Where did MoO3 go wrong.

Talk about anything and everything related or unrelated to the FreeOrion project, especially Strategy Games.

Moderator: Oberlus

Message
Author
User avatar
skdiw
Creative Contributor
Posts: 643
Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2003 2:17 am

#16 Post by skdiw »

I posted my opinon on action points or IFP on the macro vs. micro thread. It just seems to me that without IFP you'll going to have micro every 50 planet that you own during the end game. That seems work and not gaming. I remember my back sours while playing Moo 1 and moo 2 going through all the planets. I see as IFP as another added challenge. Since the president gets 24 hours a day, you need to prioritize the problems too. IFP isn't a set stone limit, you set it at the beginning of the game to infinite if you wanted and apply it to the AI with same restrictions so its fair. A lot of players like me will set it lower.

I think you should reconsider of implementing action points or IFP. FO should have this as an option.

krum
Creative Contributor
Posts: 244
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 12:58 pm
Location: Bulgaria

#17 Post by krum »

Generally, IFP can be a good idea. But that depends on the buildings model, a very good AI might be needed, something that I don't think we can rely on.

User avatar
skdiw
Creative Contributor
Posts: 643
Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2003 2:17 am

#18 Post by skdiw »

I am perfectly happy with AP restricting the players and not, or lesser extent, on the AI. AI tends to be crappy anyway so they need all the help they need.

I really need something that keeps me from going insane "playing" TBS.

Daveybaby
Small Juggernaut
Posts: 724
Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2003 11:07 am
Location: Hastings, UK

#19 Post by Daveybaby »

IMO what went wrong with moo3 was bad management of the project. They had too many 'good' ideas - but it seems that there was no-one involved who either had the power or the will to say to people : This is a really nice idea, but its just not important enough to spend time on. The 'feature cull' that happened a year before release should have been done at the VERY early stages of the project - before coding had even started.

As a result they got halfway through coding the thing before anyone realised that they had too much stuff to implement, most of which was of little benefit to gameplay. Apparently the space combat engine was recoded from scratch 3 times. What a waste of effort!!! There are no excuses for this sort of thing - its just bad project management plain and simple.

IFPs werent the problem. The fact that they were cut late in the day when half of the game design depended on them is the problem.

User avatar
Krikkitone
Creative Contributor
Posts: 1559
Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2003 6:52 pm

#20 Post by Krikkitone »

I think IFP are definitely a bad idea. Having been through a lot of MOO3's development I was swayed for a while, but I think I see what the problem is.

If good macro tools are available IFP is not necessary. (for mp time limits are probably more effective at achieving the desired goal anyways)

If good macro tools are not available, IFP is evil horrid bad. (because it would have added yet another level of micro on the micro you are already doing.)


Something that Might work would be a 'meddling penalty' or 'inertia' where trying to 'fine tune things' would give various political/economic penalties (I remember one suggestion from the MOO3 forums that the higher level you gave a planets orders on (ie just that planet being the lowest) the greater % bonus would begiven to the planet.. so if you didn't meddle but just gave general orders, the viceroy would run the planet with 103% efficiency even if it wasn't Exactly the step by step plan you wanted.

User avatar
skdiw
Creative Contributor
Posts: 643
Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2003 2:17 am

#21 Post by skdiw »

It is no surprise that I have to disagree. AP adds another depth to the game that you can't do without it. For example, the opponent stage a surprise with an attack on all fronts. Without AP, this strategy is not viable because you can just bring ships up from reserve on all front to deal with it. With AP, you got to decide, not micro more, in fact you micro less, whether you should stop the attack here or maybe stop that sobotage of ships that the other enemies is doing in concert or declare empire emergency to deal with both but pay a penalty latter. If you declare an emergency, you micro the same amount; okay, an extra click or two to declare an emergency.

Time limit suck and doesn't do away the problem because FO is a game of grand strategy and not for someone who can think on their toes. AP ecourages pre-planning and well thought out strategies.

It's a given that good macro tools are needed one way or the other. I see AP as a fail-safe reinforcement in that regard; I didn't say AP is a substitute.

I do like the meddling penalty idea.

I agree with Daveybaby that project management is very important and that we should clear this AP business once and for all now while the game is still young, otherwise I'll be ranting here and everwhere because I think it's a superior system--one that we want for FO for all the reasons, including opinions from other ppl, posted mainly in micro v macro thread.
:mrgreen:

PowerCrazy
Creative Contributor
Posts: 383
Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2003 2:35 am
Location: Texas

#22 Post by PowerCrazy »

AP has WAY too many problems to even begin to deal with. For example in this VERY simplified model AP is the killer and is thus unfair.

Empire A controls 3 planets.
Empires B and C control 1 planet.

Each empire can do ONE thing at a time.

Empire A has two fleets however ONE is in reseve and the Active one is at his home planet.

Empires B and C launch a simulataneous attack on two of Empire A's border world. Now A can either Move his fleet or call up his reserve. If A calls up his reserve the reserve is activated at a planet of his choice the next turn (in time to counter the threat). But he still loses a planet. Then next turn:
A has 2 planets
B has 2 planets
C has 1 planet

However if AP didn't exists A would call up his reserve fleet, AND send his active fleet to the other planet to counter both threats and he wouldn't lose anything. So how can you justify for the sake of "gameplay" him losing one planet when he was perfectly capable of defending his empire?

Well you say then he can make 2 actions a turn?
ok now A has 7 planets he'll still lose some just because of AP.

Makes no sense to me.

As a result I see no gameplay reason (aside from pacing in MP) for only allowing a player to do X things a turn. We aren't making a beauracracy simulator, we are making a GAME.
Aquitaine is my Hero.... ;)

User avatar
skdiw
Creative Contributor
Posts: 643
Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2003 2:17 am

#23 Post by skdiw »

I posted somewhere that AP system is proportional to tech and size, meaning that you get more points depending on your strength. But you are right that overwelming is a strat under the AP system, as it suppose to be. That is why scouting, spying, pre-planning is so important and stressed whereas it wasn't without AP. In your example, A can activate another fleet and take the planet back next turn. A don't lose anything in the long run; B gets a small gain for taking a planet for 1 turn, at the expense of putting A into a better position because A now has defenses on all his planets. I am assuming A has 3 fleets to play around with. If not, then its a toughy and hence a viable strat. It's like playing Risk. I don't see how if A can make 2 actions will lose some of his planets? That makes no sense.

I agree with you that AP is not problem free. For example, programming the AI is a huge concern of the system as some ppl have raised. I have thought of it and I don't think it's a lot of programming if we just throw in a counter and add another parameter that subtracts from the counter each time you hit accept or do an action.

Next problem?
:mrgreen:

User avatar
Krikkitone
Creative Contributor
Posts: 1559
Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2003 6:52 pm

#24 Post by Krikkitone »

Overwhelming should be a strat based on transport times (ie moving troops/fleets from the successful front to the 'holding' front takes too long) or on overall enemy superiority ie A can beat B OR C easy, but not B AND C.

The scenario boils down to a number of issues
1. How much of a warning time does A have
2. How much time will it take to move his Main fleet into position
3. How much time will it take to move his reserve fleet into position

if all of these are the same then AP's are the only way to stop A from defending..

However, If 2 or 3 are longer than 1, then A won't successfully defend. Indeed if pulling up the reserve took long enough, A might lose two worlds for fear of HW invasion. (until both the fleets were ready then he could take the worlds back one at a time, and visit vengeance on the upstarts B AND C.)

After all these turns are supposed to be like weeks at least if not years, how long does a galactic emperor take to sign an attack order, 10 seconds if he has a long name?

The long term 'planning' would come by means of time delays in results (ie the reserve only gets pulled up at your capital, meaning it takes 2 turns to get it in place to defend, or it takes 3 turns to move your fleet into position from your capital, but you only had one turn warning of the enemy fleets, because you didn't notice the declining relations about 7 turns ago and your spies didn't see the treaty sign 5 turns ago or the attack order given 3 turns ago, and now the enemy fleets are one turn away.)

Limitations on fleet commands were one of those areas where IFPs were dangerously artificial and meddlesome, as would APs be.

PowerCrazy
Creative Contributor
Posts: 383
Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2003 2:35 am
Location: Texas

#25 Post by PowerCrazy »

Well in that example the question wasn't what he could do with his fleet, it was what he couldn't do becuase of the system. I was assuming that A has 2 fleets one active one reserve because of maintenace costs etc. And he oculd deploy a fleet to any planet in one turn, as well as move the other fleet to any planet in one turn. However because of the artificial restriction placed upon him by the stupid game designers hes going to lose a planet. just becuase the designers wanted a cop-out to reduce micromanagement....

But not as long as i'm here :)
Aquitaine is my Hero.... ;)

User avatar
skdiw
Creative Contributor
Posts: 643
Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2003 2:17 am

#26 Post by skdiw »

Krikkitone wrote:Overwhelming should be a strat based on transport times (ie moving troops/fleets from the successful front to the 'holding' front takes too long) or on overall enemy superiority ie A can beat B OR C easy, but not B AND C.

The scenario boils down to a number of issues
1. How much of a warning time does A have
2. How much time will it take to move his Main fleet into position
3. How much time will it take to move his reserve fleet into position

if all of these are the same then AP's are the only way to stop A from defending..

However, If 2 or 3 are longer than 1, then A won't successfully defend. Indeed if pulling up the reserve took long enough, A might lose two worlds for fear of HW invasion. (until both the fleets were ready then he could take the worlds back one at a time, and visit vengeance on the upstarts B AND C.)
PC was simplifying for the sake of arguement. I like to bring other variables too because that is the environment that AP will work.
Krikkitone wrote:After all these turns are supposed to be like weeks at least if not years, how long does a galactic emperor take to sign an attack order, 10 seconds if he has a long name?
If only the real world was that easy... your realism arguement isn't even realistic per se.
Krikkitone wrote:The long term 'planning' would come by means of time delays in results (ie the reserve only gets pulled up at your capital, meaning it takes 2 turns to get it in place to defend, or it takes 3 turns to move your fleet into position from your capital, but you only had one turn warning of the enemy fleets, because you didn't notice the declining relations about 7 turns ago and your spies didn't see the treaty sign 5 turns ago or the attack order given 3 turns ago, and now the enemy fleets are one turn away.)
Hence the importance of fore-planning and the need to consider the big picture as well as your goals running the empire so that each action must be deliberate or suffer serious consequences due to delays. The scenario you brought up is only possible with AP, as far as I can see, unless you introduce delays into the game directly, which was another proposition(forgot about it) that I have for you guys.

Don't think so much as time delays, as it is intentional so these schemes work and payoff, instead I think you are refering to thru-put, which is still the same as a system w/o AP.
Krikkitone wrote:Limitations on fleet commands were one of those areas where IFPs were dangerously artificial and meddlesome, as would APs be.
maybe, maybe not.
PowerCrazy wrote:Well in that example the question wasn't what he could do with his fleet, it was what he couldn't do becuase of the system. I was assuming that A has 2 fleets one active one reserve because of maintenace costs etc. And he oculd deploy a fleet to any planet in one turn, as well as move the other fleet to any planet in one turn. However because of the artificial restriction placed upon him by the stupid game designers hes going to lose a planet. .
Then I have to say nice stage by B+C, their cooperation really worked out for the time being. You can't pull this sort of strategies without AP.

But I am thinking macro scale. A can still take the planet back in subsequent turns. A musical planet will happen, but A will still be stronger than B or C; and A will still snowball and win.
PowerCrazy wrote:just becuase the designers wanted a cop-out to reduce micromanagement.... .
Where did you pull this idea about micro from?
PowerCrazy wrote:But not as long as i'm here.
Glad to hear the enthusiasm as I have!
:mrgreen:

Redbook
Space Floater
Posts: 16
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2003 7:09 am

#27 Post by Redbook »

I happen to like micromanagement.

If you need an IFP to limit the player, most likely its because the map is too big - there are too many planets/cities/watever-ingame-production-unit doing exactly the same thing. Consider MOO2: By the end of the game every planet looks like a green gaian marble with every conceivable improvement your empire can get its hands on.

So I think IFP shouldn't be implemented. Instead, go for smaller maps, hugely expensive end technologies, improvements that heterogenise, not homogenise the planets (reward specialisation).

But IFPs are not the reasons why I didn't like MOO3. Its starlanes. I. hate. starlanes. I'm fine with jumpgates, mind you - I just hate having to abide by some random grid from the beginning.

User avatar
utilae
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 2175
Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2003 12:37 am
Location: Auckland, New Zealand

#28 Post by utilae »

I agree.

Starlanes suck, he he. I found that when I was playing Moo3 that I would be forced to expand in a predetermined path, ie starlanes. I think the main problem was that the difference between open space and star lanes was too great. Star lanes were slow to travel through and open space was 7 times as slow.

IFPs, and the like should not be implemented. If the player has to be controlled, then that takes away the fun. There are other solutions that would work so much better, good macro functionality. Everyone here has ideas on the subject, we'll think of something. :wink:

User avatar
Krikkitone
Creative Contributor
Posts: 1559
Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2003 6:52 pm

#29 Post by Krikkitone »

I'd disagree with you about starlanes, I'd say they were good because they actually provided some terrain to the map. (in previous MOOs the 'terrain' feature was provided by fuel ranges, and therefore was rather rapidly eliminated (about the time Iridiums became available in MOO2). Starlanes provide a permanent terrain (while engine speed makes it less and less of an issue, it never really goes away)

User avatar
skdiw
Creative Contributor
Posts: 643
Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2003 2:17 am

#30 Post by skdiw »

Remember that I am proposing AP as an option. Futhermore, you can set the number to your liking so you may want more points for large maps. The dreaded micros during the late game is one of the major concerns that AP will help remedy. If you don't like AP, just set the counter to infinite. I can drop the subject if we passed no AP, but remember we will lose the benifits of it and maybe I'll propose something else like delays to enhance the concept of grand strategy. Also keep in mind that there are plenty of predessors trying to address this management problem and all have failed imo.

I have a lot of rants about Moo3's starlanes (see starlane thread). I agree with untilae and Redbook. In summary, starlanes are too powerful in controlling the terrain and military strategy. I propose a simple +# bonus instead of that retarded ratio that helped ruined Moo3. With +#, it naturally dilutes away when you got high engine tech. It is that simple, w/o techs that modify the ratio and clutter the tech tree. We can also make starlanes connecting only certain % of planets. I think "terrain" is better done with asteroid to serve like a wall, or nebula so no shields, or dense dark matter so travel is slow here... just make up some fiction but not high ratioed starlanes--it is bland, inhibitive and not a good idea.
:mrgreen:

Locked