What would you want from a revised MoO?

[Arantor]

1) Yup, I had seen Zeraan's threads. This is actually part of what's led to indecision on my part about being prepared to stick with the MoO formula vs breaking away from it.

2) IMO, the tech tree structure is one of the best parts of MoO. MoO 2's tech tree was inferior, and virtually every other game makes it a fixed todo list. (The only real exception is SMAC which lets you either pick specifics from a todo list, albeit with dependencies, or 'vague goals' e.g. 'explore level 2', 'build level 3') Yeah, no chance of leaving that behind.

3) I've often thought that tiering difficulty is a convenience for the developer, not as an asset to the player. Though I suppose it makes it easier to explain when you're talking about the game. But that's just given me another idea which relates to something else you've mentioned. More on that in a minute.

4) Yeah, this is something that's bugged me. While the games master aspect appeals to me of having each race with a defined 'this is the way to play them' like we have with the Silicoids, and to get away from playing them all to a master theory, you're right - forcing the player to play a given way isn't entirely smart either. I still like the concept of being *encouraged* to play up the race's traits, though.

So, perhaps we can combine that idea (as an encouragement) combined with the idea of scalable difficulty... by having multiple factors to difficulty. System Shock was what gave me the idea, you don't have a single 'difficulty' level but 4 difficult levels each dialling up to a maximum of 9, for puzzles, enemy strength, the difficulty of the plot, and difficulty of cyberspace. So it occurs to me that a difficulty level for 'roleplaying' could be a valid factor. Then a difficulty level for the AIs, and things like that. This is mostly brainstorming right now, but it does seem an interesting option.

5) Yeah, that's what occurred to me, AI resolution to allow for PBEM or similar.

6) That's the thing... MoO's AI has its bugs but it does seem to try to win a bit too much rather than doing what is necessarily the smart thing. But one thing does occur - the AI also plays all the races mostly the same way, but what if a race could be tweaked for AI purposes beyond just a set of modifiers? To give each race a bit more of a personality, but I think that would also work for giving the player a sense of each of the AI being smarter and more likely to act in a convincing way.

Now that the blinkers are off, I'm suddenly thinking of much bigger and scarier and more crazy ideas

7) Thanks

[Catwalk]

Yeah, I think you hit the nail on the head about departing the MoO mechanics.

The thing is, MoO's mechanics still encompass everything you'd want: planetary growth, settling, ship to ship combat, ground invasion, diplomacy, research etc. with a full complement of races that covers all of those. It is very easy and convenient to start with these mechanics and build on them in small ways. I also mentally think more easily along taking existing mechanics and tweaking them and understanding the consequences because there are many sets of consequences.

My point was actually to simply steal all mechanics that are useful to you and focus on creating a new lore and mythos for your game. There are indeed a very good starting point for building an even strategy game, they worked well back in the early 90s and are still fun to play with even today. So I see no need to dismiss the mechanics in order to make something you can call your own. I also agree completely with your points about it being easier to have a common frame of reference when discussing something new.

You're not really debating semantics; I suspect the problem was more the way I proposed it, because we're really talking about the same thing, just really debating the way it's presented to the player.

Alright, looks like we agree on this one I really think that a fairly simple game setup screen and a more complex scenario editor could get you the best of both worlds. You'll have canonical game settings as well as the ability to venture beyond them.

I love the idea of a scavenger race but I can envisage all kinds of ways that might work... while I originally suggested it as a race that has a very different requirement (i.e. you *have* to play it differently), I'm not necessarily against making it an AI only player that acts like an extended event - where you might have to suspend your own wars to unify against a galactic-level threat. Perhaps a scenario rather than a full on game race. Similar, perhaps, to the Antarans of MoO 2.

I feel this is going very far into dubious RP territory. As mentioned earlier, MoO to me is about strategic perfection and simplicity, with RP being icing rather than a main dish. I urge caution with adding RP elements that have a profound impact on the entire game. That said, doing stuff like this in scenarios is exactly what you want a good scenario editor for. IMO the main game should be focused towards making the best strategy game you can possibly come up with, allowing for a rich variety of scenarios for the people who are more RP focused. I rather enjoy both, but I really hate it whenever RP takes the front seat at the cost of gameplay balance. Again, I think the scenario split is a great way to get the best of both worlds and appeal to a broader base.

Bad MM is why I stopped playing Civ 2 ultimately. But perceived (not so much *actual*) MM is what I hated about MoO 2... setting up a new colony is a tiring and laborious process because you have all the depth which must be navigated, in terms of setting up all the buildings you're going to build, to the point where it's almost discouraging to build a new colony.

I agree completely that one of the best things about MoO 1 is doing away with buildings and just having factories. It's so convenient, and it works out well. I'm going to suggest some revisions to the factory system, but I think the core of it works great and should be kept as is. Having a few unique buildings is okay, MoO 1 essentially has missile bases, planetary shields, teleporters and gaia transformation programs as unique buildings.

Bad MM isn't just about getting information to the player in a practical manner, it is also about curbing the amount of depth they actively have to interact with. You never build individual buildings on MoO 1 planets - you have planetary upgrades, but you rarely get all of them to deal with and you rarely have a game that runs long enough to have to build all of them anyway (except on Huge galaxies)... in MoO 1 terms, you have the 5 IRC techs, the dozen or so main terraforming techs, the fertile/gaia transformations, planetary shields and star gates - a shade over 20 techs in total, meaning that's effectively your max 'specific build queue' and even then you don't have to actively build all of them - once you've researched, say, Terraforming +20, you don't have to explicitly build +10 then +20 - MoO 1 deals with it, removing player interaction.

Agree completely, and I tried to convey that as well.

To me, macro management means being sat on the Emperor's throne directing the strategy. You wouldn't get involved with food movements on a specific basis, nor even a general basis. People movement beyond the generic you wouldn't either, not when you're the Emperor of the Galaxy. Heck, not even leaders of world powers today worry about that particularly much and that's for dealing with populations into the millions, not the billions.

I agree that something like a food system should not require a lot of effort, but I do feel that feeding your population is a macro management issue. Both for sake of immersion and gameplay variety, I think that food is missing in a bad way from MoO 1. Differences between planets become boring when it's only a matter of max pop and minerals. With what I have in mind, you can manage food on a macro level by setting up on-going trade routes that only require revision if you're facing blockades or various disasters.

I did say I was trying to explore what *I* wanted as well as what like-minded MoO fans would want and I guess that's really it, I'm not going to be happy with a remake or even a restyling, but all ideas and comments are appreciated

You should definitely pursue what you think makes for a good game experience. However, more compromises will have to be struck if you're aiming for a commercial project rather than a hobby project. I'm glad you're thinking in terms of something more original than a remake or a restyling. With either of those, you're basically only catering to nostalgic fans in the feeble hope that new players will think a 90s game is cool.

If everything is up for debate, I think you should come up with an entirely new combat system. While the MoO 1 system is charming, it's a huge obstacle to having good MP functionality. That in itself is a huge topic of discussion, and requires a lot of research on systems in comparable games. I would suggest venturing there, possibly still keeping parts of the MoO 1 system (I like miniaturization and combat levels and such) but considering your hands to be completely untied with regards to coming up with something that works for you. And if that means stealing something from another game, go for it!

I also agree that the tech tree is good, but make sure to look at it with new eyes. You can definitely keep the concept and overall structure while still changing things around. You don't necessarily have to stick with the current fields, for example. Not suggesting that you change for sake of changing, just keeping an open mind about room for improvement.

[WhiteMage]

Be wary of trying to make an AI that "plays to win." It is not possible to design an AI that is actually good at a complex strategy game with current technology and the computing power available to a game engine. Inevitably, an AI that is supposedly trying to win will make some ridiculous and self-defeating decisions that are immersion-breaking and annoying for the player because they make no sense in any context.

I get the essence, but I disagree. Current AI not performing well in complex Turn Based Strategy games is not due to the current computing power or the available technology in AI. It is due to the lack of time spent on programming, the inadequate knowledge of the AI programmers, and the low funding levels for AI development. Complex turn based strategy game development is notorious about delivering poor AI basically without exception so far. But that is not because the problem can't be solved. It is just not funded enough and most smart AI programmers work on other areas, not game AI. For a random game company with no strong AI programmer on board, yes, it is practical to not aim high in goals. Players are not to aim high in their expectations for same reason. Too sad.

I think it's ultimately better if the AI's behavior is designed primarily to be convincing and comprehensible, and as competent at winning the game as possible only within those parameters.

Yes, this is a good short term practical advice for an AI developer who is serious about actually creating a strong AI.

[Catwalk]

I think the best approach would be to create the strongest AI possible, which is used at the highest difficulty level. At lower levels racial traits come into play more, whereas they're minor at the highest level. I definitely think you should do your best to create an AI that wants to win at all costs. I don't see a need to have multiple difficulty settings, will confuse more than it helps.

[Andrew]

5. When you use the slider for the tech, once the little lamp lights up, the bonus is exhausted. Sliding further to the right will increase RP spending, but you do not get the bonus.

Confusing. It is better say "...increasing of the bonus is ended" and "...do not increase the bonus".

[WhiteMage]

5. When you use the slider for the tech, once the little lamp lights up, the bonus is exhausted. Sliding further to the right will increase RP spending, but you do not get the bonus.

Confusing. It is better say "...increasing of the bonus is ended" and "...do not increase the bonus".

Agreed.

[Andrew]

Your explanation is correct, thanks for posting. Only thing I don't remember is how much to spend to get to 100% chance. Is it 2x or 4x the base cost?

According to logic it must be 2x. According to manual it is to be 3x. If 4x takes place, it is a bug.
How is in reality?

@WhiteMage
You are able to edit your post.

[RefSteel]

Including multiple difficulty factors is an excellent idea. I know the biggest criticism (around here at least) of the new X-Com was that it wasn't possible to get high-difficulty tactical combat without restrictions at the strategic layer that reduced that layer to the One Right Answer of spamming satellites, but I've also at times lamented that it's impossible to create a sub-Impossible MoO game in which (for instance) the AI is willing to build as many missile bases as it does at Impossible difficulty.

I think the best approach would be to create the strongest AI possible, which is used at the highest difficulty level. At lower levels racial traits come into play more, whereas they're minor at the highest level. I definitely think you should do your best to create an AI that wants to win at all costs. I don't see a need to have multiple difficulty settings, will confuse more than it helps.

On the contrary, it won't be confusing at all if (for instance) the difficulty options are displayed this way:

[Simple]
[Easy]
[Average]
[Hard]
[Impossible]
[Show Advanced Options]

There should definitely be an easy way for new players to jump into the game without needing to make a bunch of complicated decisions first, but that doesn't mean one shouldn't allow players with an interest in doing so to customize their game.

[WhiteMage]

how much to spend to get to 100% chance. Is it 2x or 4x the base cost?

Testing shows 3x spending for 99%. No 100% is ever displayed.