Jump to content


Negative Threads exist for a Reason.


  • Please log in to reply
57 replies to this topic

drewklar #41 Posted 30 July 2016 - 11:33 PM

    Commander

  • Players
  • 103
  • Member since:
    08-20-2015

View PostPrrsha, on 30 July 2016 - 11:14 PM, said:

Case in point the problems the coders are having with the "visionary leaders":  I asked if racial traits would be altered to be in line with their previous counterparts.  The answer?  They can't do anything until they speak to the "visionary leader".  So there you have it.  The buck stops there unfortunately...  Poor NGD can't address issues fast enough to fix them because they are road blocked by the project's director.  I don't envy the forum admin either.  He has a very hard job to do.  He has to walk the line of keeping the forum morale happy while dealing with the mess in the studio.  I am sure her or she would love to tell us the current state of affairs but sadly their lips are sealed or they lose their job.

Like you I also pointed out how the racial attributes for the Mrrshan did not follow "canon" of the Mrrshan for the first two MOOs.  Since they fell back to the nebulous "Design Vision" answer as to why that was, I can only deduct that the developers didn't care if the races were canon or not.  I also didn't buy GeneralDirection's answer that it could take weeks to change or fix, since, as you know, it's just one attribute.  Switch the Beam Weapon bonus from the Alkari to the Mrrshan and you're done.  I do software programming for a living (Java and C#) so I know how simple the work is to change an attribute from one class or owner to another. 

 

If the game engine is written well then it should not care in combat who the race's owner is of the beam weapon bonus.   My proof is that you can pick the Beam Weapon bonus in race customization?  So that means the game engine doesn't care which race has the attribute, and General Direction's answer on the question was silly.

 

Related is the odd constraints they have on Race Customization, that you cannot have the same points as stock races since it would give the human player too many advantages.  Isn't that what the difficulty settings are for, if you want to give the AI more of an advantage?  For trying to protect the AI they limit they way I would like to play the game.  What if I want to make a race like Mrrshan but have it with Beam Defense instead of Offense, just to see how the game plays out? 

 

There are many other examples of how the "Design Vision" missed other small features that were great in the prior games.  Like having a chance to steal technology when you conquer an enemy's colony.   I assume developers figured you would not use Diplomacy to trade tech if you could just steal it.  Or maybe you would not invest time in the Espionage portion of the game if it's simpler to take technology by force.

 

Or how about the "Speed Limiter" introduced on population growth in EA5 and EA6.  Even at the fastest rate the development rate is still too slow for some.  This was also done to help the AI?  And what was the result?  You still see the Pirates killing off the AI before you can meet them around 70 turns later once you can start to expand.

 

I could go on with more examples, but I've got better things to do this Saturday night.  I think I've made my point.   Good luck to the rest of those not happy with the game.  Just do like me: write off this confused mess of a game, and move on to hopefully better products to spend your time on in the future.

 

Good evening.

 



diehardtwinsfan #42 Posted 31 July 2016 - 01:48 AM

    Rear Admiral

  • Players
  • 510
  • Member since:
    10-05-2015

Just a note, but I do think WG could do a better job letting us know what is in the pipeline and what isn't.  I really do appreciate getting some answers in the EA6 thread about future releases plans.


 

That said, I think to an extent some of the negative threads are just plain silly and unrealistic. I'm not a developer, but I work with technology for a living and at some point, some of these negative threads are simply asking them to build something unreasonable. The other problem as I see it is that from here it appears that there are different teams working on new features and bug fixes.  The EAs, while sequentially don't necessarily add both. EA5 had a lot of new features. EA6 was more bug fixes.  EA7 (I assume) will add new stuff., so on and so forth. That's the reality of these types of operations.


 

But as to the negative threads, I do agree there's a bunch of hard core dormant fans who want to see that this game doesn't follow the MOO3 route. I'd add that I think WG wants the same. What I think we miss is that all of these hard core fans don't necessarily agree on everything (good example, star lanes).  And yes, this is a paid alpha. Some of the game isn't going to work, and so we have no choice but to voice it. That's how this type of thing works. If you cannot accept that reality, then you shouldn't buy in.  From my standpoint, I love the series. Heck, I still play MOO3 on occasion. I want it resurrected b/c nothing since MOO2 has come close to what MOO2 was. So yeah, let's all do our part to make it a good game. Criticize constructively where appropriate, and it probably doesn't hurt to throw the devs compliments where they are deserved as well.



Omega_Weapon #43 Posted 31 July 2016 - 06:48 AM

    Rear Admiral

  • Players
  • 588
  • Member since:
    11-15-2011

View Postdrewklar, on 30 July 2016 - 04:12 PM, said:

To paraphrase using Mr. Keeling's Star Wars analogy to  the movie,"The Force Awakens", he was expecting between 20% to 40% of the 4X people complaining the new MOO was either too similar to the old MOOs or too different.  If those people were not complaining, that means the new MOO was not "perfectly balanced" with it's it's new design features.   To break that down, he expected 10% to 20% of people complaining the game was too similar, and at the other extreme, and 10% to 20% of the customers thinking the game was too different, which explains the wide range.

 

 ​But it would seem he actually missed the mark then. The great majority of complaints have focused on how the game is now too different from the earlier versions of MOO. Have even 1% of the complaints claimed that this new MOO is too similar to the older MOO games?

Lemonymous #44 Posted 31 July 2016 - 09:41 AM

    Commander

  • Players
  • 122
  • Member since:
    06-05-2016

View PostOmega_Weapon, on 31 July 2016 - 06:48 AM, said:

 

 ​But it would seem he actually missed the mark then. The great majority of complaints have focused on how the game is now too different from the earlier versions of MOO. Have even 1% of the complaints claimed that this new MOO is too similar to the older MOO games?

 

I've seen a few.

 

MoO2 is put on a pedestal as the greatest game ever, but even it had flaws (otherwise we'd all be playing it and not needing this game, right?). One of them was the "micromanagement hell" that was the late game (I can go into detail if it's unclear what I am speaking of).

 

MoO CTS is an even worse offender though. What I think the game needs most of all is to take a careful look on colony building/mangement as a whole, and then build tools to alleviate any shortcomings to keep repeated tedious actions to a minimum. It's more important to get this right, than to stay true to previous games.


Edited by Lemonymous, 31 July 2016 - 10:29 AM.


Mikko_M #45 Posted 31 July 2016 - 05:42 PM

    Rear Admiral

  • Banned
  • 536
  • Member since:
    06-18-2015

View Postdrewklar, on 30 July 2016 - 11:18 PM, said:

 

I agree.  There were a lot of red flags from the interviews and presentations from Mr. Keeling and Chris King before the Early Access started.   But for those of us not satisfied our hope for a great game clouded our judgement and made us ignore those red flags, especially since WG Labs and NGD claimed they would make this game live up to the quality of the original games.

 

I plan to walk away from this entire EA discussion soon, as I'm part of Mr. Keeling's 30% that won't be satisfied, and I realize I'm never going to get the MOO game I hoped they would make.   I'm just using these forums and on Steam to help clear my thoughts and understand better what we all experienced through this EA period.  I hope to learn from the experience and in the future read more under the marketing hype before flushing money into an experimental project like this one.

 

The very first interview that I saw mr. Keeling do about that 10% tactical combat thing and about other space 4X games really focusing on it was a huge red flag for me. But I signed on these forums hoping that we the community could still salvage this game from its leaders like mr. Keeling. During the EA some changes have been made for the better, but I still wonder if this game will end up dying of the thousands of little cuts that it will most likely end up still having at release. (Details that aren`t necesserily completely horrible, but aren`t so great either that you would want to keep playing the game.)

 

Also at the end of the day I really wonder what that target market for mr. Keeling`s vision is going to be. As he has managed already to piss-off most of the old-time MOO fans and for the more modern players there are plenty of other space 4X games to choose from, compared to which this new MOO really doesn`t offer that much to get excited about.

 

 

View PostLemonymous, on 31 July 2016 - 09:41 AM, said:

 

I've seen a few.

 

MoO2 is put on a pedestal as the greatest game ever, but even it had flaws (otherwise we'd all be playing it and not needing this game, right?). One of them was the "micromanagement hell" that was the late game (I can go into detail if it's unclear what I am speaking of).

 

MoO CTS is an even worse offender though. What I think the game needs most of all is to take a careful look on colony building/mangement as a whole, and then build tools to alleviate any shortcomings to keep repeated tedious actions to a minimum. It's more important to get this right, than to stay true to previous games.

 

It would seem that the designers managed to copy the worst of both worlds into this game. The micromanagement problems of MOO 2 and the shallow gameplay of some of the more modern space 4X games.


Edited by Mikko_M, 31 July 2016 - 06:54 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.


Mikko_M #46 Posted 01 August 2016 - 02:33 PM

    Rear Admiral

  • Banned
  • 536
  • Member since:
    06-18-2015

One of the obvious examples that the developers weren`t listening to their community was with the espionage system (as it was introduced), when it got overwhelmingly critical comments here because of its micromanagement heavy nature, hard limits on spies, and despite all that micro rather limited commands that you could give to your spies about which tech to steal and which buildings to sabotage. And all that was followed by an NGD employee telling us how great the feedback on the espionage system had been. :hiding:

 

http://forum.masteroforion.com/index.php?/topic/1569-early-access-phase-4-development-progress/

 

"Espionage


Espionage was a highly anticipated feature and feedback seems to be positive in terms of the overall vision but the implementation in EA3 had several UX problems and required a great deal of micromanagement. "

 

And have they to this day actually managed to significantly reduce the unnecessary micromanagement?
 


Edited by Mikko_M, 01 August 2016 - 02:50 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.


M002mod #47 Posted 01 August 2016 - 04:12 PM

    Commander

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

View PostMikko_M, on 31 July 2016 - 05:42 PM, said:

 

It would seem that the designers managed to copy the worst of both worlds into this game. The micromanagement problems of MOO 2 and the shallow gameplay of some of the more modern space 4X games.

I can safely say that micromanagement problems in moo4 are much, much worse than those of moo2, there has been a lot of new micro stuff introduced (pollution, spying, meeples on strike that sit on strike in the wrong box! food system! is the clear button in ship design already there btw?.... etc) , while the problems that existed in moo2 are now even worse (7 item non-customizable build queue became 5 items version??, a simple alphabetical buildings list from moo2, is now a huge pictogram clutter-mess). Note also that with introduction of the customizable build queue and some smart shortcuts in the 1.50 fan patch micro has been drastically reduced for moo2.

 

btw, about that pollution mechanic, in addition to being micro intense it's also very couterintuitive, meaning that to play it optimized one lets the pollution build up to 99% and then takes action to clean it up, while most players don't like to see pollution in the first place, so they start cleaning it up, as good citizens we are, when the first pollution appears. even i have seen reports that complain about AI's polluting their worlds :) while its actually for once a case of AI doing 'the right thing' here...


Edited by M002mod, 01 August 2016 - 04:14 PM.


diehardtwinsfan #48 Posted 01 August 2016 - 05:14 PM

    Rear Admiral

  • Players
  • 510
  • Member since:
    10-05-2015

View PostMikko_M, on 01 August 2016 - 02:33 PM, said:

One of the obvious examples that the developers weren`t listening to their community was with the espionage system (as it was introduced), when it got overwhelmingly critical comments here because of its micromanagement heavy nature, hard limits on spies, and despite all that micro rather limited commands that you could give to your spies about which tech to steal and which buildings to sabotage. And all that was followed by an NGD employee telling us how great the feedback on the espionage system had been. :hiding:

 

http://forum.masteroforion.com/index.php?/topic/1569-early-access-phase-4-development-progress/

 

"Espionage


Espionage was a highly anticipated feature and feedback seems to be positive in terms of the overall vision but the implementation in EA3 had several UX problems and required a great deal of micromanagement. "

 

And have they to this day actually managed to significantly reduce the unnecessary micromanagement?
 

 

Didn't they come out and say that this is being redesigned?

Anguille_1 #49 Posted 02 August 2016 - 07:02 AM

    Captain

  • Players
  • 288
  • Member since:
    06-18-2015

View Postdiehardtwinsfan, on 01 August 2016 - 05:14 PM, said:

 

Didn't they come out and say that this is being redesigned?

 

Yes, they did. I hope they make it right.

 


 

To everyone here, i still recommend to take a look at Horizon which is the closest game to MOO1 with many elements of MOO2. It's on sale now on steam for 9$.


 

Also Armada 2526 Gold has a lot of similar features to MOO1 and MOO2....


 

I've played both games for hundreds of hours.


Playing MOO since 1993

 

Playing MOO Conquer the Stars on GOG Galaxy

 

4x space game CV: Master of Orion, Master of Orion II, Master of Orion III, Pax Imperia: Eminent Domain, Reach for the Stars, Imperium Galactica, Imperium Galactica II, Armada 2526, Distant Worlds, Star Ruler I and II, Endless Space, Horizon, Stardrive, Stradrive II, Sword of the Stars, Sword of the Stars II, Galactic Civilization I - III, LotBS, Lost Empires: Immortals, Space Empires IV and V, Starships Unlimited, Star Wars: Empire at War, Star Wars: Rebellio, Birth of the Federation and Stellaris.


Mikko_M #50 Posted 02 August 2016 - 02:34 PM

    Rear Admiral

  • Banned
  • 536
  • Member since:
    06-18-2015

View PostAnguille_1, on 02 August 2016 - 07:02 AM, said:

 

Yes, they did. I hope they make it right.

 


 

To everyone here, i still recommend to take a look at Horizon which is the closest game to MOO1 with many elements of MOO2. It's on sale now on steam for 9$.


 

Also Armada 2526 Gold has a lot of similar features to MOO1 and MOO2....


 

I've played both games for hundreds of hours.

 

​But most likely they don`t as they just apply yet another band-aid on their bad system. :(

 

I should probably test Horizon then. Does it have ship design and tactical combat in it? Armada2526 was a nice little space game too with some good things, but it lacked ship design and also the combat was very simple although player controlled at least. But to Armada`s defence one can say that the Total War guy Bob Smith most likely made it with a shoe-string budget in Thailand and he still beat what Chris Keeling was able to do with this game despite all the Wargaming resources backing him.


Edited by Mikko_M, 02 August 2016 - 02:35 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.


Anguille_1 #51 Posted 02 August 2016 - 09:22 PM

    Captain

  • Players
  • 288
  • Member since:
    06-18-2015

View PostMikko_M, on 02 August 2016 - 02:34 PM, said:

 

​But most likely they don`t as they just apply yet another band-aid on their bad system. :(

 

I should probably test Horizon then. Does it have ship design and tactical combat in it? Armada2526 was a nice little space game too with some good things, but it lacked ship design and also the combat was very simple although player controlled at least. But to Armada`s defence one can say that the Total War guy Bob Smith most likely made it with a shoe-string budget in Thailand and he still beat what Chris Keeling was able to do with this game despite all the Wargaming resources backing him.

 

Horizon has ship design and turn-based tactical combat (with boarding ;)). 

Playing MOO since 1993

 

Playing MOO Conquer the Stars on GOG Galaxy

 

4x space game CV: Master of Orion, Master of Orion II, Master of Orion III, Pax Imperia: Eminent Domain, Reach for the Stars, Imperium Galactica, Imperium Galactica II, Armada 2526, Distant Worlds, Star Ruler I and II, Endless Space, Horizon, Stardrive, Stradrive II, Sword of the Stars, Sword of the Stars II, Galactic Civilization I - III, LotBS, Lost Empires: Immortals, Space Empires IV and V, Starships Unlimited, Star Wars: Empire at War, Star Wars: Rebellio, Birth of the Federation and Stellaris.


Prrsha #52 Posted 03 August 2016 - 05:01 PM

    Commander

  • Players
  • 242
  • Member since:
    05-02-2016
I've played a lot of space 4x games but my main reason for flocking to this game is that well... it is MOO.  I was expecting much more however and I may just take a break until someday modders correct this game years after its release.  That or wait for MOO5.

Mikko_M #53 Posted 03 August 2016 - 06:21 PM

    Rear Admiral

  • Banned
  • 536
  • Member since:
    06-18-2015

View PostAnguille_1, on 02 August 2016 - 09:22 PM, said:

 

Horizon has ship design and turn-based tactical combat (with boarding ;)). 

 

Awesome. :)

 

View PostPrrsha, on 03 August 2016 - 05:01 PM, said:

I've played a lot of space 4x games but my main reason for flocking to this game is that well... it is MOO.  I was expecting much more however and I may just take a break until someday modders correct this game years after its release.  That or wait for MOO5.

 

Yes me too, but apparently it is an impossible request for modern game developers to take a look at the classic MOO games and mostly just copy what was so good in them. No, there always has to be some Chris Keeling guy who thinks he knows better what to do, and just ends up making a mess of things. :hiding:


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 #54 Posted 04 August 2016 - 02:28 PM

    Commander

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

I created this post to raise an alert and it brought out so much negativism.

I am truly saddened at the fact Moo/CTS has attracted so much of this.

 

Hopefully Moo/CTS Devs will come up with something in EA7 that will weigh this negativism with positive overviews.

 

Scary isn't it.



Mikko_M #55 Posted 04 August 2016 - 08:56 PM

    Rear Admiral

  • Banned
  • 536
  • Member since:
    06-18-2015

View PostRuNeZz, on 04 August 2016 - 02:28 PM, said:

I created this post to raise an alert and it brought out so much negativism.

I am truly saddened at the fact Moo/CTS has attracted so much of this.

 

Hopefully Moo/CTS Devs will come up with something in EA7 that will weigh this negativism with positive overviews.

 

Scary isn't it.

 

​Expect a couple of minor bug fixes here and there, nothing more. :(


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.


Balanced_Integer #56 Posted 05 August 2016 - 02:23 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Players
  • 35
  • Member since:
    04-23-2016

View PostRuNeZz, on 04 August 2016 - 08:28 AM, said:

I created this post to raise an alert and it brought out so much negativism.

I am truly saddened at the fact Moo/CTS has attracted so much of this.

 

Hopefully Moo/CTS Devs will come up with something in EA7 that will weigh this negativism with positive overviews.

 

Scary isn't it.

 

Expect the negativity to be "baked into the cake" at this point. The Neggies want their modernized MoO1 and/or MoO2, and they aren't getting it. Hence the nonstop "How to Fix", or "This Game is Busted", or "Y U NO LISSEN 2 US, WG!?!?" threads from those who have not yet thrown up their hands in disgust and left the forums for the "greener pastures" of Stellaris or what have you.

"​I'll chase him 'round the moons of Nebiir, 'round the Antares Maelstrom, and 'round Perdition's flames before I give him up!"  --Khan Noonien Singh

"We tried it once your way, Khan. Are you game for a rematch?"  --Admiral James T. Kirk


Omega_Weapon #57 Posted 05 August 2016 - 05:51 PM

    Rear Admiral

  • Players
  • 588
  • Member since:
    11-15-2011

View PostBalanced_Integer, on 05 August 2016 - 09:23 AM, said:

 

Expect the negativity to be "baked into the cake" at this point. The Neggies want their modernized MoO1 and/or MoO2, and they aren't getting it. Hence the nonstop "How to Fix", or "This Game is Busted", or "Y U NO LISSEN 2 US, WG!?!?" threads from those who have not yet thrown up their hands in disgust and left the forums for the "greener pastures" of Stellaris or what have you.

 

​Many sinking ships have been saved because the damage control party didn't give up even when it seemed pointless to continue their efforts.

RuNeZz #58 Posted 06 August 2016 - 03:51 AM

    Commander

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

Aight, good positive behavior guys. Now Lets see what you great positive guys will have to say about the next thread.

 

http://forum.mastero...oocts-teach-me/


Edited by RuNeZz, 06 August 2016 - 04:54 AM.





3 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 3 guests, 0 anonymous users