 - 04:08 AM, said:

Crying and declaring you want the devs to fail - after literally digging the IP up from the grave and putting effort into it when literally nobody else was willing to - on the assumption that "someone else" will make a sequel to amend what you see as a current failure - is somewhere between spoiled entitlement and outright sabotage.

 

"Literally nobody else was willing to"? What absolute nonsense! Atari hung on to the IP like grim death for years and only reluctantly sold it when they went into involuntary bankruptcy. Many game companies bid for the IP (including Paradox and Firaxis), they ALL wanted it badly and they ALL clearly recognized its money spinning potential. WG were just the ones who paid the most money in the bidding war. If Firaxis had only been a little richer the game might have ended up in the right hands instead of generating this unholy mess.

[voidstalker_woe]

 

LeadfootSlim, on 08 May 2016 - 11:47 PM, said:

This is not constructive.

 

Offering constructive, well-detailed criticism with solutions and options for going forward - while keeping in mind the developers' resources and what's the lowest-hanging fruit in terms of fixes and adjustments - is the best way forward.

The orange text is the part that kills that approach to this games problems.  Basically, what you said above is: if it ain't easy/cheap to fix, just give up on it, only minor things can/should be asked to be fixed, at this point in the games development.  The problem with that thought, of course, is to simply look at where you posted that sentiment, namely, in a thread that calls for being able to offer advice and feedback, before the game reaches the point where it is too expensive to go back and fix it.  Your post is not all bad, and I both respect your input, and the way in which you presented it, but clearly we are not on the same sheet of music here.  

 

I want to get folks working now on what to do to keep the mistakes (that we both recognize as being to expensive to fix in this game at this point), from making it into the next game at all.

 

LeadfootSlim, on 08 May 2016 - 11:47 PM, said:

Suggesting refinements to existing systems and small, far-reaching changes is definitely constructive.

 

With this I agree.

 

LeadfootSlim, on 08 May 2016 - 11:47 PM, said:

Crying and declaring you want the devs to fail - after literally digging the IP up from the grave and putting effort into it when literally nobody else was willing to - on the assumption that "someone else" will make a sequel to amend what you see as a current failure - is somewhere between spoiled entitlement and outright sabotage.

Firstly, I do not, and never did, WANT the Dev's to fail. but they managed to do that anyway, all on their own.  And I suspect that had folks been able too weigh in on the issues before a development mistake had been made and implemented, we probably would not have these problems at all.  My suggestion offers hope to improve the process in the future, and I don't see where you have offered anything like that, at least not in this thread.  

 

Also, you should not misunderstand me here; I do not say the game is like onto MoO3, but specifically in the areas of tactical space combat, there is way to much that needs fixing at this point.  In other areas, this game is indeed a worthy successor to MoO2, but not even close too that in Tactical space combat.  

 

Some facts:

There are not even close to enough explanations for how things work, there is a complete lack of alternative movement orders (move too is it, no patrol to, attack to, etc), and there are no user definable commands that I can enter, specific to different type of craft designed to fulfill specific roles in combat, to name but a tiny few.

 

"You See" corrected to read, "I and many others".

"Spoiled entitlement" analyzed to translate to: "I like the game, and don't like people already talking about making a better one cause this one doesn't do it for them".

"Outright Sabotage" translated into what?  Get the IP owners to look at what folks are saying, and then making another new game, without all the bad decisions in this game, and make more money still on that game, by improving upon this game, which also is going to make money, and my idea fast tracks to even more money going to be made, and years sooner then if we just wait to 'do it the regular way"?

 

Sabotage, yea right.

 

Anyway, I seem to have touched a nerve, which was not my intent, and made folks a tad upset, also not my intent, for which I apologize, however, I stick to my idea for getting started on a new game now, so those of us that are disappointed by this one, can get a better one sooner rather than later.

 

Edited by voidstalker_woe, 09 May 2016 - 05:19 AM.

[voidstalker_woe]

MasterOfOrionConquerTheS, on 09 May 2016 - 12:08 AM, said:

What I don't understand is why don't you just form your new forum.

 

How would I do that?

[Arent11]

voidstalker_woe, on 08 May 2016 - 08:27 PM, said:

Any interest in such a thing?  Post in this thread your support and what you would want such a posited FORUM (not game, that needs it's own forums) should focus on.  Like working to define areas of common interest, identify which areas need 'tweak-able' game setup options (probably most) so that everyone can customize the game to their own play styles and interests, and build the games GUI/OPTIONS first, and then flesh it out as the game gets underway and nears EA, but an EA where the voice of the players/future customers have been heard and incorporated into the design right from the get go.

 

I would prefer a forum that dicusses the content of future *expansions* and *DLC* of moo cts. Right now, I agree that tactical combat has to be improved, there has to be an option to switch it on/off in multiplayer and racial traits need to be balanced.

However, when that basic game is done, I would like to discuss additional content through expansions, like gods & kings & brave new world did for civ 5:

 

(1) Heroes

(2) Quests

(3) Expanded racial traits

(4) Expanded minor civs

(5) Expanded tech tree, maybe also blind research/randomized tech tree

(6) Improved Espionage system

(7) Different travel technologies, (a) primitive warp jumps at the beginning of the game (b) direct warp travel (very slow) at the middle of the game (c ) stargates at the end of the game

(8) Range and fuel

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[LeadfootSlim]

voidstalker_woe, on 09 May 2016 - 05:15 AM, said:

Anyway, I seem to have touched a nerve, which was not my intent, and made folks a tad upset, also not my intent, for which I apologize, however, I stick to my idea for getting started on a new game now, so those of us that are disappointed by this one, can get a better one sooner rather than later.

 

 

I'm not necessarily upset; just disappointed that the discourse seems to have fallen so low - especially when it's coming from an absence of communication. We only know what's in the pipe for EA4, not a hard deadline for full release. Calling for a MOO 5 before then seems silly.

 

As far as "low-hanging fruit", I do believe there are a LOT of easily attainable fixes within existing systems; I've made two lengthy posts (see sig) in that regards, and race picks in particular have potential for sharpening and refinement.

 

There are, however, some hard challenges that need to be overcome to make the game truly shine; Tactical Combat is one, and the Tech Tree is another. Most important is the AI, which relies on every other system to operate - we've already seen it derailed once recently by a cost adjustment to Colony Ships. An unforseen circumstance, for sure, but an example of why it's so challenging.

 

I'm not giving up on this game, because I really like what I've seen so far. I've also participated in a lot of Early Access titles, and I'm familiar with how slow things can get sometimes. I can't change your mind, but I can only encourage you and others to turn down the pessimism just a bit.

[voidstalker_woe]

Ok, fair enough, and no hard feelings.

 

You and I differ on whether the tactical combat can be salvaged by making improvements to the existing system, we both know that it will be hard, slow, and a pain to 'get it' the way it needs to be.

The difference is that you think they CAN get this one right, while I see that they will not get it right, not for lack of programming skill, but for lack of proper vision.  For example...

 

We both see that NGD is thinking that they have essentially finished the game, and are now going into polishing and bug fixing mode, however;

Missiles don't have a greater range (by far) than non-seeking weapons

Planetary defenses provide your CP, and remain as limited (and all but useless) as they were in MoO2.  A simple and yet uncorrected mistake, made over 20 years ago.

Because of the above, they will never 'get it' with proper planetary defenses being hoards of orbitals, not 1 of each type.  A simple and yet uncorrected mistake, made over 20 years ago.

We also have no way to design our planetary defenses, just as was the case in MoO2.  A simple and yet uncorrected mistake, made over 20 years ago.

There is no thought given to 'range', and no, the overly simplistic 'fuel range' in MoO2 doesn't pass muster.  A simple and yet uncorrected mistake, made over 20 years ago.

 

I could go on and on, but hopefully I am getting this across, The Dev's are not thinking properly.  We need folks to sit down and discuss what was wrong/broken in MoO2, and decide on the best solutions for those problems, and only then start working on a new game.  We all heard the nonsense about 'focusing on what matters', which seems to translate to "Spend as little as we have to, in order to make as much as we can", which any and all businesses could and should do, but they don't seem to know that people want a better game, not just 'PRETTY'.  How much did they waste on VA for the game, how did they fail to have an option to turn off all those 'limited gaming time-wasting cut scenes' ?  A simple mistake, and not one made over 20 years ago.

 

They have added topography to the star systems and the map.  Improvement over MoO2, and a good thing, but not enough and not all good, but still a step in the right direction.

Folks don't think things through, and recognize the glaringly obvious goofs that have been built into the game, and so they go uncorrected.  Here is a pet peeve of mine.

 

Long ago, I was introduced to a game called Star Fire, and the guy that I knew that got me to play that game got into a debate about a goof that the game designers made, in that game, you had smallest to largest ship sizes were.

 

ES = escorts

CT = corvettes

FG = frigates

DD = destroyers

CL = cruisers, light

CA = cruisers, heavy (used to be 'armored', hence the "A"

BC = battle cruisers

BB = battleships

SD = super dreadnoughts

 

The problem here, of course, is that the DD in not bigger than the FG, the FG is the traditionally larger and badder-assed warship of the two, but my friend didn't know any better and actually argued the point, telling me I was wrong and the game designers were right.  I then broke out the books, and looked up Frigates.  "The largest ship, smaller than a ship of the line", establishing the days of old, and then went and got information of then current and back to WWII warships of the two different types (this was in the days before WIKI *shudders*), and we went over several classes, and in all cases the Frigates were in fact larger (displacement wise) than the Destroyers.  So I won my point, but is seems that every single game company is doomed to repeat this error, and for no other reason than they are to lazy to actually think things through, trusting instead to "Well, the other fellows did it this way, and they must have gotten it right, so lets just go with that".

 

And so it is in MoO2 and MoO4, where the traditionally larger FG is incorrectly represented as less than a DD.

 

Anyway, this kind of thing always happens to me, I ramble on and on, and my mind wanders off topic.  I will leave this ramble here, though, so you can see that while there is often a lengthy gap between my posts, it is not that I take forever to make a short reply, but rather that I have to go back and delete all the rambling content, usually several times, before hitting the post button.

 

So, for me anyway, MoO4 is not going to get fixed properly, and thus I want to start talking about laying the groundwork for a PROPER MoO5 now, before the same old mistakes once again rear their ugly heads in the form of code already written.

 

Thanks.

 

 

[mikeva1]

I do not think that this is the best time to try to "force" them to think about MOO5. That time will come when the final release is made and everyone gets to see how successful it is. If sales and feedback says that they goofed then it is time to hit them hard with the "I told you so!!!!' If it is as successful a MOO 1 and 2 were - well, then we were wrong about what the average gamer wants. In the meantime, yes I would support a forum where we can talk about what WE want in MOO5.

My vote is for no star lanes and turn based tactical combat - change the game to that and I will play it a lot - otherwise I will keep looking for a worthy successor to MOO1 and 2.

[Mr_LargeBluntObject]

I am indifferent to whether or not this game fails or not. Well, technically I want it to succeed since I paid money for it, but its not important for me that there is another MOO game. I never played the earlier games back in the good old days, so I'm not looking for a sequel.

In my eyes, if you are going so far as to suggest that the devs make a new section on the forums so people can start planning out a MOO 5, then why don't you start making your own game instead? If you feel a proper sequel to the series is important, then why not a spiritual successor instead of a sequel? In fact, a sequel can get in the way because many of the big companies think that established IPs are where the money is and will compete for ownership (and easily knock fans aside). Further more, established IPs will draw in naysayers, people focused on series purity, etc. Go focus on creating a game that has all the features that a game of this kind should have. If you are successful, you might be able to watch a show a few decades later of people fighting over the IP you created.

[Mr_LargeBluntObject]

voidstalker_woe, on 09 May 2016 - 04:11 AM, said:

I've heard this term "Kick starter" before, but what is it exactly?

 

Kickstarter is a crowd funding website. Content creators usually need money to make content, and kickstarter is a website that allows content creators to create projects and webpages. It also has a mechanism that allows content creators to collect money. Typically, a project sets a minimum goal for funding, and has a time limit (often 30 days). They create a page for why you should invest. If this goal is reached at the end of the time limit, then the content creator gets to collect their money and use it to complete their project. If this goal is not met, then no one is charged a penny so failure is risk free. However, even if a project is funded, there is no promise that the creator will or can deliver.

Basically, crowd funding is a way to allow creators to get a different kind of investor. Traditionally, these guys have to convince a few big guys to invest in their project, and they often have to convince them that they can make money off of it. This often means that they have to make concessions and compromises. This may or may not favor the end consumer. With crowd funding, a creator can try to convince a large group of people to fund them instead. Many websites exist to make their possible, with examples being Kickstarter having a break or bust attitude (like getting funding for a game), or Patreon being focused on long term funding (such as a webcomic that will continue to update for many years). Crowd funding allows creators to cater directly to the consumer instead of a few big backers. This is not perfect because the crowd often has less control over what happens next, while big investors often know how to push creators so projects get finished. Basically the crowd takes the risk of making the investment, and many don't know how investment works and often think that sites like Kickstarter is really another kind of way to preorder something.

Keep in mind that how a community reacts to a project is often just as important as the funding. There was this kickstarter project for a guy wanting money to try a few potato salad recipes, so he didn't ask for much. Somehow he go massively funded. Maybe it was the brutal honesty that convinced people. So in response to the massive funding, the project became one where he would make a book on potato salad recipes.

[Stelar_7]

The users of a forum are a tiny fraction of the people who will use a game. Designing based on forum participation is almost certain to produce a product which will not sell. If you want to set it up, more power to you, but don't make the mistake of so many game developers and use a tiny sample set for product testing / suggestions.