Jump to content


A call for MoO5 pre-production discussion Forum Creation.

MOO5 pre-production Forum

  • Please log in to reply
31 replies to this topic

Poll: Do we need a MOO5 forum? (19 members have cast votes)

Want to get your input heard for a game in BEFORE it is made?

  1. Heck yea! Why in the heck is this not the DEFAULT method right now? (5 votes [21.74%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 21.74%

  2. Sure, why not, what can it hurt, after all? (7 votes [30.43%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 30.43%

  3. Not sure. I'm not that passionate about the subject, as it is just a game, afterall. (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

  4. Not that into it, and don't think that that is something that many folks would want/take part in. (1 vote [4.35%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 4.35%

  5. No! We don't need a Forum about a game that isn't even on the drawing board yet. (10 votes [43.48%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 43.48%

Vote Guests cannot vote Hide poll

voidstalker_woe #21 Posted 10 May 2016 - 09:33 PM

    Captain

  • Players
  • 309
  • Member since:
    12-20-2015

I see more and more folks expressing dissatisfaction with CTS, and I believe that this is only going to continue and worsen, as the problems that everyone see remain uncorrected and seemingly no interest exists on the part of NGD to address.  I stand firm in the conviction that getting (potentially fruitful) discussion going on right now, focused upon a game that is not fundamentally flawed at its core (like CTS) is the proper way to go, as opposed to continuing to try to focus on changing what little can be changed in this game.

 

Right now, the folks that have voted in my poll are overwhelmingly against my call for a new, MoO5 forum to be created, but as time goes forward, I believe that support will shift to my goal.  Basically, I see farther ahead than others, and am trying to keep hope alive for a new and improved iteration in this franchise.  Also, It really cannot be argued that starting to ask for a new title in the franchise NOW, when CTS isn't even all the way out yet, bodes ill for the franchise, but rather, shows there is still money to be made, but only by delivering the game the paying customers want.

 

For instance, I am willing to spend some time writing extensive posts that detail some fundamental concepts that can/should be addressed for a worthy successor to MoO2.  But these posts don't belong in a forum for CTS, so where should they go if not an as yet nonexistent MoO5 forum?

 

One need only look at the growing number of topics, where dissatisfied customer are posting the ever more obvious failings of CTS, to know that if this franchise is to continue, things must change in the next title.


Further more, I believe that we must start building a better MoO5 now, for only by doing so can we get tomorrow's game, today!

Mathias_Zealot #22 Posted 11 May 2016 - 04:48 PM

    Captain

  • Players
  • 286
  • Member since:
    04-12-2011
I wouldn't say 'Overwhelmingly". Keep in mind your first two poll choices are generally supportive, the third is ambivalent, and the fourth is against, so you've split the positive response. It's more like 7 to 9, or 7 to 10 if you take the ambivalent as negative.
EA4 Weapon Data (5-27-16)

voidstalker_woe #23 Posted 11 May 2016 - 09:19 PM

    Captain

  • Players
  • 309
  • Member since:
    12-20-2015

View PostMathias_Zealot, on 11 May 2016 - 12:48 PM, said:

I wouldn't say 'Overwhelmingly". Keep in mind your first two poll choices are generally supportive, the third is ambivalent, and the fourth is against, so you've split the positive response. It's more like 7 to 9, or 7 to 10 if you take the ambivalent as negative.

 

True enough I suppose, about the poll results, but the posts have not been all that supportive, unfortunately.  I just need to get the folks that are starting threads expressing their dissatisfaction to come here and vote "yes" and post support for the idea of moving forward with a proper successor to MoO2, now, before the wrong thinking have a chance to one again mess things up.

 

I have several topics in mind to detail exactly what kinds of things need to be 'set in stone' before $1 is paid to a game developer.  For instance,

Tactical space combat, the field we are provided, weapons ranges, either fully human controlled turn based or RTS with several mandentory features (quite lacking in CTS) required, like a tutorial, with 'missions' that showcase how the controls work, the different controls, the differences between using one or another, the realization that formations and ships maneuverability have no place upon a tactical battlefield as tiny as the one here in CTS, meaning that you will have to represent all formations as single ship icons (but with the ability to hover/right click to reveal not just what is in that formation, but how they are deployed within it by zooming in), the realization that the tactical combat area needs to be much larger in scale, and the useful topography (Not randomly generated asteroid fields and Nebula clouds) being present.

 

We need a much more well thought out game, and to get that, we really need a dedicated place where players can get together.  I don't want just random threads and posts, but moderated threads/polls, made to help guide discussion toward solid ways of doing things.

 

For instance, a really well designed game, that is designed for replayability and the broadest possible appeal, needs to have the ability to be customized to a far greater (and more meaningfully) level of detail, so that everyone can just turn off whole sections of the game if they feel like (like CTS Espionage, tactical combat), and only play the parts that they want, as well as having the options to "simplify" whole sections or fully expand them (imagine a meaningful 1st X as an example here), where players that want the eXploreation portion of the game to be much better and more meaningful, they need built in options to allow them to try those possibilities out.

 

Some folks are calling for a randomized tech tree, so let that be an option for the folks that want it, while those that don't want that don't have to bother with it.

 

There are so many many ways that CTS falls short, and most of these things cannot be added without a complete rewrite, that posting them in deail (rather than just giving a tiny mention of them), would be horribly off-topic in this forum.

 

Say we had some folks that didn't care a bit about the 1st X, and so were fine with the extremely rudimentary 1st X in CTS, but really wanted a much expanded 2nd X, to better model what an actual colonization of planets would entail, so no more drop a colony ship and immediately being able to "rush buy" structures the very turn you first land.  Some folks would like that, and some folks would not.  A well written and versatile game need to be able to handle that, so that it can provide pleasurable gaming to very different paying customers, through the use of game setup options having the ability to tailor the games selected content, to the playing styles of whom ever is playing it.

 

Bah!  I have once again rambled on and on.

Can we start getting support for the idea of a dedicated MoO5 forum to be created?  After all, this WILL come about in time anyway, unless CTS kills the franchise, so why not just accept that and focus now on trying to get the IP owners to realize that there is still interest in a proper successor, but if they keep putting out CTS type product, sooner or later the franchise will die, especially if a competitor comes along and gives us what we want!

 

(A that would be a sorry way for this franchise to end, indeed)


Further more, I believe that we must start building a better MoO5 now, for only by doing so can we get tomorrow's game, today!

Zenicetus #24 Posted 11 May 2016 - 10:13 PM

    Commander

  • Players
  • 107
  • Member since:
    02-27-2016

View Postvoidstalker_woe, on 11 May 2016 - 09:19 PM, said:

For instance, a really well designed game, that is designed for replayability and the broadest possible appeal, needs to have the ability to be customized to a far greater (and more meaningfully) level of detail, so that everyone can just turn off whole sections of the game if they feel like (like CTS Espionage, tactical combat), and only play the parts that they want, as well as having the options to "simplify" whole sections or fully expand them (imagine a meaningful 1st X as an example here), where players that want the eXploreation portion of the game to be much better and more meaningful, they need built in options to allow them to try those possibilities out.

 

You're looking at this strictly from the player's side, and ignoring the AI programming that would be required for a game with that many options to work. It's hard enough to get a decent AI opponent in a game with a restricted rule set. Every "option" you add in the fundamental game mechanics makes it more difficult to program a challenging AI.

 

Block Quote

Some folks are calling for a randomized tech tree, so let that be an option for the folks that want it, while those that don't want that don't have to bother with it.

 

Again, you're asking for a much more complicated AI -- one that knows how to handle a fixed tech tree, and another one that can handle full randomization. 

 

When proposing new ideas for strategy games like this, it's always a good idea to consider the impact on AI programming, and not just what cool features could be added for the player. Any feature the AI can't handle, just ends up being a player exploit that makes the game too easy.

 

 



voidstalker_woe #25 Posted 13 May 2016 - 06:21 AM

    Captain

  • Players
  • 309
  • Member since:
    12-20-2015

Hello, and thanks for posting.

View PostZenicetus, on 11 May 2016 - 06:13 PM, said:

 

You're looking at this strictly from the player's side, and ignoring the AI programming that would be required for a game with that many options to work. It's hard enough to get a decent AI opponent in a game with a restricted rule set. Every "option" you add in the fundamental game mechanics makes it more difficult to program a challenging AI.

Possibly true, and the more complex the game, the more this may be an issue.

OTOH, I was watching the development videos, and I recall the part when they were taking about where back in the day, MoO2 went from outside source, to the shelves in 6 months, and is still the best after 20 years.  Today's computer game programmers seem to be more about getting a paycheck, putting in all sorts of resource hogging GFX, and providing the least capable game that they can get away with, in the infernal hopes of milking the customers out of every single penny they can.

View PostZenicetus, on 11 May 2016 - 06:13 PM, said:

Again, you're asking for a much more complicated AI -- one that knows how to handle a fixed tech tree, and another one that can handle full randomization. 

Possibly true, and yet others have built games that do exactly that, so just how hard can it really be?

View PostZenicetus, on 11 May 2016 - 06:13 PM, said:

When proposing new ideas for strategy games like this, it's always a good idea to consider the impact on AI programming, and not just what cool features could be added for the player. Any feature the AI can't handle, just ends up being a player exploit that makes the game too easy.

This would seem to indicate that only game programmers should be making contributions here, as only someone intimately familiar with such is going to be able to understand that.  

 

I refute this last point.  The Inventor need not be an Engineer, he needs only think things up.  The Engineer is the one who makes the Inventors vision a reality!

 

On the subject of calling for a MoO5 forum to be created now, while there is a peak of interest in the franchise, and before folks might be discouraged and take their leave from the forums forever, have you any thoughts on how best to get that done?


Further more, I believe that we must start building a better MoO5 now, for only by doing so can we get tomorrow's game, today!

Moo4 #26 Posted 13 May 2016 - 12:44 PM

    Captain

  • Players
  • 297
  • Member since:
    06-14-2015

Want to make MoO 5?  Start with a smooth (ie good interface) multiplayer experience based on MoO1.  This is the alpha.

 

Then during play testing as a beta, *slowly* add a few MoO2 features such as

 

- custom races

- space monsters (antarans)

- random events

- leaders (planet over ships)

- modding support

 

 

Stay away from MoO2 versions of 

- research

- planet development (no need for meeples or building spam)

- multi planets per system

- ground combat (transports)

 

Then release the game.

 

Only start to add *actually* new content in an expansion pack.  

 


Edited by Moo4, 13 May 2016 - 12:45 PM.

I want a moddable Master of Orion 1.5 with focus on interface and pacing.  Come discuss MoO 1.5 ideas HERE!


Zenicetus #27 Posted 13 May 2016 - 06:00 PM

    Commander

  • Players
  • 107
  • Member since:
    02-27-2016

View Postvoidstalker_woe, on 13 May 2016 - 06:21 AM, said:

Possibly true, and yet others have built games that do exactly that, so just how hard can it really be?

This would seem to indicate that only game programmers should be making contributions here, as only someone intimately familiar with such is going to be able to understand that.  

 

I refute this last point.  The Inventor need not be an Engineer, he needs only think things up.  The Engineer is the one who makes the Inventors vision a reality!

 

One still has to understand the practical limits to "blue sky" ideas. Looking at other examples is one way to do that. 

 

For example, over 25 years ago I stopped trying to play against Chess games on a home computer. It was frustrating that they could always beat me. Now we have Chess programs that can easily beat the best human Grand Master. On the other hand, I have never played a 4x strategy game where I couldn't beat the AI on a level footing (no economy boost for the AI factions), once I completely understood the game mechanics.

 

What's the difference there? Why will I always lose to a Chess computer program while I can always beat the AI in a 4x strategy game? It's the limited rule set in Chess that makes it possible. 

 

We 4X strategy gamers want to have all kinds of cool things in our games -- big divergent tech trees, tons of options in military units and weapons, complex trade systems, and human-like diplomatic interaction. Until the art of AI programming advances a lot further than where it is now, we simply have to accept some limits on how complex and full of options a strategy game can be, and still offer a challenging AI opponent.

 

Block Quote

On the subject of calling for a MoO5 forum to be created now, while there is a peak of interest in the franchise, and before folks might be discouraged and take their leave from the forums forever, have you any thoughts on how best to get that done?

 

If that's your goal, then I think your best bet is to set up your own web site or blog, as a general-interest MOO site where ideas can be tossed back and forth. Expecting it to happen on the forum of a new game being published, while it's still in EA and hasn't been released yet, just sounds like an effort to sabotage the current game. I don't think you're going to get much support for this.

 



voidstalker_woe #28 Posted 14 May 2016 - 09:59 AM

    Captain

  • Players
  • 309
  • Member since:
    12-20-2015

I don't know, could it really somehow hurt to have a dedicated place to start talking about a continuation of the franchise, while there is still interest in it?  Looking at the new threads that are appearing in the last couple of weeks, it does seem that there are more and more of them trending towards other games.

 

 

As for sabotage, that to me is just plain wrong, as I am not proposing another developers produce over MoO4, but rather calling for the owner to give us the go-ahead to start working out what we want from the next game.


 

It isn't like the mods couldn't just send me a PM if they felt that what I am calling for is not a good thing.


 

I really want the chance to contribute my thoughts to the next game in the franchise, before some wrong headed bloke goes and writes in all the wrong things, and then claims that it is too late to 'go back and fix it'.


Further more, I believe that we must start building a better MoO5 now, for only by doing so can we get tomorrow's game, today!

Lucian667 #29 Posted 14 May 2016 - 11:59 AM

    Rear Admiral

  • Players
  • 579
  • Member since:
    10-08-2015

View PostEmP64213, on 14 May 2016 - 08:16 AM, said:

I don't think having a forum for another WG game would help, staff barely interacted with community on this one.

 

Aint that the truth.  :(

voidstalker_woe #30 Posted 14 May 2016 - 12:50 PM

    Captain

  • Players
  • 309
  • Member since:
    12-20-2015

View PostEmP64213, on 14 May 2016 - 04:16 AM, said:

I don't think having a forum for another WG game would help, staff barely interacted with community on this one.

 

Maybe that is something that we can get recognition of?  Anyone want to take the time to cover the chronology of MoO4, like when the owner bought the IP rights, when NGD was brought in on the project, when the wrong-headed, wrong thinking got in the door, how long that had gone on, and all the wasted development time and money, and when the public finally got to have its voice heard?

 

I am new here, and it might be nice if I and everyone who joins in the future can get a link to a thread that basically tells the whole story, with links and quotes of all the (dis)information that was put out along the way...

 

Knowing the past, we can help shape the future.  And if we have documentation of one game being developed with no customer feedback being heeded, and then they do it again...

 

Any thoughts?  I don't want MoO4 to fail, but I absolutely do not want the franchise to fail.


Further more, I believe that we must start building a better MoO5 now, for only by doing so can we get tomorrow's game, today!

voidstalker_woe #31 Posted 14 May 2016 - 01:00 PM

    Captain

  • Players
  • 309
  • Member since:
    12-20-2015

View PostLucian667, on 14 May 2016 - 07:59 AM, said:

 

Aint that the truth.  :(

 

The three of us, didn't even join this forum until:

August of 2015 = EmP64213

October of 2015 = Lucian667

December of 2015 = voidstalker_woe

 

So I don't feel that our input can really be counted, as the damage was likely done long before any of us entered the picture.  That being said, perhaps if WG were to release a statement declaring that 'Turn based tactical combat will never be put back into the new MOO games", then at least we can have closure, and take ourselves and our gaming dollars somewhere else, in search of that ever elusive, bad-ass tactical space combat that we all crave.

 

I personally would hope that the opposite would be true, in that they instead release a statement something like, "The next iteration of the franchise is committed to providing meaningful, player-controlled, tactical space combat in both single and multi-player modes", and that would re-affirm my interest, efforts, and future purchases within the franchise.


Further more, I believe that we must start building a better MoO5 now, for only by doing so can we get tomorrow's game, today!

Lucian667 #32 Posted 14 May 2016 - 06:57 PM

    Rear Admiral

  • Players
  • 579
  • Member since:
    10-08-2015
Even Zorg has become very bitter and disillusioned with the game and its direction. Its very sad to see since he was so enthusiastic and positive in the early days.




4 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 4 guests, 0 anonymous users