Jump to content


Negative Threads exist for a Reason.


  • Please log in to reply
57 replies to this topic

RuNeZz #1 Posted 25 July 2016 - 06:44 PM

    Commander

  • Players
  • 140
  • Member since:
    06-21-2016

As i scout around and explore many threads in many places, I cant help but to notice how long and disappointing negative threads in Moo/CTS forums are.  The way i see it most of the hardcore Moo Franchise players are extremely disgruntled at the fact there should have been many changes in Moo/CTS that were not Delt with. Some are also Disgruntled at the the fact there are so many unwanted changes that shouldn't have been done do to absolutely to much focus on polish, not listening, lack of time, greed and copy pasting code ( Civilization IMO and you cant ignore the fact almost everything seems alike except for the polish ;). With this thread i would like to ask at what point are Devs in with creating Moo/CTS, because I've seen disturbing posts regarding the fact this game is almost done and literally a copied version of something that is not linked at all to the real Master of Orion  game except for race Pictures and space concepts. I see a lot of feedback that isn't being used and changes aren't happening as expected.

 

I very much doubt this game is done, and if devs consider this game complete and release it as it is, like many other clients of Moo/CTS feel... I will be extremely disappointed and WGN/NGD studios will end up in my list of crossed off companies  to buy games from until proved otherwise. Sadly failure of satisfying clients with Moo/CTS may bring this company down to the swirling hole of oblivion, since Moo Franchise IMO seems like a cursed franchise so far. There is a lot of negativism coming from the experienced players of this game type, and most of  the time devs who try to revive Moo never seem to follow older Moo versions examples.

 

In any case, it just seems like many dev teams, these days seem to look for the Bigger Better Deal, in this reasoning destroying the one thing that made games good and popular... The garantee of a product of quality that will withstand the test of time, not just an other attempt at making tons of money fast with a chance to forward a product towards a bigger franchise ( Like a simple phone App constantly draining money from peoples pockets )... Selfish isn't it. 

 

I'm just noting things that is all. 

 

So pls tell me if Moo/CTS will still have big changes, since they are needed. 

 It would be pleasing to know what positive things the Negative Critics have to say about Moo/CTS. 

 

Right now they are disgruntled because they understand the reality of the situation the game is in. And that is worth considering for better changes later on. 

I personally like the Moo Feel of the game, But i seriously hate the fact that this game looks like Civ/Space and that all the good things of the earlier programming of Original Master Of Orion concepts are being ignored, and that now at EA 6 of MOo/CTs there has been only a few small changes and that major feedback forums have been locked. What does it all mean.

 

Pls someone give me an answer.


Edited by RuNeZz, 26 July 2016 - 04:01 AM.


fourteenfour #2 Posted 25 July 2016 - 10:26 PM

    Rear Admiral

  • Players
  • 556
  • Member since:
    01-09-2016
Well the biggest negative is the lower number of people posting, especially on Steam. Outside of the obvious sycophants (read:suck ups) its pretty much all the same, negative.  Deservedly so as since EA3 they haven't anything good to show.
Wargaming Labs, taking the money and running. Abandons MOO CTS after their contract development staff could not deliver without ever one word to players.

Spud_Dastardly #3 Posted 26 July 2016 - 03:32 AM

    Rear Admiral

  • Players
  • 629
  • Member since:
    07-15-2016

I have been watching this game since it was announced and recently started playing it.  I mostly have only posted negative feedback about this game, but there are some good things about it.  I'm optimistic and think this game does still have a chance.  I don't think it's fair to call the developers lazy.  I'm sure they're working very long hours to try and get this thing ready for release.  It's just that they are running out of time and money to implement the major features that people are demanding when they still need to polish, balance, and debug the game.  The thing is MoO2 wasn't really ready when it first came out either.  It wasn't until they patched the myriad bugs and added features like ship initiative (in the last official patch) that it got really good, and even then it was still buggy until the fans added another vital patch.  I'm hoping to judge this iteration not by how it is when it comes out and certainly not how it is in EA, but how it ends up after they patch it and add features for years (hopefully) after its release.  

 

For example, fans have vehemently demanded tactical combat in multiplayer, and I recently read a statement by the devs that they won't be able to implement that in time for release, but they would like to implement it as a free patch later on.  They have discussed doing the same with free travel instead of star lanes.  So yes, I think MoO:CtS will yet have room for the big changes that are needed; just don't expect them to come by the time it is released. While this game does have some fundamental problems that are difficult to address, I think it is not beyond hope, and it will depend on how successful it is at release as to if they have the money to continue development on the game to make it into a much better game, which is why the fan community is so adamant that the devs implement as many vital features as possible by release to ensure its success and continued development.

 

Here are a few positive things I have to say about this game:

  • I think the ship design was done pretty well.  It's in need of some polish and balance, but I expect that to come by release.
  • Dealing with star lanes isn't nearly as bad as I thought it would be.  It's a balanced and well thought out system, though I don't like that no matter how good your drive is you have to spend an extra turn for each system you pass through on route.
  • I like that when I have a ship building and I get a new technology, the ship that is produced is always the newest model, and refitting ships is instantaneous for a money cost.  
  • I like the workers on strike mechanic that forces you to balance your empire revenue with your morale.  I wish morale had more effects than just that, but that can still be implemented later.  
  • I like that turns don't take forever in this game.  I remember playing MoO3 and one turn taking 30 or 45 minutes.  Here it's hardly ever more than 5 minutes, and it's usually just 1 or 2, and sometimes even in late game you are able to skip a turn now and then.  It's also got that "just one more turn" addictive thing going, which is great.

All that isn't enough to make a good game, and there is plenty of criticism to be levied against the game in its current state.  I really hope that the devs can return more features to the old MoO formulas before and after release so that eventually this game can live up to its name.


Get 5X - The Ultimate Balance Mod on Steam or on Nexus Mods!

 


Prrsha #4 Posted 26 July 2016 - 10:07 AM

    Commander

  • Players
  • 242
  • Member since:
    05-02-2016

View PostSpud_Dastardly, on 25 July 2016 - 10:32 PM, said:

I have been watching this game since it was announced and recently started playing it.  I mostly have only posted negative feedback about this game, but there are some good things about it.  I'm optimistic and think this game does still have a chance.  I don't think it's fair to call the developers lazy.  I'm sure they're working very long hours to try and get this thing ready for release.  It's just that they are running out of time and money to implement the major features that people are demanding when they still need to polish, balance, and debug the game.  The thing is MoO2 wasn't really ready when it first came out either.  It wasn't until they patched the myriad bugs and added features like ship initiative (in the last official patch) that it got really good, and even then it was still buggy until the fans added another vital patch.  I'm hoping to judge this iteration not by how it is when it comes out and certainly not how it is in EA, but how it ends up after they patch it and add features for years (hopefully) after its release.

 

For example, fans have vehemently demanded tactical combat in multiplayer, and I recently read a statement by the devs that they won't be able to implement that in time for release, but they would like to implement it as a free patch later on.  They have discussed doing the same with free travel instead of star lanes.  So yes, I think MoO:CtS will yet have room for the big changes that are needed; just don't expect them to come by the time it is released. While this game does have some fundamental problems that are difficult to address, I think it is not beyond hope, and it will depend on how successful it is at release as to if they have the money to continue development on the game to make it into a much better game, which is why the fan community is so adamant that the devs implement as many vital features as possible by release to ensure its success and continued development.

 

Here are a few positive things I have to say about this game:

  • I think the ship design was done pretty well.  It's in need of some polish and balance, but I expect that to come by release.
  • Dealing with star lanes isn't nearly as bad as I thought it would be.  It's a balanced and well thought out system, though I don't like that no matter how good your drive is you have to spend an extra turn for each system you pass through on route.
  • I like that when I have a ship building and I get a new technology, the ship that is produced is always the newest model, and refitting ships is instantaneous for a money cost.
  • I like the workers on strike mechanic that forces you to balance your empire revenue with your morale.  I wish morale had more effects than just that, but that can still be implemented later.
  • I like that turns don't take forever in this game.  I remember playing MoO3 and one turn taking 30 or 45 minutes.  Here it's hardly ever more than 5 minutes, and it's usually just 1 or 2, and sometimes even in late game you are able to skip a turn now and then.  It's also got that "just one more turn" addictive thing going, which is great.

All that isn't enough to make a good game, and there is plenty of criticism to be levied against the game in its current state.  I really hope that the devs can return more features to the old MoO formulas before and after release so that eventually this game can live up to its name.

 

Yes, my primary worry is that they will run out of resources to fix critical issues with the game before release.  They have been really evasive about if they will push back the release date if the game is not up to par.  There seems to be some delay between the groups working on certain aspects of the game and a lack of communication to allow a timely fix of bugs or balance.  Whoever is in charge, really needs to take note of this and try to streamline their design process so teams are not sitting with dead time, waiting for approvals from higher ups.  The same can be said about the speed it takes them to respond to feedback from the community and digest it into something that comes out in a patch.


 

Back in the days of Moo2, all you had for communication were BBS systems with the developers.  Now in the internet age, word can travel much faster and games are much larger and complex.  This makes it much harder to resolve issues in huge amounts of code and juggling problems that the testers in EA are finding.  It also makes it equally as difficult for the community managers to respond to complains when questions need to be forwarded up a ladder to the person in charge then memos send back down to the coders.  Only when the coders get that information, can they send it back up to their authority figure and it gets lawyered down, digested and sent back to the community managers.  This can be a long and frustrating process in a game in early (alpha) release.  If only red tape could be cut then the teams could speak directly with the community and I think much more could be done with the state of the game before they run out of time and resources.



Arent11 #5 Posted 26 July 2016 - 11:01 AM

    Commander

  • Players
  • 185
  • Member since:
    11-30-2015

View PostRuNeZz, on 25 July 2016 - 06:44 PM, said:

As i scout around and explore many threads in many places, I cant help but to notice how long and disappointing negative threads in Moo/CTS forums are.  The way i see it most of the hardcore Moo Franchise players are extremely disgruntled at the fact there should have been many changes in Moo/CTS that were not Delt with. Some are also Disgruntled at the the fact there are so many unwanted changes that shouldn't have been done [...]

 

Right now they are disgruntled because they understand the reality of the situation the game is in. And that is worth considering for better changes later on. 

I personally like the Moo Feel of the game, But i seriously hate the fact that this game looks like Civ/Space and that all the good things of the earlier programming of Original Master Of Orion concepts are being ignored, and that now at EA 6 of MOo/CTs there has been only a few small changes and that major feedback forums have been locked. What does it all mean.

 

 

Well, over at steam, the reviews are now largely positive instead of average, so apparently the player opinion is slowly rising. Apart from that the team behind moo cts seems to have limited ressources and therefore cannot implement everything they want to. That is unfortunate, but can not easily be changed.

 

My advise would simply be to do the same as civ5: Use a "modular" approach: Implement & balance the core game, publish it & expand via two expansions that add additional content. Maybe it would have been better to create the core game, multiplayer tactical combat etc. *without* the Darlok & Silicoid, espionage & lithovore mechanics & give them to the players as expansions, together with heroes, quests and governments. Of course some would have complained initially, because they love their Darlok or Silicoid or protest the lack of espionage but it would have worked out.

 

 

 

 



GeneralDirection #6 Posted 26 July 2016 - 05:25 PM

    WG Staff

  • Administrator
  • 313
  • Member since:
    08-22-2011

View PostArent11, on 26 July 2016 - 03:01 AM, said:

 

Well, over at steam, the reviews are now largely positive instead of average, so apparently the player opinion is slowly rising. Apart from that the team behind moo cts seems to have limited ressources and therefore cannot implement everything they want to. That is unfortunate, but can not easily be changed.

 

My advise would simply be to do the same as civ5: Use a "modular" approach: Implement & balance the core game, publish it & expand via two expansions that add additional content. Maybe it would have been better to create the core game, multiplayer tactical combat etc. *without* the Darlok & Silicoid, espionage & lithovore mechanics & give them to the players as expansions, together with heroes, quests and governments. Of course some would have complained initially, because they love their Darlok or Silicoid or protest the lack of espionage but it would have worked out.

 

 

 

 

 

Yes this is similar to the approach we are planning to take. Anything that we feel may not be doable by release, we are scheduling into post-release plans. We're planning to be transparent with this once we're closer to a real release date and know for sure what wouldn't make it into the release version, so you won't be blindsided by it on release day. It is very likely we will release DLC or expansions down the road, but we also have plans for free updates.



M002mod #7 Posted 26 July 2016 - 06:02 PM

    Commander

  • Players
  • 241
  • Member since:
    11-02-2015

they way i see it the game has already been 'released'.

there is a game. you can buy it online. > it has been released.

just it's in an unfinished state and to communicate that to customers it's called EA.

 

funnily, in some way for a customer it might not be beneficial for the product to become officially released (lemme suggest the term 'late access' for it), as some of the updates that follow after it might no longer be free.

and there will be uncertainty what stuff will be free (patch > basics like some decent spying mechanics should always be part of a patch) and what will not be (dlc/expansion) and at what price. so unless the release price of collectors edition + expansion / dlc's < current collectors edition price, its better that game stays in EA.

:)

i can only assume there is some WG analyst that monitors sales of the EA game and once revenues fall below some threshold, its better to push for release, after which rev's can be upgraded again through dlc.

:)

 



Prrsha #8 Posted 26 July 2016 - 06:06 PM

    Commander

  • Players
  • 242
  • Member since:
    05-02-2016

View PostGeneralDirection, on 26 July 2016 - 12:25 PM, said:

 

Yes this is similar to the approach we are planning to take. Anything that we feel may not be doable by release, we are scheduling into post-release plans. We're planning to be transparent with this once we're closer to a real release date and know for sure what wouldn't make it into the release version, so you won't be blindsided by it on release day. It is very likely we will release DLC or expansions down the road, but we also have plans for free updates.

 

Thank you for your candidness regarding the state of things.  Things have been a bit disconcerting with the lack of feedback from the devs regarding suggestions offered upon by players.  Hopefully with the announcement later, it will quell most people's fears regarding the game and allow players to state their mind on which aspect of the game should be focused upon with future post release patches.


 

Since there is going to be no major surprises regarding features in a few months to come, this makes my job much easier, as now I have an idea on the vision of the game... at least for now.  On a personal note, I guess this means you will be glad to see an end to my complaints regarding a certain race as now have a deadline to catch up with.  ;3



Prrsha #9 Posted 26 July 2016 - 06:11 PM

    Commander

  • Players
  • 242
  • Member since:
    05-02-2016

View PostM002mod, on 26 July 2016 - 01:02 PM, said:

they way i see it the game has already been 'released'.

there is a game. you can buy it online. > it has been released.

just it's in an unfinished state and to communicate that to customers it's called EA.

 

funnily, in some way for a customer it might not be beneficial for the product to become officially released (lemme suggest the term 'late access' for it), as some of the updates that follow after it might no longer be free.

and there will be uncertainty what stuff will be free (patch > basics like some decent spying mechanics should always be part of a patch) and what will not be (dlc/expansion) and at what price. so unless the release price of collectors edition + expansion / dlc's < current collectors edition price, its better that game stays in EA.

:)

i can only assume there is some WG analyst that monitors sales of the EA game and once revenues fall below some threshold, its better to push for release, after which rev's can be upgraded again through dlc.

:)

 

 

Yeah, I think that the term "early release" is thrown around a lot these days.  EA used to mean the game was in Alpha stage but now I guess some developers are pushing EA now as Beta.  People get confused on the terminology and as a result feelings get hurt.  Empyrion for example is on Early Release on Steam and it is truly in Alpha and has updates every week.  Truly a model to follow.  They are far from finishing their game and the understanding is that there is no release date planned.  EA should never have a release date in mind, that in my mind falls in line with a product in Beta.  I'd say Black Mesa is a model that embraces both extremes.  It is a Beta polished game, however it has been in constant working development for a few years now and has no release date planned.

GeneralDirection #10 Posted 26 July 2016 - 06:30 PM

    WG Staff

  • Administrator
  • 313
  • Member since:
    08-22-2011

View PostPrrsha, on 26 July 2016 - 10:06 AM, said:

 

Thank you for your candidness regarding the state of things.  Things have been a bit disconcerting with the lack of feedback from the devs regarding suggestions offered upon by players.  Hopefully with the announcement later, it will quell most people's fears regarding the game and allow players to state their mind on which aspect of the game should be focused upon with future post release patches.


 

Since there is going to be no major surprises regarding features in a few months to come, this makes my job much easier, as now I have an idea on the vision of the game... at least for now.  On a personal note, I guess this means you will be glad to see an end to my complaints regarding a certain race as now have a deadline to catch up with.  ;3

 

I will never get tired of seeing constructive feedback; it's what keeps us grounded and reminds us of the important topics. As frustrating as it might be to go through patches with no changes, it's the best way for me to tell the development team that it's still important to the community. Tactical in multiplayer is a good example of this; we knew we had the groundwork to support it, but we also knew it wasn't realistic to finish by release. Even with that I made it a point to include it as something the community felt was important for multiplayer, with every single update we've released.

 

So by all means, please keep reminding us. I'm not advocating spamming with multiple threads since that's against forum etiquette pretty much across the internet, but it doesn't hurt to bump a thread or post a reminder that there are still problems with something. And I most certainly would not be bothered by that. Anyone that is, they're probably working in the wrong profession and should consider a career change.



GeneralDirection #11 Posted 26 July 2016 - 06:38 PM

    WG Staff

  • Administrator
  • 313
  • Member since:
    08-22-2011

View PostM002mod, on 26 July 2016 - 10:02 AM, said:

 

i can only assume there is some WG analyst that monitors sales of the EA game and once revenues fall below some threshold, its better to push for release, after which rev's can be upgraded again through dlc.

:)

 

 

Sales dipping below a certain point is less important due to the way game sales typically work. If we were focusing on that, we're long past the point of needing to release. In general the majority of sales for a "SKU" (in this case the CE) happens within the first 90 days. I will not lie and say revenue is not important, because it obviously is to some degree--it leads to a larger post-release budget, more development allocation, higher likelihood of future expansion for the IP, etc.--but it's one piece of a larger pie. The state of the game is also important, so that's why we've been very careful about discussing a specific release date. EA3 for example, would have been a really bad build to release from (which we were considering going into Early Access), as it included a lot of unexpected problems.

 

I can say CE sales far exceeded our original expectations, so that's why we've been very careful with not releasing too early. Obviously sometimes you might run into a publisher that sees great early sales and wants to capitalize as much as possible on that momentum, but we really are more interested in the long haul here. We want the IP to be revived with this game more than anything. We have a lot of ideas for where we go from here, but that's not going to be possible if we're irresponsible with the game quality.

 



Prrsha #12 Posted 26 July 2016 - 10:24 PM

    Commander

  • Players
  • 242
  • Member since:
    05-02-2016

View PostGeneralDirection, on 26 July 2016 - 01:38 PM, said:

 

Sales dipping below a certain point is less important due to the way game sales typically work. If we were focusing on that, we're long past the point of needing to release. In general the majority of sales for a "SKU" (in this case the CE) happens within the first 90 days. I will not lie and say revenue is not important, because it obviously is to some degree--it leads to a larger post-release budget, more development allocation, higher likelihood of future expansion for the IP, etc.--but it's one piece of a larger pie. The state of the game is also important, so that's why we've been very careful about discussing a specific release date. EA3 for example, would have been a really bad build to release from (which we were considering going into Early Access), as it included a lot of unexpected problems.

 

I can say CE sales far exceeded our original expectations, so that's why we've been very careful with not releasing too early. Obviously sometimes you might run into a publisher that sees great early sales and wants to capitalize as much as possible on that momentum, but we really are more interested in the long haul here. We want the IP to be revived with this game more than anything. We have a lot of ideas for where we go from here, but that's not going to be possible if we're irresponsible with the game quality.

 

 

 I haven't heard this kind of transparency from an admin in a long long time. :rolleyes: It personally gives me hope that the franchise will be in good hands if what you say is true in your last sentence.  :3


 

I know when acquiring an IP, you already have plans for its sequel.  A reboot of a series introduces a new audience into a franchise or genre that has been dormant for so long and is an investment for the long haul.  The careful balance I've seen many developers go through however is weighing the previous complex features of a game vs. a simpler cleaner UI and making them appeal to today's audience.  This has been coined by many "old school" fans as "dumbing" down a game, however, I've seen in certain circumstances a company reach a certain harmony that transcends the previous IP into a better game altogether.  Civilization 4 did this and it did it very well.  The problem was with Civ 5, that the bar was raised so high with Civ4, they felt they had to surpass it by leaps and bounds.  By doing so, they made a more mediocre game by doing away with some franchise history (mainly unit stacking) in order to streamline the UI and make it more simpler for newer players to grasp.  It started off with harsh reviews, but in the end they persevered with many dlcs/patches and came out with a game that just about equaled Civ4.  Electronic Arts had this problem as well with The Sims.  Their own worst enemy for Sims4 was the very fact that the Sims3 existed (and was a masterpiece in general).


 

My main concern is keeping the spirit of the original MOO IP alive and well and not altering it (hence my stubborn comments regarding races and lore).  I can stand to see the game changed completely in other respects.  I didn't mind Moo2's Civ adaptation of Moo1.  It was a good mix.  However, if something like space or ground combat was taken out of the new MOO, that would disenchant many fans and turn it into something the IP is not.  It becomes just a use of the IP's name to spin an entirely different game in the hopes of a cash in.


 

I know you could have not included the Silicoids or Darlock for gameplay reasons but you did the right thing by including them.  They are part of Master of Orion's core and to toss them to the side would have a disrespect to the franchise (something that was done in Moo3).  You just need to tweak the espionage system, fix some of the problems with the mechanics regarding the Melkar and Silicoid race.  Balance the Sakkra and return the Mrrshan's stats back to their lore... spice up ground combat a tad (or at the very least add conquest tech from combat)... tweak the AI to take advantage of their racial strengths... keep improving the tactical combat as you progress in development (as you are doing now)... and you have a solid and faithful core to the original game.  That would be my advice (if I could make code appear out of thin air).  Sounds easy on paper but I don't envy the work it takes now a day to design a game on a budget.



CecilPaladin #13 Posted 26 July 2016 - 11:20 PM

    Commander

  • Players
  • 193
  • Member since:
    03-28-2016

View PostM002mod, on 26 July 2016 - 06:02 PM, said:

they way i see it the game has already been 'released'.

there is a game. you can buy it online. > it has been released.

just it's in an unfinished state and to communicate that to customers it's called EA.

 

 

This is why most game development companies have a CLOSED beta.  The folks playing closed beta understand there's a lot of changes along the way, and aren't too focused on the current state of the game.  The Wargaming folks decided to have an OPEN paid beta, which allowed the masses to try it out half baked.  With all the warnings and caveats about the game not being finished, there sure is a lot of whining going on.  I'm fully understanding why the majority of game developers have a closed beta.  Half the "negative threads" don't even make any sense.



RuNeZz #14 Posted 27 July 2016 - 12:32 AM

    Commander

  • Players
  • 140
  • Member since:
    06-21-2016

When i speak of changes i would like to note two things to me that still need work and change, and there is a lot of feedback. i understand time maybe running out and that upon release there may be some patches and updates that will fix things. 

 

What i fear the most is the core coding for certain aspect of the game that may not be changed but just fixed mainly for bugs. I know you've seen many of my posts in feedback and with this i will try not to take advantage of the fact the admin noticed this thread and mention changes that need be done. Instead i will speak of my thought linked to this thread. 

 

In my opinion there are certain core parts of this game that have to change and i fear they will be impossible to change after release, and that is why i seem to bring out old and locked thread that i feel still need to be worked on. I know you may tell me locking these threads doesn't mean they will not be reviewed and considered, but since EA6 release i have been extremely worried since i feel changes were lacking and most of the programming was about fixes. I know fixing bugs is top priority but aren't updates meant to do this. Isn't the main point of EA about changing core elements, like Tactical Combat, Race Customizing menu and most importantly spying ( things i think need re-calibrating, re-configuring and changing )? You say everything is near completion, i do not feel it is and i sincerely hope devs know this, and i hope feedback is still being considered at this point ( Mostly for racial Traits, Customizing my own race menu and Espionage ) . 

 

Are these Key elements being worked on will i see any considerable changes in EA7 and EA8, if passed will all the weapon Mods be completely functional. Devs have to understand these things are crucial for success of reviving the franchise. Doing nothing about these major expected changes will definitely break the interest loyal moo players have for this game. Do you know i started playing moo because i had a loyal moo client as friend that presented me the game saying it was an awesome, intelligent and constructive game... and so we never stopped playing Hot-seat Moo2 for years... That's how Moo2 became such a classic. I actually still have the cd. After buying and playing so many failed attempts at Moo style games ( 4x space strategy, tactical, turned based ), i saw this revival carrying the name of Moo and bought right in expecting some sort of a remake of Moo2 with better graphics ( that would have been good enough for me ). Now its a deformed game and sadly several things look like Civ in space and there are so much demand and feedback that seems like it isn't being looked at, changed and/or fixed. It makes me worry about the future of this game, All of this makes me worry about the negative impact the mere title of the game will suffer. 

 

Anyways, i sincerely hope devs understand the importance of creating this game has for many loyal players. Hopefully things will go well for devs, hopefully time and money will not be such a burden to the devs and the game. 

Moo/CTS could be a well polished Classic. Hopefully communication and listening will be a more respected factor of this EA6 state game.

 

That is all thank you.


Edited by RuNeZz, 27 July 2016 - 01:54 AM.


CecilPaladin #15 Posted 27 July 2016 - 02:15 AM

    Commander

  • Players
  • 193
  • Member since:
    03-28-2016

I'll use my example of buying a car, since a majority of folks can kinda understand that.

 

Deciding to buy and play MOO4 is like shopping for a car.  There are tons of similar models out there, and a lot to choose from.  The 4X game category has a lot to offer, similar to sedans in the automotive industry.  You can pick cars of different colors, number of doors, look, style, shape, you name it.  4x games have a similar theme, there are tons of them out there and plenty to choose from.

 

So what does a buyer do?  They read reviews.  They test drive the cars.  They use websites to find out more information.  They research the specs and even get word of mouth on how good the cars are from other buyers.  But once you decide to pull the trigger and buy the car, that's it.  You own it (or lease it) and generally it would be a hassle to get rid of.  You can then go on and post reviews on how awesome your car is, or what you would do to improve it, or even how much it sucks.  But chances are that's the end of your ranting and you expecting them to change it, you have to live with what you bought. 

 

Now let me ask you this.  Does any buyer ever demand the automotive company change a certain aspect of the car they already bought?  No, it doesn't work that way.  Do they write nasty posts on the car forums like kbb and edmunds, expecting the major car companies to come to their house and fix something they don't like about their car?  No, absolutely not.

 

What I'm seeing of the folks on these boards is just that.  They demand to have certain things changed, or else.  Or else what?  They already purchased the game.  Reminiscing and expecting them to bring back that Ford Mustang that you owned when you were a teenager, and not getting exactly that model, isn't their issue.  Its yours for not checking it out before you purchased it.  You wouldn't call up Ford Motor Company and ask them how they fell flat and didn't make a replica of the car you owned years ago would you?  You'd be lucky to have a company even accept some of your constructive suggestions, let alone get feedback on it.  And some of these "demands" don't even make any sense at all.  

 

Now imagine if you went to BMW, or Acura, or Audi and demanded they add a large popcorn cup holder to your brand new SUV.  Or else you'll do what?  You already purchased the car.  To other SUV owners, adding a popcorn holder in the center console just doesn't make any sense.  It might be the best idea in the world to you, but its not something everyone views as an upgrade.  I just don't understand people that demand the company change the tires, or steering, or even the entire body of the car after you purchased and test drove it.  You knew these things before you bought it.  

 

My point is that a good number of folks playing the game are doing just that, they are just enjoying it.  The one's most vocal are the ones making "demands" that changes must be made.  You did the research before hand, didn't you?  There's a TON of other 4x games out there.  What do you really expect after you bought the game?  Going on rants and rants arguing that if only they had put in that magical popcorn holder, that would have make it the best car ever, doesn't really help anything.  Chances are, only a handful of people would actually like that feature.  If it really didn't turn out to be what you were expecting, know for next time and do your research before you purchase another 4x game.  If it doesn't match up to your expectations, there are tons of other 4x games out there to play.  

 

These games do NOT require a huge monetary investment like cars do.  You can easily own more than one.  Why waste time playing something you don't enjoy.  Your time is better spent not ranting and hoping for change, but used to move on and drive something better suited to your likes.


Edited by CecilPaladin, 27 July 2016 - 02:22 AM.


Prrsha #16 Posted 27 July 2016 - 03:20 AM

    Commander

  • Players
  • 242
  • Member since:
    05-02-2016

View PostCecilPaladin, on 26 July 2016 - 09:15 PM, said:

I'll use my example of buying a car, since a majority of folks can kinda understand that.

 

Deciding to buy and play MOO4 is like shopping for a car.  There are tons of similar models out there, and a lot to choose from.  The 4X game category has a lot to offer, similar to sedans in the automotive industry.  You can pick cars of different colors, number of doors, look, style, shape, you name it.  4x games have a similar theme, there are tons of them out there and plenty to choose from.

 

So what does a buyer do?  They read reviews.  They test drive the cars.  They use websites to find out more information.  They research the specs and even get word of mouth on how good the cars are from other buyers.  But once you decide to pull the trigger and buy the car, that's it.  You own it (or lease it) and generally it would be a hassle to get rid of.  You can then go on and post reviews on how awesome your car is, or what you would do to improve it, or even how much it sucks.  But chances are that's the end of your ranting and you expecting them to change it, you have to live with what you bought.

 

Now let me ask you this.  Does any buyer ever demand the automotive company change a certain aspect of the car they already bought?  No, it doesn't work that way.  Do they write nasty posts on the car forums like kbb and edmunds, expecting the major car companies to come to their house and fix something they don't like about their car?  No, absolutely not.

 

What I'm seeing of the folks on these boards is just that.  They demand to have certain things changed, or else.  Or else what?  They already purchased the game.  Reminiscing and expecting them to bring back that Ford Mustang that you owned when you were a teenager, and not getting exactly that model, isn't their issue.  Its yours for not checking it out before you purchased it.  You wouldn't call up Ford Motor Company and ask them how they fell flat and didn't make a replica of the car you owned years ago would you?  You'd be lucky to have a company even accept some of your constructive suggestions, let alone get feedback on it.  And some of these "demands" don't even make any sense at all.

 

Now imagine if you went to BMW, or Acura, or Audi and demanded they add a large popcorn cup holder to your brand new SUV.  Or else you'll do what?  You already purchased the car.  To other SUV owners, adding a popcorn holder in the center console just doesn't make any sense.  It might be the best idea in the world to you, but its not something everyone views as an upgrade.  I just don't understand people that demand the company change the tires, or steering, or even the entire body of the car after you purchased and test drove it.  You knew these things before you bought it.

 

My point is that a good number of folks playing the game are doing just that, they are just enjoying it.  The one's most vocal are the ones making "demands" that changes must be made.  You did the research before hand, didn't you?  There's a TON of other 4x games out there.  What do you really expect after you bought the game?  Going on rants and rants arguing that if only they had put in that magical popcorn holder, that would have make it the best car ever, doesn't really help anything.  Chances are, only a handful of people would actually like that feature.  If it really didn't turn out to be what you were expecting, know for next time and do your research before you purchase another 4x game.  If it doesn't match up to your expectations, there are tons of other 4x games out there to play.

 

These games do NOT require a huge monetary investment like cars do.  You can easily own more than one.  Why waste time playing something you don't enjoy.  Your time is better spent not ranting and hoping for change, but used to move on and drive something better suited to your likes.

 

You entirely missed his point.  In your example this MOO would be akin to buying say... a motor, windshield, tires, and chassy.  Then being promised at a later date it would be assembled painted green and ready to run.  He is pointing out that the chassy just came in and it is painted red, so he is asking for it to be repainted to what he was promised.  Early Access means the game is not finished.  EA games even may not be even playable to a point when you buy it, however there is the implied promise by the developers that it will be done and functioning when release hits.  If it is not, it is tossed away and tends to end up in "development hell" (where all great game ideas go to rest).  He is worried that the developers are implying that the game is finished and this is what he will experience upon release.  He wants to alert the developer to what is wrong, missing or needs some work.  By disregarding his comments and suggestions you are not only doing a disservice to the game but to the franchise and community as a whole.  I encourage you to reconsider his words.

Omega_Weapon #17 Posted 27 July 2016 - 01:05 PM

    Rear Admiral

  • Players
  • 590
  • Member since:
    11-15-2011

View PostArent11, on 26 July 2016 - 06:01 AM, said:

My advise would simply be to do the same as civ5: Use a "modular" approach: Implement & balance the core game, publish it & expand via two expansions that add additional content. Maybe it would have been better to create the core game, multiplayer tactical combat etc. *without* the Darlok & Silicoid, espionage & lithovore mechanics & give them to the players as expansions, together with heroes, quests and governments. Of course some would have complained initially, because they love their Darlok or Silicoid or protest the lack of espionage but it would have worked out.

 

I really like Civ 5 (even more than I liked Civ 4). When it first released though it was kind of mediocre and a lot of people were not impressed. After the "Gods and Kings" update however the game was much improved and became my favorite of the series. So that approach can work. Just don't wait too long or negative reviews can taint the game's reputation too much for it to recover. Best to make it known at launch time that Improvements A,B and C are coming soon as a free update.

Omega_Weapon #18 Posted 27 July 2016 - 01:27 PM

    Rear Admiral

  • Players
  • 590
  • Member since:
    11-15-2011

View PostCecilPaladin, on 26 July 2016 - 09:15 PM, said:

I'll use my example of buying a car, since a majority of folks can kinda understand that.

 

Deciding to buy and play MOO4 is like shopping for a car.  There are tons of similar models out there, and a lot to choose from.  The 4X game category has a lot to offer, similar to sedans in the automotive industry.  You can pick cars of different colors, number of doors, look, style, shape, you name it.  4x games have a similar theme, there are tons of them out there and plenty to choose from.

 

So what does a buyer do?  They read reviews.  They test drive the cars.  They use websites to find out more information.  They research the specs and even get word of mouth on how good the cars are from other buyers.  But once you decide to pull the trigger and buy the car, that's it.  You own it (or lease it) and generally it would be a hassle to get rid of.  You can then go on and post reviews on how awesome your car is, or what you would do to improve it, or even how much it sucks.  But chances are that's the end of your ranting and you expecting them to change it, you have to live with what you bought. 

 

Now let me ask you this.  Does any buyer ever demand the automotive company change a certain aspect of the car they already bought?  No, it doesn't work that way.  Do they write nasty posts on the car forums like kbb and edmunds, expecting the major car companies to come to their house and fix something they don't like about their car?  No, absolutely not.

 

What I'm seeing of the folks on these boards is just that.  They demand to have certain things changed, or else.  Or else what?  They already purchased the game.  Reminiscing and expecting them to bring back that Ford Mustang that you owned when you were a teenager, and not getting exactly that model, isn't their issue.  Its yours for not checking it out before you purchased it.  You wouldn't call up Ford Motor Company and ask them how they fell flat and didn't make a replica of the car you owned years ago would you?  You'd be lucky to have a company even accept some of your constructive suggestions, let alone get feedback on it.  And some of these "demands" don't even make any sense at all.  

 

Now imagine if you went to BMW, or Acura, or Audi and demanded they add a large popcorn cup holder to your brand new SUV.  Or else you'll do what?  You already purchased the car.  To other SUV owners, adding a popcorn holder in the center console just doesn't make any sense.  It might be the best idea in the world to you, but its not something everyone views as an upgrade.  I just don't understand people that demand the company change the tires, or steering, or even the entire body of the car after you purchased and test drove it.  You knew these things before you bought it.  

 

My point is that a good number of folks playing the game are doing just that, they are just enjoying it.  The one's most vocal are the ones making "demands" that changes must be made.  You did the research before hand, didn't you?  There's a TON of other 4x games out there.  What do you really expect after you bought the game?  Going on rants and rants arguing that if only they had put in that magical popcorn holder, that would have make it the best car ever, doesn't really help anything.  Chances are, only a handful of people would actually like that feature.  If it really didn't turn out to be what you were expecting, know for next time and do your research before you purchase another 4x game.  If it doesn't match up to your expectations, there are tons of other 4x games out there to play.  

 

I bought the EA as soon as it was released because we were told that we would be testing the game and our feedback would help make it better. I was determined to do my part to make sure that this game was a worthy successor to MOO 2 and nothing like the abysmal MOO 3. What point was there in researching a just released EA game where the devs were basically saying "Nothing is finalized yet. We are prepared to make whatever changes are necessary"? I did not buy this EA game for fun. If I had I would have already been clamoring for a refund. A lot of the core features are exactly what I didn't want them to turn out like, and even if they weren't the replay value for the game so far is really low. My complaints (feedback) are allowed because that was the arrangement with Wargaming from the start. With luck my constructive complaints will even lead to positive changes and this game will be one I can play with my friends for hours on end (like MOO 2 was). I am not interested in other 4X space games. I know the market is crowded with tons of mediocre examples. I've tried several and they all suck compared to MOO 2. The legitimate follow up for MOO 2 is what me and so many others have been waiting for since 1996. People are ready to complain more specifically because this is MOO. Its legacy matters to us.

Edited by Omega_Weapon, 27 July 2016 - 01:28 PM.


Mikko_M #19 Posted 27 July 2016 - 02:02 PM

    Rear Admiral

  • Banned
  • 536
  • Member since:
    06-18-2015
Yes they do, and that reason is mainly because the developers still only listen to their players in a very limited amount of issues and beond that try to force their usually severely lacking design decisions on us. I ,like some others here, think that the leaders of this project truly had practically no experince with playing the classic MOOs or even the space 4X games in general when starting this project and it really shows. (Not to mention the original horrible vision of a childrens tablet game that they apparently had for this game.)

Edited by Mikko_M, 27 July 2016 - 02:03 PM.

Moreover, I advise that the tactical combat must be made more player controllable and informative for this to become a proper MOO game.

 

​The long lost formula for space 4X game success = Good tactical combat + good empire management > than just good tactical combat or good empire management alone.


RuNeZz #20 Posted 27 July 2016 - 04:04 PM

    Commander

  • Players
  • 140
  • Member since:
    06-21-2016

A car that is in a prototype state usually means it is a working machine, but is still very open to suggestions and several changes, big or small. 

Changes that should be done to fundamental parts of the vehicle are actually studied by a paid workforce meant to do just that, thus also spreading several concepts to more conventional vehicles. Some game companies actually have that, but i think that concept is slowly dwindling away.

 

Anyways, Cars just like a game have a development stage where core parts/concepts are meant to be deconstructed and re-constructed for better performance/efficiency, Kind of like prototype motors. EA is exactly the same in my opinion. All i fear is that core parts of this game will not be modified properly or as expected, and once the game will be released, like a car the mechanics will not be sufficient enough to carry its name, a dodge viper, or a Rally Subaru WRX/STI sports cut. hehe! This prototype of a game still needs core work. I hope its a good example. 

 

Do not forget, i never said i hated Moo/CTS, i just said several changes and modifications need be done before even implying this game is almost complete. I hope devs understand this and changes are still being done to Moo/CTS kind of like EA4 to EA5.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users