MoO II races and their parallels in Outsider

[Ackapus]

Ah. I do like to play Impossible for the absolutely broken AI race builds. Fill my H-UR planets up with +1Farm, +2Ind, +1Sci Meklars? Don't mind if I do! Let's get some of those SubTer Tolerant Sakkras in for these Toxic worlds, while we're at it! Maybe stuff a few of 'em under those Meklars!
Means either I'm playing a race with empire bonuses in the build instead of population bonuses, or I'm being a complete sadist and playing a race with no positive picks for score.
It's not that Impossible really makes the AI that much more intelligent, I know, but the oddball builds keep it fun.
Except for Stealth Ship Mrrrshan. Oooooooo, do I hate those guys.

[Arent]

Ah. I do like to play Impossible for the absolutely broken AI race builds. Fill my H-UR planets up with +1Farm, +2Ind, +1Sci Meklars? Don't mind if I do! Let's get some of those SubTer Tolerant Sakkras in for these Toxic worlds, while we're at it! Maybe stuff a few of 'em under those Meklars!
Means either I'm playing a race with empire bonuses in the build instead of population bonuses, or I'm being a complete sadist and playing a race with no positive picks for score.
It's not that Impossible really makes the AI that much more intelligent, I know, but the oddball builds keep it fun.
Except for Stealth Ship Mrrrshan. Oooooooo, do I hate those guys.

Oh, god, Mrrshan on impossible huge galaxy ^^ Now that's difficult.

[Cthulhu]

Spreadsheet simulator? No, this version was labeled “Master of Orion 3” and came on two CDs

Even on the simplest setting, the other races overrun my worlds within a few hundred turns.

I meant the game which was released in 2003. Playing it was as exciting as watching paint dry. The only amusing thing was the occasional, most likely unintentional humor. I mean, an opress'o'meter slider setting? Really?

Then, there was a newer version, named Master of Orion: Conquer the Stars. While this reboot was actually the fourth game, most consider it to be the actual third one, since the previous title was just awful. It is a good game, even if somewhat simplified as compared to the second one.

[gaerzi]

I meant the game which was released in 2003. Playing it was as exciting as watching paint dry. The only amusing thing was the occasional, most likely unintentional humor. I mean, an opress'o'meter slider setting? Really?

Then, there was a newer version, named Master of Orion: Conquer the Stars. While this reboot was actually the fourth game, most consider it to be the actual third one, since the previous title was just awful. It is a good game, even if somewhat simplified as compared to the second one.

The biggest problem of MOO 3 IMO was that it was made by a completely different team from those behind MOO and MOO 2, and while that's not in itself inherently a problem, it was clear that the MOO 3 team hated the original MOO and MOO 2. In essence, they wanted to make a completely different game, with more "realism" and less pulp sci-fi. This page sums it up well:

All these changes contributed to give MOO3 a very different feel from the original games. Going to great lengths to try to explain things that did not need explaining just so as to tie everything back to a reinterpretation of the Orion-Antares conflict makes the MOO3 universe feel like a fanfic of the Master of Orion universe.

Still, there were a few interesting ideas in MOO 3, like species living in gas giants.

MOO CTS is much more of a third MOO game than MOO 3 was. It's just too bad that it took two annoying elements from MOO 3 anyway, the starlanes and the real-time tactical combat.

[Ackapus]

MOO CTS is much more of a third MOO game than MOO 3 was. It's just too bad that it took two annoying elements from MOO 3 anyway, the starlanes and the real-time tactical combat.

To it's credit, CTS tried to make those elements better. MoO3 tactical combat was a vicious insult wrapped in a humiliating prank covered by a practical joke, where you could occasionally see what careful ship design and good tactics could do for you if your ships ever actually followed your commands. MoO and MoO2 set the bar so high in terms of tactical planning and execution, and the third game punished you for trying to fight the battle yourself. At least in CTS when you told your ships to move somewhere, they did. And the starlanes- couldn't use them as choke points in MoO3 unless you had a fleet there and chose to fight. The little border forts in CTS were great for practical boundaries.

Still, it could have done much better without either one, that's for sure.
I'd like to see a MoO with a battle initiative system like the X-wing tabletop game, where all ships get their orders set in ascending order and then all actions are executed in descending order. In other words, the slowest ships have to decide first what they're gonna do, and then get to do it last. The fastest ships can decide based on what everyone else is trying to do, but get to act first. I think that might bring out the Alkari and Mrrrshan racial niches a bit better, give them more ability to shine.

[nweismuller]

Going back to Arioch's seed playthroughs... did the Silicoids do one of those random 'surrender to another player' events in the Steppes Expansion game? Given how you've written them as *embarrassingly* susceptible to Loroi telepathy, it makes me wonder if you had them just straight-up surrender to you- or were they incorporated in that game after a war?

[Arioch]

The problem with MOO CTS (in my opinion) was that it was less than the sum of its parts; it was just a list of features that didn't add up into fun gameplay. It was made by a studio that had never done a 4X game before and which clearly had no idea what made the originals fun. The Galactic Civilizations games and Endless Space 1 had similar problems... the experience is just not there. I have trouble staying awake when I try playing Gal Civ.

Not having tactical combat is a key mistake they all share in common. Our publisher on Stars in Shadow recommended that we remove tactical combat from our game... which shows you what publishers know about how to make games. At least for SiS, tactical combat is the whole point of the friggin' game.

Going back to Arioch's seed playthroughs... did the Silicoids do one of those random 'surrender to another player' events in the Steppes Expansion game? Given how you've written them as *embarrassingly* susceptible to Loroi telepathy, it makes me wonder if you had them just straight-up surrender to you- or were they incorporated in that game after a war?

I don't recall (there isn't a log for this playthrough), but I suspect the Silicoids and Gnolam were both conquered early.

[gaerzi]

Yeah, I'd love it if I could just somehow plug in SIS' tactical battle system in CTS, it'd make the game a lot more fun to play.

[nweismuller]

If there's a log for the Early Empire game but not the Steppes Expansion, am I correct in assuming the Steppes Expansion was played first, hit you with inspiration, and then had you playing the Early Empire game while taking notes to hash out background?

[Arioch]

If there's a log for the Early Empire game but not the Steppes Expansion, am I correct in assuming the Steppes Expansion was played first, hit you with inspiration, and then had you playing the Early Empire game while taking notes to hash out background?

Yes.

[Keklas Rekobah]

I meant the game which was released in 2003. Playing it was as exciting as watching paint dry. The only amusing thing was the occasional, most likely unintentional humor. I mean, an opress'o'meter slider setting? Really?

Yes, that is the one, copyrighted in 2002. Back then, I eventually applied all the “cheats” I could find online, just for the heck of it (and even developed a couple of my own), all of which involved altering one of the files with a hex editor (forget that WinZip nonsense).

After playing MOO3 for hours during a layover in Taiwan yesterday, I remembered why I uninstalled it. Game play was monotonously repetitive. I found myself wanting my empire to be wiped out.

I hope the next iteration is more fun AND more secure.

[Cthulhu]

The biggest problem of MOO 3 IMO was that it was made by a completely different team from those behind MOO and MOO 2, and while that's not in itself inherently a problem, it was clear that the MOO 3 team hated the original MOO and MOO 2. In essence, they wanted to make a completely different game, with more "realism" and less pulp sci-fi. This page sums it up well:

All these changes contributed to give MOO3 a very different feel from the original games. Going to great lengths to try to explain things that did not need explaining just so as to tie everything back to a reinterpretation of the Orion-Antares conflict makes the MOO3 universe feel like a fanfic of the Master of Orion universe.

Still, there were a few interesting ideas in MOO 3, like species living in gas giants.

MOO CTS is much more of a third MOO game than MOO 3 was. It's just too bad that it took two annoying elements from MOO 3 anyway, the starlanes and the real-time tactical combat.

A new team taking over was not really the problem, the issue was that they were just plain bad. Both in terms of game-making and writing background lore.

The problem with MOO CTS (in my opinion) was that it was less than the sum of its parts; it was just a list of features that didn't add up into fun gameplay. It was made by a studio that had never done a 4X game before and which clearly had no idea what made the originals fun. The Galactic Civilizations games and Endless Space 1 had similar problems... the experience is just not there. I have trouble staying awake when I try playing Gal Civ.

My biggest issue with the Gal Civ series were the incredibly cheesy, inconsistent and plain stupid tech trees and the various descriptions. It was like reading a fanfic written by a kid.

Endless Space may have been a great game, but the studio was way too small and probably inexperienced to make the best out of the concept. The second one was a bit better, but it still drowned in micromanagement later in the game, especially on bigger maps.

Not having tactical combat is a key mistake they all share in common. Our publisher on Stars in Shadow recommended that we remove tactical combat from our game... which shows you what publishers know about how to make games. At least for SiS, tactical combat is the whole point of the friggin' game.

What was his reasoning?

Yes, that is the one, copyrighted in 2002. Back then, I eventually applied all the “cheats” I could find online, just for the heck of it (and even developed a couple of my own), all of which involved altering one of the files with a hex editor (forget that WinZip nonsense).

After playing MOO3 for hours during a layover in Taiwan yesterday, I remembered why I uninstalled it. Game play was monotonously repetitive. I found myself wanting my empire to be wiped out.

I hope the next iteration is more fun AND more secure.

That game felt like you were watching the AI playing it according to your settings. Besides, those were so confusing, that you would rather leave them be. Basically, what was even the point of my, the players, participation?

[Arent]

MOO CTS is much more of a third MOO game than MOO 3 was. It's just too bad that it took two annoying elements from MOO 3 anyway, the starlanes and the real-time tactical combat.

A new team taking over was not really the problem, the issue was that they were just plain bad. Both in terms of game-making and writing background lore.

The graphics were awesome, really spot on. The Silicoid, the Mrrshan - just like they should be.

But the gameplay was boring - the removal of fuel & the starlanes made exploration much less fun. The real time combat made it extremely difficult to judge the various weapons and loadouts. I designed various ships but I never knew why something worked better or worse.

While I like star systems having several planets, managing each one separately is a drag & quickly killing the builder feeling. It would maybe be better to have much more star systems, but manage them as a whole, with every planet in a star system adding space or resources.

[Cthulhu]

The graphics were awesome, really spot on. The Silicoid, the Mrrshan - just like they should be.

But the gameplay was boring - the removal of fuel & the starlanes made exploration much less fun. The real time combat made it extremely difficult to judge the various weapons and loadouts. I designed various ships but I never knew why something worked better or worse.

I was referring to Master of Orion 3. It was plain bad on every account, graphics, gameplay, lore, even user-friendliness.

While I like star systems having several planets, managing each one separately is a drag & quickly killing the builder feeling. It would maybe be better to have much more star systems, but manage them as a whole, with every planet in a star system adding space or resources.

Yes, I agree that this logic cuts down on micromanagement.

[Arioch]

Endless Space may have been a great game, but the studio was way too small and probably inexperienced to make the best out of the concept. The second one was a bit better, but it still drowned in micromanagement later in the game, especially on bigger maps.

I liked Endless Space 2 much better than the first one. Though aside from the lack of control in tactical combat, I think my biggest problem with both titles is the focus on multiplayer to the detriment of single-player. There's very little sense of the other players being "real" factions... the immersive roleplaying element that's so important in games like MOO and Civilization is sadly missing.

What was his reasoning?

It was because all the latest space 4X games (Gal Civ III, Endless Space, MOO CTS) didn't have it. That's all that publishers know... looking at the feature lists and demographics of a title, and not its soul.

While I like star systems having several planets, managing each one separately is a drag & quickly killing the builder feeling. It would maybe be better to have much more star systems, but manage them as a whole, with every planet in a star system adding space or resources.

This is something that Endless Space 2 does pretty well. You can develop each planet in a system, but the production queue is unified for the whole system.

[Arent]

This is something that Endless Space 2 does pretty well. You can develop each planet in a system, but the production queue is unified for the whole system.

I really liked the races in Endless Space 2 ^^ But I had the weird situation that I was conquering other civs & suddenly pirates spawned in my system that were *much* more dangerous than any opponent. This was really weird.

Also, flying between the lanes was possible, but the starlanes still existed. The AI of moo2 was acceptable, I didn't mind that it might have had tactical issues with free movement.

[Arioch]

This is something that Endless Space 2 does pretty well. You can develop each planet in a system, but the production queue is unified for the whole system.

I really liked the races in Endless Space 2 ^^ But I had the weird situation that I was conquering other civs & suddenly pirates spawned in my system that were *much* more dangerous than any opponent. This was really weird.

Also, flying between the lanes was possible, but the starlanes still existed. The AI of moo2 was acceptable, I didn't mind that it might have had tactical issues with free movement.

I liked the races too, but very little of their character came through in the interactions with them.

[Cthulhu]

I liked Endless Space 2 much better than the first one. Though aside from the lack of control in tactical combat, I think my biggest problem with both titles is the focus on multiplayer to the detriment of single-player. There's very little sense of the other players being "real" factions... the immersive roleplaying element that's so important in games like MOO and Civilization is sadly missing.

I do remember that part. It was also magnified by the confusing diplomacy system. Like, what good does the "diplomatic pressure" even do?

The combat system was also really lackluster. Not only was there no real control over the tactical phase, merely a cutscene of sorts. The ship design fell to be far too schematic, and technological progress did not change that much. For the most part, you could only replace the same type of weapons with better versions, while shaking your head at the strange tech descriptions.

It was because all the latest space 4X games (Gal Civ III, Endless Space, MOO CTS) didn't have it. That's all that publishers know... looking at the feature lists and demographics of a title, and not its soul.

The "monkey see, monkey do" approach? Ugh, that's a really good way to kill off innovation. I'm glad that you resisted this foul tendency.

[Arent]

It was because all the latest space 4X games (Gal Civ III, Endless Space, MOO CTS) didn't have it. That's all that publishers know... looking at the feature lists and demographics of a title, and not its soul.

The "monkey see, monkey do" approach? Ugh, that's a really good way to kill off innovation. I'm glad that you resisted this foul tendency.

On 10. December, the Master of Magic remake is published & I'll try that. Of course, it's no space game & low budget, but I wasn't very happy with the last civ iterations, either.

If only I could somehow convince Slitherine to add a DLC with multiplayer Master of Magic

[Cthulhu]

On 10. December, the Master of Magic remake is published & I'll try that. Of course, it's no space game & low budget, but I wasn't very happy with the last civ iterations, either.

I'll try it as well. Hopefully, it's as good as the original.

Of course, it's no space game & low budget, but I wasn't very happy with the last civ iterations, either.

To be quite frank, the last Civilization game was the fourth one. Afterwards, we had two spinoffs. You see, even the previous two spinoffs actually labeled as such, Call to Power 1+2, were far closer to the original concept than the 5th or 6th. Not to mention Alpha Centauri, of course.