I've said before I'm noodling around with a quasi remake, but for me to spend any more time on it than it being a weekend hobby toy project, I need to essentially convince the people I work with of the benefits of making such a game (since I don't have the art skills, amongst other things!) There is, naturally, a part of me that just wants to build MoO: The Director's Cut (obviously under another name) but essentially the core game unchanged save for bug fixes across the board, including fixing the various AI bugs. Be the game it's always destined to be, so to speak.
But one of the things my colleague said to me was: for us to seriously consider it, we gotta answer three questions - is it needed, does someone already make one and can we make a better enough one that it's worth the effort (since he's talking, essentially, from a taking-to-market standpoint)
So, is a remake needed? Sure. MoO is 20 years old, surviving mostly through emulation and fan patches, which is glorious in itself that people care enough to make those things happen, but a more modern approach certainly would draw people in to see what we see. But a straight up remake wouldn't really do the idea justice. It'd be prettier but I think it would lose some of the charm.
Does someone already make one? Sure... Endless Space, GalCiv, they're already out there. The fact these games exist and sell suggests there is a market for such. But neither of those games really nails the essence of MoO for me. They both have micromanagement aspects from what I've seen that I don't really like so much.
Can we make a better one? This is the part I'm having trouble with.
As I mentioned elsewhere I was trying to figure out about adding new races and I realised that all the races are covering all the mechanics. Colonist growth, colonist production, factory production, diplomacy, spying, research, ship combat attack, ship combat defence, ground combat, all the game mechanics are covered. To add a new race - or indeed any major new mechanic - has repercussions, which is why I think the variant system works well, it's all about tweaking the game with new minor mechanics, perhaps just one, perhaps a couple, but it's baby steps that grow up to change the face of the game.
So I kind of got myself stuck in a mental rut. How does one improve on something that is to all practical purposes virtually perfect whilst being able to be unique and distinctive at the same time?
As the most ardent MoO players I know (not worthy not worthy) I'd like some thoughts on what you'd like to see happen with such a project. I'm not empty handed myself in that department (I'm not the proverbial 19-year-old who sits in the corner and declares that in a weekend he's going to make a triple-A title if only he had the ideas been there, done that, heh), but I'd like some kind of feedback as to whether it really is worth pursuing, and I guess, to try and nail down not just what players might want but what *I* want as well. Right now I see a melange of ideas in my head and not yet with a single cohesive vision to bring them together - wood for the trees and all that.
This, then, is not exactly a todo or a manifesto, but a sort of 'here's everything I have going in my head, what bits of it do you like?' Deep breath.
* Style
- I'm definitely thinking more the aesthetic style of MoO 1. There's something slightly more personable about it, without being so dark and moody.
- A lot of Arne's comments definitely got into my head. Having the game give you some ambience beyond the norm would be awesome - like having the pictures of bases that have been attacked show that they've been attacked, for example. I also like the idea of advisers - and it's not like MoO didn't have pictures of such (e.g. the tech by spying, tech by research and tech by ground invasion characters). I also loved the idea of eras of ship design artwork but that may be a little infeasible, don't know yet.
* Major changes
- The scavenger race I mentioned
- Really emphasise the racial characters
-- MoO 1 used the same diplo text between races. "Shudder Emperor <your name>, we come for you." etc. I've been thinking about having different variations, not just per race but perhaps even some specific race/race dialogues. For example, I think it would be hilarious to have the Meklar (equivalent) race declare war on you by saying "All your base are belong to us. You have no chance to survive make your time." It would also help underline things like the bird/cat relationship, the everyone/Darlok relationship, the human/everyone relation and so on. But even if it turns out too much to prepare more than a few lines of text per race combination (or even speech, this is 2014!), at least something to really emphasise the race characters more would be great. Though I kind of imagine the 'All your base' speech being the kind of thing they'd say to any race. And of course there's always the 'ugly bags of mostly water' speech too from ST:TNG... oh the fun that could be had with sneaking in pop culture references. I'd never have the Doctor come to call or anything
-- While I'm not big on the whole micromanagement deal in MoO 2, morale is one of those characteristics that could be interesting - but only on a slightly smaller level. We already have the whole 'rebellion' thing, what about if you act inconsistently with the typical racial characteristics of your race, your people might rebel? For example, a race that is typically pacifistic (think Psilon) that repeatedly goes out of its war to declare war is not going to please the people much. A naturally xenophobic race isn't going to like lots of diplomacy, etc. all tempered of course by difficulty level.
-- Playing the races differently. Right now we all know that you basically play everyone but the Silicoids much the same way (and the AI definitely does that sort of thing), but I'd love to see if it were possible to emphasise each race's traits in such a way that you'd have to actively play them their way to really make them shine. So that they're not just collections of modifiers that you account for in playing an otherwise fairly straightforward strategy. Off hand I'm not sure how to approach this just yet other than by having another race (the scavenger race) that has its own very blatantly different mechanics and rules.
- Spectator wars - right now they're sort of an exploit waiting to happen, but what if the AI were capable of doing something with it? Perhaps not being so quick to participate, or realising that it had been duped into one - and perhaps both sides give you a diplo penalty or even both break off hostilities to attack you instead?
- AI in general - there's a lot of comments on here about improving the AI. I'm not an AI programmer as such but I recognise the overall processes that are involved and I'd certainly be interested in feedback about what MoO's AI does wrong. Off the top of my head things like researching tech it probably shouldn't, not being able to make strategic use of nebulae, being goaded into war a little too easily. I'm sure I'll find more from reading here
* Variant support
This is the big one, of course. I want the players to be able to mix up their games. The default rules would be MoO like, but with a variety of interesting optional rules that can be applied (and the AI would be aware of them so as not to be unfairly disadvantaged) - typically I would imagine the computer would not let the player turn on *too* many of these at once for a single game, but would do whatever management is required to make them happen in the background.
-- Iron man (no saving unless you're quitting the game, the idea being to hopefully curb save scumming)
-- Black holes (a la MoO 2; can't fly near them unless you obtain a mid game propulsion tech)
-- Wormholes (a la MoO 2; joins two stars, range is considered 1 parsec from near star to far star)
-- Star lanes (only travel between systems where subspace is physically weaker, perhaps a mid game tech to allow arbitrary travel)
-- Splinter races
-- Germaphobe (race never participates in ground combat, if a planet is attacked with ground troops it will be left to fend for itself, perhaps even becoming a splinter race in its own right)
-- Research victory/apotheosis, in addition letting the player outline what type(s) of victory can be obtained in a game (regular diplomatic, domination of galactic votes, conquest/extermination and apotheosis), and whether the computer player(s) are bound by such restrictions. Perhaps, for example, it might be interesting for a game where you have 3-6 players but no vote whatsoever, because it simply never occurs to the races that they could get along.
-- Galactic age (a la MoO 2; broad tuning of the types of planets, either to skew planets in favour of hostile but rich, or less rich but more climate friendly)
-- Dying galaxy (mostly asteroids, more nebulas)
-- Restricted research (e.g. no research at all in one or more categories, perhaps with defaults per player race, e.g. the default for the spy race is comp tech only to prevent them being fatally compromissed on spying)
-- Zerg rush (only permit planetology and propulsion tech, perhaps with a restricted tech tree, no diplo or peace, no ground assault, no spying, no defences, no bio weapons, for balance would probably have to be limited to Klackons only to prevent them being absolutely squished)
-- Auditors (reduce tech spending to 0 every few years to audit everything)
-- Distrustful of tech (never allowed to use the most advanced tech currently available, e.g. require class 3 to have been researched to allow class 2 to be used if both 2 and 3 are researched)
-- Truly pacifist (always reaching for NAP, never an alliance to avoid being drawn into war, prepared to bribe or tribute to get others to stand down, no sabotage and probably no espionage either)
-- Different galaxy shapes, e.g. spiral galaxy (with systems on the arms of the spiral)
-- No unarmed ships (I know it's typically an Imperia rule but it would have interesting consequences later too for colships)
I'm sure if I go back through the Imperia suggestions I can find more (I seem to recall one for Erratic player)
Of course, defined variants like the Imperia would be on a preset map, using some combination(s) of the above. And I can fully imagine this would entail setting up some Imperia-like scenarios in the core game, e.g. as Imperia 39, the Silicoid race with bioweapons to cleanse the galaxy of organic filth.
I would, if I could manage it - not sure about this part yet - like to provide some kind of modding support so instead of just picking and choosing criteria (perhaps with a map + tech editor, and perhaps even a race editor) for Imperia style games, but I'm not sure how that might work. But it could be cool to set up Imperia like that. I actually imagine that whatever site I end up building for the game (which would have a forum for discussions/bug reports/etc.) would also have native support for handling such games should people want to try it. Don't know yet. Still a bit cloudy, magic 8-ball says ask again later.
The other 800lb gorilla in the room, of course, is multiplayer. Now, it occurred to me already that I can leverage my skills in PHP to build this online (and, just for fun, integrate a forum package without breaking a sweat) but as already mentioned, monetisation is a factor and I'm just not sure how viable trying to monetise it like that might work. On the other hand, going for something like Unity does lend itself to doing nice shiny 3D graphics as well as more conventional distribution (which means, in practice, likely easier to monetise) but makes multiplayer somewhat more difficult on a technical as well as practical level.
I still have no idea how best to approach multiplayer in general for this sort of game - and it's not like we haven't broached the subject, but I can really see that being quite a big deal. Not sure. I'm not remotely social enough personally to play against another human being (it's why I love forums, there is far less of an implied timescale on 'omg reply nao plz' as opposed to any other medium out there), so I honestly doubt I'd give it much of a go, something like the Imperia games, or even play-by-email is more likely to work out for me, personally.
Phew. That's really enough talking, you've been a very patient audience if you got this far! But seriously, give it a think - I've had some of these ideas in my head for best part of a decade now and everything's coming together in my personal/professional life that means if I'm going to ever tackle it, now's the time - and you guys are the people who I'm thinking of that would play it. Let me know what you think
I found a website that wasn't updated since 2010. I haven't read everything on it yet but I think it contains alot of thoughts you are looking for right now.
The original game is a really good one and has qualities that are 'timeless'. Meaning even an exact (only slightly modernized) remake would result in something that is appealing to people and could sell.
With slightly modernized I mean things like:
- It installs and runs on everybodys computer without problems
- Graphics and sound are good enough (actually the original graphics are nice to watch in my opinion, but could be improved for higher resolutions)
- The UI features tooltips
- Autosaves and automatic savefile naming
- etc...
According to what I hear (like watching the penny arcades extra credits series for example) about succesful indiedevelopment projects in general is that one should start with something that is 'achievable'.
In this case I would aim for a game that is basically a modern version of the original game and would only make minor changes to the game itself. Changes would only contain things that are unargueably improvements to the game. Things that are tackled by the Imperia rules for example would be suitable points where changes could be made.
On the other hand, you might think creating just a remake is a bit too little in scope. I agree, but I think it is a good first step to put something out that actually sells, creates awareness of the title and gives you an idea how much demand there really is for a MOO title that is true to the original. Of course you would design the game that way that you can iterate on it (via expansions for example) in case it is successfull.
Multiplayer Mode and Modsupport are two big things. Not sure of how much of each you should add in a first version. Both would be big selling points for the game however.
(January 11th, 2014, 00:08)Arantor Wrote: I've said before I'm noodling around with a quasi remake, but for me to spend any more time on it than it being a weekend hobby toy project, I need to essentially convince the people I work with of the benefits of making such a game (since I don't have the art skills, amongst other things!) There is, naturally, a part of me that just wants to build MoO: The Director's Cut (obviously under another name) but essentially the core game unchanged save for bug fixes across the board, including fixing the various AI bugs. Be the game it's always destined to be, so to speak.
Do you have anyone lined up to work with you at present? Which skills do you personally lack?
Quote:But one of the things my colleague said to me was: for us to seriously consider it, we gotta answer three questions - is it needed, does someone already make one and can we make a better enough one that it's worth the effort (since he's talking, essentially, from a taking-to-market standpoint)
I would recommend making it a hobby project. If your starting objective is to make money from this, I fear you will be facing a lot of frustration and disappointment. If anything, make it donation based.
Quote:As I mentioned elsewhere I was trying to figure out about adding new races and I realised that all the races are covering all the mechanics. Colonist growth, colonist production, factory production, diplomacy, spying, research, ship combat attack, ship combat defence, ground combat, all the game mechanics are covered. To add a new race - or indeed any major new mechanic - has repercussions, which is why I think the variant system works well, it's all about tweaking the game with new minor mechanics, perhaps just one, perhaps a couple, but it's baby steps that grow up to change the face of the game.
So I kind of got myself stuck in a mental rut. How does one improve on something that is to all practical purposes virtually perfect whilst being able to be unique and distinctive at the same time?
I wouldn't be keen on a new race. Unless it's implemented absolutely seamlessly, there's a big risk that people will feel that it just doesn't feel MoM. My approach would be to further tweak and balance all existing races.
Quote:* Style
- I'm definitely thinking more the aesthetic style of MoO 1. There's something slightly more personable about it, without being so dark and moody.
- A lot of Arne's comments definitely got into my head. Having the game give you some ambience beyond the norm would be awesome - like having the pictures of bases that have been attacked show that they've been attacked, for example. I also like the idea of advisers - and it's not like MoO didn't have pictures of such (e.g. the tech by spying, tech by research and tech by ground invasion characters). I also loved the idea of eras of ship design artwork but that may be a little infeasible, don't know yet.
This sounds good. MoO 2 really didn't do a bad job here, it's very immersive visually and auditively.
My instinct is still no on this one, more for immersion reasons than gameplay reasons. I can see adding some of those traits to silicoids, though.
Quote:- Really emphasise the racial characters
-- MoO 1 used the same diplo text between races. "Shudder Emperor <your name>, we come for you." etc. I've been thinking about having different variations, not just per race but perhaps even some specific race/race dialogues. For example, I think it would be hilarious to have the Meklar (equivalent) race declare war on you by saying "All your base are belong to us. You have no chance to survive make your time." It would also help underline things like the bird/cat relationship, the everyone/Darlok relationship, the human/everyone relation and so on. But even if it turns out too much to prepare more than a few lines of text per race combination (or even speech, this is 2014!), at least something to really emphasise the race characters more would be great. Though I kind of imagine the 'All your base' speech being the kind of thing they'd say to any race. And of course there's always the 'ugly bags of mostly water' speech too from ST:TNG... oh the fun that could be had with sneaking in pop culture references. I'd never have the Doctor come to call or anything
This all sounds very good as well. Make sure to get a lot of opinions on the actual text used, but I don't think this would be too much effort to be worthwhile. This is also something fans can help out with.
Quote:-- While I'm not big on the whole micromanagement deal in MoO 2, morale is one of those characteristics that could be interesting - but only on a slightly smaller level. We already have the whole 'rebellion' thing, what about if you act inconsistently with the typical racial characteristics of your race, your people might rebel? For example, a race that is typically pacifistic (think Psilon) that repeatedly goes out of its war to declare war is not going to please the people much. A naturally xenophobic race isn't going to like lots of diplomacy, etc. all tempered of course by difficulty level.
A big no on this one from me. Adding what is essentially RP traits to races would break with what I see as MoO's hallmark: Pure and simple strategy. You're opening a huge can of exploit worms by rebalancing the game around each race this way. War weariness in Civ4 is a good example of a similar idea gone wrong IMO. I don't mind the concept of morale itself, and I don't mind it impacting races differently. I just don't like any kind of diplomatic connection with the system, I think it's likely to be a big UnFun factor.
Quote:-- Playing the races differently. Right now we all know that you basically play everyone but the Silicoids much the same way (and the AI definitely does that sort of thing), but I'd love to see if it were possible to emphasise each race's traits in such a way that you'd have to actively play them their way to really make them shine. So that they're not just collections of modifiers that you account for in playing an otherwise fairly straightforward strategy. Off hand I'm not sure how to approach this just yet other than by having another race (the scavenger race) that has its own very blatantly different mechanics and rules.
I'd play it fairly simple here, by just adding one or two traits to races. Take Mrrshans, for example:
+4 combat rating (assuming the combat system is essentially unchanged)
+50% morale bonus from ground troops present on a planet (assuming that a soldier system is added, I'd be in favour of that)
Excellent at Weapons tech (-40% RP cost and see below)
Good at Propulsion tech (-25% RP cost and see below)
Weak at Construction technology (+20% research and see below)
By high access and limited access I mean putting more Weapon techs in your tech tree and fewer Construction techs. I did a quick tally of techs, there are 31 computer techs and 27 Construction techs. For argument's sake and to save me time counting more, let's say there are 30 techs in all fields.
Excellent = 25 techs available
Good = 20 techs available
Normal = 15 techs available
Weak = 12 techs available
I'd Psilons Normal access to all fields to balance them out. Note that there is a myth that this is already how the game works (more techs for races who are Strong in a field), so it's not a far stretch to implement it.
A second thing I'd do is add the miniaturization bonuses for obsolete techs. This makes your access level in a particular field play a bigger role. Current formula is 80% * highest level + 1 for all other techs. Not sure what the best formula would be, though.
Quote:- Spectator wars - right now they're sort of an exploit waiting to happen, but what if the AI were capable of doing something with it? Perhaps not being so quick to participate, or realising that it had been duped into one - and perhaps both sides give you a diplo penalty or even both break off hostilities to attack you instead?
2 things come to mind:
1) Much higher prices for bribing AIs into war
2) Heavy revision of the relations system so it's much more objectively founded. In essence, each AI should evaluate other AIs first and foremost based on how much of a threat they are. Past actions should factor in much less than they do now.
Quote:* Variant support
This is the big one, of course. I want the players to be able to mix up their games. The default rules would be MoO like, but with a variety of interesting optional rules that can be applied (and the AI would be aware of them so as not to be unfairly disadvantaged) - typically I would imagine the computer would not let the player turn on *too* many of these at once for a single game, but would do whatever management is required to make them happen in the background.
I'm a little sceptical of this one as well. For one thing, it makes AI coding a lot more complicated. For another, it breaks with the pure state of MoO 1. I think MoO 2 made a huge mistake with race customization, for example. It just made the whole game feel tacky rather than interesting and varied. It works in Master of Magic somehow, it just doesn't feel right for Master of Orion. Similarly, I'd be very cautious in adding variant support. It's a little like throwing the towel in the ring as the game designer and go "I don't know what's cool, so I'll just let you design the game yourselves". People often end up being frustrated with that kind of freedom. It's nice to have a complete package that works. That said, I'm not opposed to optional settings entirely.
Quote:-- Iron man (no saving unless you're quitting the game, the idea being to hopefully curb save scumming)
This is a good one, it's one of the reasons I liked NetHack and it also worked well in Alpha Centauri.
Quote:-- Black holes (a la MoO 2; can't fly near them unless you obtain a mid game propulsion tech)
-- Wormholes (a la MoO 2; joins two stars, range is considered 1 parsec from near star to far star)
-- Star lanes (only travel between systems where subspace is physically weaker, perhaps a mid game tech to allow arbitrary travel)
Why would you make these optional? They're good additions that shouldn't really generate much controversy. Have faith in your ideas
Quote:-- Splinter races
-- Germaphobe (race never participates in ground combat, if a planet is attacked with ground troops it will be left to fend for itself, perhaps even becoming a splinter race in its own right)
Not sold on this one.
Quote:-- Research victory/apotheosis, in addition letting the player outline what type(s) of victory can be obtained in a game (regular diplomatic, domination of galactic votes, conquest/extermination and apotheosis), and whether the computer player(s) are bound by such restrictions. Perhaps, for example, it might be interesting for a game where you have 3-6 players but no vote whatsoever, because it simply never occurs to the races that they could get along.
Speaking for myself, I've always found the galactic election to be a weak concept. I'd change it to a Final War concept with the sole purpose of letting the AIs gang up on the player. This becomes increasingly likely the stronger the player gets, and it becomes increasingly difficult to dissaude AIs with good deeds. I've never had fun winning a galactic vote, I always refuse when it's handed to me on a plate as I don't feel I've done anything noteworthy to deserve a win. I can definitely see having a UP council for other reasons, though. I liked that concept in Alpha Centauri.
Quote:-- Galactic age (a la MoO 2; broad tuning of the types of planets, either to skew planets in favour of hostile but rich, or less rich but more climate friendly)
-- Dying galaxy (mostly asteroids, more nebulas)
Would you ever play with the Dying Galaxy setting on? This also potentially makes racial balancing more difficult. If I win with Silicoids at Impossible I want to to feel it's because I earned it, not because I picked a galaxy that works well for them. I never really touched the MoO 2 settings much.
Quote:-- Different galaxy shapes, e.g. spiral galaxy (with systems on the arms of the spiral)
This one I do like, makes the game feel different without upsetting game balance.
Quote:-- Restricted research (e.g. no research at all in one or more categories, perhaps with defaults per player race, e.g. the default for the spy race is comp tech only to prevent them being fatally compromissed on spying)
Strongly against this one. You'll essentially be creating two different tech systems, and you'll have to balance each one. It leaves players in doubt about what the "real" tech system is, and how the game is meant to be played.
Quote:-- Zerg rush (only permit planetology and propulsion tech, perhaps with a restricted tech tree, no diplo or peace, no ground assault, no spying, no defences, no bio weapons, for balance would probably have to be limited to Klackons only to prevent them being absolutely squished)
-- Truly pacifist (always reaching for NAP, never an alliance to avoid being drawn into war, prepared to bribe or tribute to get others to stand down, no sabotage and probably no espionage either)
I don't understand these.
Quote:-- Auditors (reduce tech spending to 0 every few years to audit everything)
I don't see the point of this.
Quote:-- Distrustful of tech (never allowed to use the most advanced tech currently available, e.g. require class 3 to have been researched to allow class 2 to be used if both 2 and 3 are researched)
Already the miniaturization model does this, and I don't think it should be an optional setting. I'm all for modifying or tweaking the model, though.
Quote:-- No unarmed ships (I know it's typically an Imperia rule but it would have interesting consequences later too for colships)
This rule is more a matter of fixing an inherent game balance where you win all scout-scout ties early on. I think this should simply be fixed instead, so that ships without weapons simply don't enter combat and both can stay at the system even if at war.
The more I think about it, the less I like providing variant support. There are endless variants to suggest, and many of them stem from imbalances in the game and the lack of a scenario editor to create interesting challenges. We'd always end up using house rules for variants anyway, making this feel incomplete and half-done. Players who don't know about RB culture would be wondering what all these weird settings are about. More buttons to push doesn't always a good impression.
Quote:The other 800lb gorilla in the room, of course, is multiplayer. Now, it occurred to me already that I can leverage my skills in PHP to build this online (and, just for fun, integrate a forum package without breaking a sweat) but as already mentioned, monetisation is a factor and I'm just not sure how viable trying to monetise it like that might work. On the other hand, going for something like Unity does lend itself to doing nice shiny 3D graphics as well as more conventional distribution (which means, in practice, likely easier to monetise) but makes multiplayer somewhat more difficult on a technical as well as practical level.
I still have no idea how best to approach multiplayer in general for this sort of game - and it's not like we haven't broached the subject, but I can really see that being quite a big deal. Not sure. I'm not remotely social enough personally to play against another human being (it's why I love forums, there is far less of an implied timescale on 'omg reply nao plz' as opposed to any other medium out there), so I honestly doubt I'd give it much of a go, something like the Imperia games, or even play-by-email is more likely to work out for me, personally.
I think multiplayer support would be important, but there would also be big limitations. The combat system requires that all games be hot seat. That means it won't be used as much, but there's no way around that. However, the fact that the game is inherently simul-turn works in its favour. I think MP support is important, and it worked recently well in MoO 2. The big problem there was that combat duration was ridiculous because of the flawed decision to skip ship stacks. I understand the appeal in having individual ships, but it just worked out terribly. With faster combat resolution, this should be less of an issue.
Quote:Phew. That's really enough talking, you've been a very patient audience if you got this far! But seriously, give it a think - I've had some of these ideas in my head for best part of a decade now and everything's coming together in my personal/professional life that means if I'm going to ever tackle it, now's the time - and you guys are the people who I'm thinking of that would play it. Let me know what you think
I think it's a great idea, and you seem serious about it. I can definitely see a very good game coming out of the MoO 1 shell, if you do it right. I have a small wishlist of my own that I'd like to ask you to consider:
1) Revising the research bonus model
Currently, you get a 200% RP bonus for the first 7.5% of your CURRENT research in a field. This means that if you have 200 RP invested in Improved Ecological Restoration, the first 15 count triple. All points after that count simply as 1 point. This is terrible implementation of a good idea. Kyrub's patch deals with it slightly by letting a small lamp light up when you cross the bonus threshold, but it's a very limited solution.
I propose the following:
- The bonus is based on the total research cost of the technology, rather than RP already invested. This is a much easier system to administer.
- The bonus level is flexible with multiple thresholds rather than on/off. It would even be possible to not have thresholds and let a formula determine the bonus, this would remove all need to micromanage your sliders. The bonus level would have to be displayed on the tech screen.
- It would be a nice touch to colour code the tech slider, so it gradually changes colour the lower the bonus gets.
2) Rebalance all aspects of the game
This is the most important point IMO. MoO is actually very nicely balanced for an old game, but there is so much to improve on. For example, Planetology technology is far too important to the point where it becomes a no-brainer to always give it almost sole priority early on. It does everything you need early on:
- Expand planet size cheaply
- Clean up pollution (huge returns on this)
- Give access to hostile planets
- Lower cost of colony ships (this factor is huge for your first 1-2 Planetology techs)
If the cost of colony ships depended more on power than the colonization module, this would change some. Clean-up tech could also be made the sole domain of Construction, I feel it's a bit silly that it sits in two fields. I'd also be tempted to implement the MoO 2 terraforming system with planetary classes and planetary size. Not the exact same, but along those lines.
That was quite a detour, as my point was about rebalancing A better example is weapons technologies. NPG is far superior to other choices, anti-missile rockets are useless and Gatling Laser obsoletes much too fast. Sabotage with spies is useless and far inferior to tech stealing. Many more little examples to go over. A game is at its best when all options feel useful, at least situationally. I don't think it's sufficient that an inferior tech can be useful just because the better option is not available.
3) Revise the Guardian, and add more space monsters
I loved the additional space monsters from MoO 2, I think they'd work well here. And the Guardian should be revised so a larger range of tactics works on it. Currently the Megabolt Cannon is by far the best choice against it (at least on Impossible) because of the BC bonus, it's almost impossible to hit it reliably with other weapons. I also think its strength shouldn't differ so much from level to level, it's ridiculously easy to take down on lower levels.
I also had some ideas about the production system, will add more later if you're interested.
A little more brainstorming, don't mean to derail your thread so I'm putting it in spoilers. I do feel that I'm sticking with the spirit and theme of MoO 1 in all of this, but you can certainly argue that it's more of a MoO 3 than a remake of MoO 1. It's also not very organized yet, so bear with me.
Economic benefits from all tech fields:
Computers
- Robotic Controls, same as now
Construction
- max population (moved from Planetology)
- cleanup (also moved from Planetology)
Force Fields
- planetary shields, letting you colonize hostile worlds (essentially the same as colonization techs)
- miniaturizes planetary shield modules
Propulsion
- miniaturizes engines, gives significant savings especially on ships with newer engines
- maybe some kind of freighter system?
Weapons
- some sort of laser or fusion technology that boosts economy somehow?
Idea for a modified resource system:
Remove planetary reserves entirely. Instead, a planet can siphon part of its production to another planet via freighters, or to multiple planets. First generation freighters have 50% efficiency and cost 5 BC to produce. This goes up by 5% efficiency for each generation, to a maximum of 75% efficiency. Distance also factors in, as freighter requirements scale with distance. Once a trade route has been set up, it stays in place until you cancel it.
Freighters also carry colonists, same as now. In addition to that, they carry soldiers to other systems. Colonists require more freighters than previously, making planetary growth rates matter more as you can't as easily supplement planetary populations with colonists.
Food system:
I feel that a food system can be done in a simpler manner than MoO 2, not requiring much micro management at all. Food will essentially be an upkeep cost, and it will run on a separate slider. You can choose between 4 feeding levels:
No food = large growth penalty, huge morale loss
½ food per citizen = small growth penalty, large morale loss
1 food per citizen = normal population growth, no change in morale
1½ food per citizen = small population growth and small morale boost
The growth penalty depends on how much room you have on the planet. If you're at close to full pop, a small growth penalty will lead to a population decrease. Conversely, at low population levels you might see low positive growth rates while running ½ food. Running no food will always lead to population losses, and the loss will be higher if you're closer to max pop.
Food can also be carried by freighters, and food routes will be critical to keeping hostile systems alive. If your hostile systems are far-flung, you will either need a large freighter fleet or plan on terraforming fast.
Morale system:
Morale is basically a modifier to productivity, same as MoO 2. Each planet will have an equilibrium morale value, and may temporarily be above or below that level. Morale decreases happen twice as fast as morale increases, making it beneficial to not mess things about too much. The key components of morale are food and migration. The food effect is mentioned above. The migration effect happens whenever you send colonists to a new world. Given that we humans are racist bigots by and large, I think it's fair to assume that other species are as well What this means is that sending colonists elsewhere leads to a temporary morale loss. The higher the population of the destination planet, the higher the morale loss. The purpose of this is to make planetary growth rates matter, rather than just supplementing it with breeding worlds.
Morale can also be affected by martial law if you have soldiers on the planet. This effect differs from race to race, with Bulrathi and Mrrshans getting a bonus, Humans and Alkari getting a penalty and Psilons not getting any effect at all. Rebellions also lower morale. Morale has a big effect on ground combat.
Planet type system:
Also more or less stolen from MoO 2. Planets have a size and a type classification. Size simply affects max population. Type affects growth rate, food production and morale. The planet type can be affected by terraforming. There are multiple terraforming techs, each one allows you to terraform one level further. If you miss the first terraforming tech, the second one lets you catch up. Each level costs more to terraform, so if you have both level 1 and level 2 terraforming you get to terraform the first level cheaply and the second one at the higher rate. If you only have level 2 terraforming, both levels will be terraformed at the higher rate (certainly up for discussion, though).
Hostile planets require force field technology in order to settle them. You cannot terraform planets from space, you must first settle the planet and live in domes, and then get to work terraforming.
I find it tempting to also use the star/planet structure from MoO 2. Not only is it far more immersive, it also allows for more tactical variety in planetary defenses. A fleet can defend the entire system, whereas missile bases only defend a single planet. Huge ships are cost inefficient with large engines, making them well suited for planetary defense missions. It could easily be implemented graphically so that all planets can still be selected from the main screen. One of MoO 2's main flaws was requiring several extra clicks to do things, as well as doing away with the elegant and effective slider system in favour of a more visually pleasing citizen model. Many of MoO 2's additions weren't bad at all, it just wasn't put together right.
(January 11th, 2014, 06:15)Catwalk Wrote: Currently, you get a 200% RP bonus for the first 7.5% of your CURRENT research in a field. This means that if you have 200 RP invested in Improved Ecological Restoration, the first 15 count triple. All points after that count simply as 1 point. This is terrible implementation of a good idea. Kyrub's patch deals with it slightly by letting a small lamp light up when you cross the bonus threshold, but it's a very limited solution.
Catwalk,
Thanks for this info.
I tried to test this in 1.40m. I explain it to avoid confusion:
1. Each tech requires the stated number of RP to get to 1% chance of discovering it.
2. When a new discovery is made, the next tech's research starts from 0RP (no carry over from last tech).
3. In each turn for each tech there is RP spent so far and RP which is about to be spent.
4. For each tech you get +200% RP bonus on your RP about to be spent, but up to 7.5% of the RP spent so far.
5. When you use the slider for the tech, once the little lamp lights up, increasing of the bonus is ended. Sliding further to the right will increase RP spending, but you do not increase the bonus.
Example: suppose you spent 80RP so far on a tech (irrelevant which one). Now, if you spend 6RP on that tech, then you will actually earn 18RP, which is added to 80, so you will be at 80+18=98 by next turn. If you spend 7RP, then you will earn 19RP, so you will be at 80+19=99RP.
Quote:I found a website that wasn't updated since 2010. I haven't read everything on it yet but I think it contains alot of thoughts you are looking for right now.
Yeah, that one is linked in one of the threads I mentioned, lots of food for thought there.
Quote:With slightly modernized I mean things like:
- It installs and runs on everybodys computer without problems
- Graphics and sound are good enough (actually the original graphics are nice to watch in my opinion, but could be improved for higher resolutions)
- The UI features tooltips
- Autosaves and automatic savefile naming
- etc...
Yup, and this is certainly something I'd be able to do with Unity. Going web-based is always another option, too.
Quote:According to what I hear (like watching the penny arcades extra credits series for example) about succesful indiedevelopment projects in general is that one should start with something that is 'achievable'.
Spoilers for big answers... I think!
I think that advice was more for people going into development from another field; I've been writing software, including 'big things' (I mentioned elsewhere I'm a developer for the SMF forum software, currently working on the new release with major new features), so I have a fair idea of what's achievable in what time frame, but it's great advice to bear in mind, thanks
Quote:On the other hand, you might think creating just a remake is a bit too little in scope. I agree, but I think it is a good first step to put something out that actually sells, creates awareness of the title and gives you an idea how much demand there really is for a MOO title that is true to the original. Of course you would design the game that way that you can iterate on it (via expansions for example) in case it is successfull.
That is exactly my concern. I'd also be very concerned at critical feedback of 'unimaginative'.
Quote:Multiplayer Mode and Modsupport are two big things. Not sure of how much of each you should add in a first version. Both would be big selling points for the game however.
Therein lies the other problem. To do both properly, support needs to be carried throughout the core. (It's something I regularly run into with people wanting features in SMF, half the battle is figuring out what we want to offer in the core and what should be add-ons, and what support is needed to be able to best support functionality as add-ons but fighting 10 years of established history in that regard isn't easy)
There are other pragmatic issues at work; the two routes that I've outlined as options - Unity or PHP (since that's what I'm most familiar with) - also carry their own issues for modding. Unity in particular, everything I'll be doing is C# which players can't provide themselves unless I give them the source code and let them play with Unity to compile it (which, since I'm using the expensive version of Unity, means they'd have to as well), or I integrate something like Lua and let them play with *that*.
But it's all solveable.
-----------------------------------
Quote:Do you have anyone lined up to work with you at present? Which skills do you personally lack?
I'm actually attached to a software development company, which was actually founded to make indie games but for the last year has been doing standard IT consulting stuff to get money in the door. But now is the time that we're looking to branch out into doing our own stuff.
Me personally, it's art skills and AI experience - but the latter is fixable. Sound and music can be dealt with relatively easily (I already have licences for some music and I also have some royalty free sound effect libraries, but can always find/licence more) but in all honesty sound and music always seemed like second fiddle to the gameplay and the graphics in MoO anyway (and SMAC and Endless Space and CivII etc. etc.)
But art on the other hand, I can't fix my lack of art. Now, the two other guys in the group do have art skills and ones that would be up to the task, but I need to essentially provide enough material to go 'hey lookit this is what we should do' I can of course go prototype either using square blocks or working off rips of MoO to start with, but I'd rather in some ways let the art be something of a guide in itself.
Quote:I would recommend making it a hobby project. If your starting objective is to make money from this, I fear you will be facing a lot of frustration and disappointment. If anything, make it donation based.
That's what I'm afraid of. I have had too much experience of 'donation support' being absolutely terrible, though. You'd be surprised how little people will donate for software, especially open source software. Like the one guy I know that made an add-on for SMF, asked that if people downloaded it and found it useful, that they donated to one of two charities the guy supported. 1500 downloads and dozens of 'nice add-on' comments later, zero donations.
There is also very much the mindset of hobby projects getting put off time and again in favour of bigger things. The 'I'll do it tomorrow, promise' mentality.
Quote:I wouldn't be keen on a new race. Unless it's implemented absolutely seamlessly, there's a big risk that people will feel that it just doesn't feel MoM. My approach would be to further tweak and balance all existing races.
That's actually part of the point. I have the feeling in the back of my mind that unless I do something fairly big, it's always going to be 'MoO with tweaks' rather than being able to stand on its own.
Quote:This sounds good. MoO 2 really didn't do a bad job here, it's very immersive visually and auditively.
I wasn't entirely a fan of MoO 2's aesthetic approach. It was quite dark and moody, and in my head I actually preferred the slightly less immersive but more colourful first game. But definitely going for more detail in things like that is important.
Quote:My instinct is still no on this one, more for immersion reasons than gameplay reasons. I can see adding some of those traits to silicoids, though.
I'm actually thinking more of the gameplay on this one than the immersion factor, though. Partly it is the shake-up I mentioned and partly because it forms a race that you *have* to play differently (like the Silicoids) which is something I really want to tackle - and I'm not sure that rebalancing the races would entirely achieve that.
Quote:This all sounds very good as well. Make sure to get a lot of opinions on the actual text used, but I don't think this would be too much effort to be worthwhile. This is also something fans can help out with.
Yup
Quote:A big no on this one from me. Adding what is essentially RP traits to races would break with what I see as MoO's hallmark: Pure and simple strategy. You're opening a huge can of exploit worms by rebalancing the game around each race this way.
On the other hand, RP traits to races is also a method of playing the races differently. A race that is naturally pacifistic where actually playing as a pacifist makes a difference would be played differently to a race that is naturally aggressive while playing as a pacifist.
I don't mean just war weariness but a more broad thing; pacifistic races shouldn't be too inclined to go to war, aggressive races shouldn't be too inclined to give peace, honourable races shouldn't be too inclined to go to war unless attacked first etc. but it's one of those things that would need extremely careful balance.
Quote:I'd play it fairly simple here, by just adding one or two traits to races. Take Mrrshans, for example:
+4 combat rating (assuming the combat system is essentially unchanged)
+50% morale bonus from ground troops present on a planet (assuming that a soldier system is added, I'd be in favour of that)
Excellent at Weapons tech (-40% RP cost and see below)
Good at Propulsion tech (-25% RP cost and see below)
Weak at Construction technology (+20% research and see below)
Well, the biases are 60/80/100/125 not 60/75/100/120... perhaps race-specific tweaks to the normal biases?
Thing is, would otherwise just buffing Mrrshan to good at propulsion actively make you play them differently? Silicoids have a major difference, you actively play them differently to take advantage of that. The other races you basically play the same way, but tweaking more minor things, like whether you have fewer larger ships or many smaller ones, or more emphasis on ground invasion.
How would a soldier system work? The idea appeals, I'm just not sure off hand how best to approach it.
Quote:I'd Psilons Normal access to all fields to balance them out. Note that there is a myth that this is already how the game works (more techs for races who are Strong in a field), so it's not a far stretch to implement it.
Well, Psilons do currently have more techs than any other race - (OSG page 296), when the tech tree is generated, everyone else has a 50% chance of a given tech being there, they have a 75% chance (thus, 50% extra tech in the tree on average). But they have everything at 80% cost, AND a 50% bonus to research spending (so, 3x spending for arti planets and 6x spending for Orion) means that this 50% extra tech is just not an issue. I suppose this does actually slightly encourage Psilon players to eschew military spending (either in ships or bases) to start with and just spend heavily on research in the early game, but only just more so than you'd do with any other race.
Getting back to the point at hand, sure, that could be applied to other races - but I'm wary this would actually bring the races closer together in play style than differentiate them.
Quote:By high access and limited access I mean putting more Weapon techs in your tech tree and fewer Construction techs. I did a quick tally of techs, there are 31 computer techs and 27 Construction techs. For argument's sake and to save me time counting more, let's say there are 30 techs in all fields.
Excellent = 25 techs available
Good = 20 techs available
Normal = 15 techs available
Weak = 12 techs available
There are interesting consequences to this. Firstly it might actually change balance as mentioned by having the Psilons less able to be distinctive.
Secondly, it means the tendency to leapfrog techs rather than incremental upgrades; a tech's base cost doesn't change based on having miniaturisations or anything (OSG gives it as game difficulty base cost * tech level squared * racial tech bonus) so you pay the same to go from, say, Class 3 shields to Class 4 shields as you would from Class 2 to Class 4 - you just hurt more in the meantime until you get class 4. This also suggests that you'll get miniaturisation earlier (because instead of going through levels slower by researching more intermediate techs, you're leapfrogging, but the bonus is reduced by having fewer techs), though fewer earlier techs to use that on.
On the other hand, I am a bit concerned that races that are weak in a field will possibly be even weaker because of it - a race that's poor at Computers, say, is already curbed in terms of spying. This would potentially make it even moreso.
Definitely needs balance care.
Quote:A second thing I'd do is add the miniaturization bonuses for obsolete techs. This makes your access level in a particular field play a bigger role. Current formula is 80% * highest level + 1 for all other techs. Not sure what the best formula would be, though.
Bigger role can also be more of a penalty for those races that are already hamstrung by tech (Silicoids already Poor in 5 of the 6 areas)
Quote:2 things come to mind:
1) Much higher prices for bribing AIs into war
2) Heavy revision of the relations system so it's much more objectively founded. In essence, each AI should evaluate other AIs first and foremost based on how much of a threat they are. Past actions should factor in much less than they do now.
No arguments here
Quote:I'm a little sceptical of this one as well. For one thing, it makes AI coding a lot more complicated. For another, it breaks with the pure state of MoO 1. I think MoO 2 made a huge mistake with race customization, for example. It just made the whole game feel tacky rather than interesting and varied. It works in Master of Magic somehow, it just doesn't feel right for Master of Orion. Similarly, I'd be very cautious in adding variant support. It's a little like throwing the towel in the ring as the game designer and go "I don't know what's cool, so I'll just let you design the game yourselves". People often end up being frustrated with that kind of freedom. It's nice to have a complete package that works. That said, I'm not opposed to optional settings entirely.
See, I'm actually a little surprised to hear you say that. I don't necessarily mean variant support front and centre the way it is in, say, MoO 2 with custom races (which does feel broken). Something more like SMAC (where you can customise the game rules at the start) perhaps, or even not have an interface for it at all - but have decent enough support under the hood that variants can be played.
After all, the Imperia games are all about variants and one of the regular comments is about how some of the proposed rules are too complex to keep track of. Why not let the game itself keep track of them?
Would it not make things easier if, for example, someone sponsored an Imperia and just said 'here you go, here's the Imperia game file' and it covers the map, as well as all the variant rules and tweaks for that game?
The 'developer can't make a decision' is certainly a valid problem and I have taken others to task for the same 'too many options because we can't make a decision' problem. However, there is a world of difference between 'providing too many options' and 'allowing other people to be involved and to make decisions'. Essentially, what I'm getting at is mod support as a physical requirement, perhaps with some of the more minor ones being presented as a choice (a la SMAC)
Quote:Why would you make these optional? They're good additions that shouldn't really generate much controversy. Have faith in your ideas
Same reason there are map editors for MoO 2 that were apparently received enthusiastically to disable the blackholes/wormholes etc. But again, that's a classic example of having core support for such. The game would have the internal functionality to support it but through some method (be it a user option, or something that requires tweaking under the hood) it can be changed, in whichever direction.
Quote:Germaphobe - Not sold on this one.
I can understand that. But I'm thinking of it being an RP trait of sorts that's just enforced in the code. I could understand, for example, it being a variant style of Silicoids or Meklars.
Quote:Speaking for myself, I've always found the galactic election to be a weak concept. I'd change it to a Final War concept with the sole purpose of letting the AIs gang up on the player. This becomes increasingly likely the stronger the player gets, and it becomes increasingly difficult to dissaude AIs with good deeds. I've never had fun winning a galactic vote, I always refuse when it's handed to me on a plate as I don't feel I've done anything noteworthy to deserve a win. I can definitely see having a UP council for other reasons, though. I liked that concept in Alpha Centauri.
Yeah, diplo needs changing, though I've seen it be a viable winning strategy for non Human races for very tough games (e.g. some of Sirian's games)
This is why I'd actually offer the choice - you'd be able to turn off vague diplo wins if you wanted (in the way SMAC lets you turn off individual win conditions) so while the vote could still happen it would only let you win if you would already win through domination (i.e. you only win the vote because you have enough of the vote to vote yourself in)
Curious to know your take on research victory.
Quote:Would you ever play with the Dying Galaxy setting on? This also potentially makes racial balancing more difficult. If I win with Silicoids at Impossible I want to to feel it's because I earned it, not because I picked a galaxy that works well for them. I never really touched the MoO 2 settings much.
You're right, I probably wouldn't normally play with that. But I seem to recall it was an Imperia, so for such cases I might try it then. But if you had a scenario editor type deal where you could configure the game's rules (either for yourself or something like an Imperia), you wouldn't need an explicit 'setting' for that.
As for the MoO 2 settings, it's a prime example of how different the Silicoids are. A galaxy more prone to hostile+rich planets benefits the Silicoids first and foremost every time. It will help everyone else out in the mid to late game once the hostile techs have been established. Meanwhile, a galaxy more prone to non-hostile/fertile+poor planets hurts the Silicoids moreso in the early game, while doesn't significantly affect everyone else that much other than having more poor planets (which just affects everyone equally)
It's really just a sign to me of how different the Silicoids actually are.
Quote:Strongly against this one. You'll essentially be creating two different tech systems, and you'll have to balance each one. It leaves players in doubt about what the "real" tech system is, and how the game is meant to be played.
I can see that argument, but again it's one of those things that would be interesting for Imperia type games and the 'scenario' play style.
Quote:Zerg Rush & Truly pacifist
I don't understand these.
Zerg Rush is essentially a variant that's a watered down version of the scavenger race idea, a race that grows inexorably. That never cares about the rest of the galaxy and just takes what it wants, but it never touches technology unless it has to.
Truly pacifist is more taking the pacifist approach to extreme. Races that want peace at any cost are in sci-fi (there's at least one example in ST:TNG for example), but from a mechanical standpoint you'd play it much the way you'd start out with Psilons: pushing research, eschewing military spending, and you'd probably be inclined to push that either to a diplo or (as proposed) a research victory. But if you're not military spending, you have choices. You can either drop weapons and cut computer research (so you push construction and planetology first and foremost to make your colonies that much more efficient), or you can research weapons and comps as well for trading purposes (as well as IRCs)
But again these are things you'd have as scenario choices rather than regular game styles.
Quote:Auditors - I don't see the point of this.
This one came from one of the Imperia suggestion threads - it's more an RP trait. But from a mechanical standpoint it does curtail your research. You lose the chance of discovery that turn, and there's a penalty of accrued spending in that area (10% according to OSG)
Quote:Already the miniaturization model does this, and I don't think it should be an optional setting. I'm all for modifying or tweaking the model, though.
It's another RP thing more than a strict mechanical thing. Miniaturisation doesn't curtail you using the top techs, it merely discourages them because each advancement makes previous advancements more usable. This would modify it to be explicit, but again it does feel more the realm of a scenario builder rather than a 'core mechanic' (but it does need support in core to make it work)
Quote:This rule is more a matter of fixing an inherent game balance where you win all scout-scout ties early on. I think this should simply be fixed instead, so that ships without weapons simply don't enter combat and both can stay at the system even if at war.
Well, here's the thing... yes, there's the scout-scout ties. But there's also colony ships too, especially if you're at the point where you can miniaturise a colbase to fit in a medium ship and having to put a gun on there might block that until you can miniaturise something else.
Quote:The more I think about it, the less I like providing variant support. There are endless variants to suggest, and many of them stem from imbalances in the game and the lack of a scenario editor to create interesting challenges. We'd always end up using house rules for variants anyway, making this feel incomplete and half-done. Players who don't know about RB culture would be wondering what all these weird settings are about. More buttons to push doesn't always a good impression.
So, if we stop calling it 'variant support' and call it 'having a scenario editor', is that better? (It's essentially the same thing, both need support in the core, but I think my choice of wording made it unfairly prejudiced)
Oh, and I fully get the whole 'less is more' thing. It is something that I encounter a lot with SMF and trying to cut down options is a cultural hurdle in that environment. But on the other hand, for having scenario support, the more that can be supported by the underlying engine, the better (as a general rather than a specific rule)
Quote:I think multiplayer support would be important, but there would also be big limitations. The combat system requires that all games be hot seat. That means it won't be used as much, but there's no way around that. However, the fact that the game is inherently simul-turn works in its favour. I think MP support is important, and it worked recently well in MoO 2. The big problem there was that combat duration was ridiculous because of the flawed decision to skip ship stacks. I understand the appeal in having individual ships, but it just worked out terribly. With faster combat resolution, this should be less of an issue.
Picking up on MoO 2 combat first - the problem there was very firmly about trying to rebalance combat in favour of fewer, bigger ships where choices were important, as well as supporting things like the various levels of starbase and having things like tactical choices around shields, hull vs systems. It was intended to make every choice *matter* rather than MoO 1's
Combat does require hot-seat play, which is potentially problematic, but all other aspects could be either simul-turn or potentially even PBEM, and combat in multiplayer could potentially be dropped to AI driven :/ Dunno.
Quote:I propose the following:
- The bonus is based on the total research cost of the technology, rather than RP already invested. This is a much easier system to administer.
- The bonus level is flexible with multiple thresholds rather than on/off. It would even be possible to not have thresholds and let a formula determine the bonus, this would remove all need to micromanage your sliders. The bonus level would have to be displayed on the tech screen.
- It would be a nice touch to colour code the tech slider, so it gradually changes colour the lower the bonus gets.
I have to admit I'm not a huge fan of micromanagement. One of the things that put me off Civ and MoO 2 is that essentially you have to play accountant a bit much, you're always playing to optimise everything, and to not let any stray points go unused.
I never cared much about the bonus until I came here and saw the discussion on it, because it always seems like you have to do things manually to maximise what you do. I'd be much more in favour of a formula to determine the bonus rather than having players need to micro manage it.
Quote:For example, Planetology technology is far too important to the point where it becomes a no-brainer to always give it almost sole priority early on.
Agreed.
Quote:If the cost of colony ships depended more on power than the colonization module, this would change some. Clean-up tech could also be made the sole domain of Construction, I feel it's a bit silly that it sits in two fields. I'd also be tempted to implement the MoO 2 terraforming system with planetary classes and planetary size. Not the exact same, but along those lines.
The reason clean-up tech straddles two tech domains is primarily balance, I think. Moving clean up techs to Construction, this would benefit Bulrathis (Construction Good, Planetology Average), Klackons (Construction Excellent, Planetology Average), Meklars (Construction Average, Planetology Poor)
And it would hurt Humans (Construction Average, Planetology Good), Mrrshan (Construction Poor, Planetology Average), Sakkra (Construction Average, Planetology Excellent)
This would leave Alkari (both Average), Darlok (Average), Psilon (Good) untouched, while Silicoid never use the clean-up techs anyway.
It would also curb miniaturisation of colships specifically in favour of potentially reducing the overall cost of ships in general for a race (because higher Cons level means hulls get cheaper)
Quote:Many more little examples to go over. A game is at its best when all options feel useful, at least situationally. I don't think it's sufficient that an inferior tech can be useful just because the better option is not available.
No arguments here
Quote:3) Revise the Guardian, and add more space monsters
I loved the additional space monsters from MoO 2, I think they'd work well here. And the Guardian should be revised so a larger range of tactics works on it. Currently the Megabolt Cannon is by far the best choice against it (at least on Impossible) because of the BC bonus, it's almost impossible to hit it reliably with other weapons. I also think its strength shouldn't differ so much from level to level, it's ridiculously easy to take down on lower levels.
Again, no arguments here.
Quote:A little more brainstorming, don't mean to derail your thread so I'm putting it in spoilers. I do feel that I'm sticking with the spirit and theme of MoO 1 in all of this, but you can certainly argue that it's more of a MoO 3 than a remake of MoO 1. It's also not very organized yet, so bear with me.
Oh, no derailing Anything that's relevant is worth mentioning.
In many ways yes I guess what I'm aiming for is more of a "MoO 3 done right" than an MoO 1 remake... Taking the best of both MoO 1 and MoO 2 and adding more 'awesomeness'.
Quote:Construction
- max population (moved from Planetology)
- cleanup (also moved from Planetology)
I'm not a fan of this as mentioned above, because I think it changes the balance of power - modest-to-powerful races get an advantage out of it, as Bulrathi, Klackon and Meklar benefit, while Humans, Mrrshan and Sakkra are penalised.
I also think, thematically, max population is a function of living in concert with the planet's needs - we don't think of our current global issues as construction ones but planetological ones. Clean-up is another, though we sort of have the idea of not using harmful materials (in the way we don't use asbestos or CFCs and whatnot)
Quote:Force Fields
- planetary shields, letting you colonize hostile worlds (essentially the same as colonization techs)
- miniaturizes planetary shield modules
That's an interesting idea that MoO 2 did - you had the various shield techs that let you treat radiated planets as barren ones. But I forget what happened if that building should ever be destroyed or sold.
I'm sort of also reminded of what Endless Space does on this one; you have discrete techs for each of the various types of environment, I remember the first time I played and saw 'allows colonize desert' on a tech and was immediately confused because I was so used to being able to colonise desert without a special tech!
A shake-up of the colonisation tech is not inherently a bad idea. I'm just concerned at the gameplay vs immersion/thematic consequences. Being able to deploy a planet-scale shield implies you were already able to get on the planet in the first place, which implies you already have tech for that and if you can land there you probably already have the tech to colonise it.
Quote:Propulsion
- miniaturizes engines, gives significant savings especially on ships with newer engines
- maybe some kind of freighter system?
I'll come back to the freighter thing in a minute, but otherwise this works.
Works for me, with notes above about the colonisation modules.
Quote:Remove planetary reserves entirely. Instead, a planet can siphon part of its production to another planet via freighters, or to multiple planets. First generation freighters have 50% efficiency and cost 5 BC to produce. This goes up by 5% efficiency for each generation, to a maximum of 75% efficiency. Distance also factors in, as freighter requirements scale with distance. Once a trade route has been set up, it stays in place until you cancel it.
Well... planetary reserves are essentially an abstraction of the concept of freighters, IMO. While it's explained in monetary terms, there's no reason it has to be literal money but 1000 BC of planetary reserve means 1000 BC's worth of supplies.
I'd be very worried that this is micro territory. Consider the slightly-RP angle which I hope illustrates the problem... you're Emperor Palpatine. You might concern yourself with what planets are providing the parts for the Death Star. You might concern yourself with which planets are building your TIE fighter fleet. But are you going to care whether one planet is going to be providing food to another? This was my objection to MoO 2's freighters; short of major ecological issues, a planet should have the resources to manage itself.
Now, standing a colony up upon founding, or when it's under attack - these are things I can imagine Palpatine (or maybe Vader) co-ordinating, but I can't imagine them dealing with trade routes between systems inside a single cohesive empire.
Quote:Freighters also carry colonists, same as now. In addition to that, they carry soldiers to other systems. Colonists require more freighters than previously, making planetary growth rates matter more as you can't as easily supplement planetary populations with colonists.
Hmm, I think that still gets into a sense of micro, but I could see how it might work.
Quote:The growth penalty depends on how much room you have on the planet. If you're at close to full pop, a small growth penalty will lead to a population decrease. Conversely, at low population levels you might see low positive growth rates while running ½ food. Running no food will always lead to population losses, and the loss will be higher if you're closer to max pop.
Food can also be carried by freighters, and food routes will be critical to keeping hostile systems alive. If your hostile systems are far-flung, you will either need a large freighter fleet or plan on terraforming fast.
Interesting. As I said I'm not a fan of micromanagement and I don't think it fits with the 'overall galactic emperor' vibe that you're supposed to be working towards, but I can see how that might work without being too problematic.
Quote:Morale is basically a modifier to productivity, same as MoO 2. Each planet will have an equilibrium morale value, and may temporarily be above or below that level. Morale decreases happen twice as fast as morale increases, making it beneficial to not mess things about too much. The key components of morale are food and migration. The food effect is mentioned above. The migration effect happens whenever you send colonists to a new world.
This sounds interesting. Morale having an effect on ground combat makes sense, the migration aspect is mechanically interesting - but here's the twist, I still consider that the race's own temperament would play into this. Klackons for example are a ant-like hive mind, migration is simply going to be less of an issue for them because they don't think of themselves as individuals. Migration is a fact of life for them. Agree with the soliders on system comments, that should work well.
Quote:Also more or less stolen from MoO 2. Planets have a size and a type classification. ...
I like that as it is. You get the subtlety and depth of MoO 2 without the micro management.
Quote:Hostile planets require force field technology in order to settle them. You cannot terraform planets from space, you must first settle the planet and live in domes, and then get to work terraforming.
As I said, I'm a bit wary about the idea of being able to build a shield to enable colonisation.
Quote:I find it tempting to also use the star/planet structure from MoO 2. Not only is it far more immersive, it also allows for more tactical variety in planetary defenses. A fleet can defend the entire system, whereas missile bases only defend a single planet. Huge ships are cost inefficient with large engines, making them well suited for planetary defense missions. It could easily be implemented graphically so that all planets can still be selected from the main screen.
I did spend some time considering the multiple-planets-per-system approach, and tried to figure out whether it was beneficial for the game, or not. Yes, there's the realism aspect, there's tactial considerations on both attacking and defence but I tried to work out whether it actively *improved* the game or not. Then I saw Endless Space's take on it, and realised it could work - their approach if you haven't seen it is that from the galaxy view, you can see the up-to-6 planets in a system, whether they're uninhabitable, habitable or colonised, and while you have a build queue, it's primarily system-level rather than planet-level items. Yes, there's planet level enhancements (planet exploitation, moon exploration) but mostly not.
I'm still a bit on the fence about this one. I find it might still go a bit into micromanagement unless you effectively just assume all building is system level (because even Endless Space was a bit too micromanagement for my tastes, though fortunately the build queue is somewhat longer than 7 items!)
Sorry for the walls of text, but I'm very curious to see where this goes and being able to brainstorm with people who already understand the current game mechanics is easier than with people who don't! Thanks to everyone who has thought about this so far, and especially to Catwalk for comments, plenty of food for thought there
I'd like to comment on all of it tomorrow, for now just a few comments:
1) If you're serious about this being a commercial project, I think you have to ditch MoO entirely. Keep the core concepts (and no problem with staying close to them either), but create an entirely new set of races for example. Recreate the tech tree in your own image. In particular, I'm thinking about comments like "Having cleanup be Construction only will benefit these races and hurt those races and upset game balance". That is completely irrelevant when you're making an entirely new game. Races can be what you want them to be! In fact, starting over from scratch with races can be a huge advantage in that you're not restricted by the design choices of a few cool people back in the 90s. If you're completely serious about this being a commercial project and you have the resources, I'm all for going for it. I'm even willing to lend a good deal of my own spare time for free, at least to the extent that I do have spare time lately New job is kicking my butt, but fortunately I'm getting a lot of useful experience out of it and the colleagues are great.
2) Yes, I would much prefer there being a scenario editor than having a vastly cluttered game setup screen. I'm all for modding functionality, I've dabbled a bit with modding myself to recreate games how I found them to be fun to play. You can argue that I'm debating semantics here, but I think it makes a very important difference whether you're talking about modding functionality or game settings. It's all about first impressions and establishing norms. If you fail to establish norms for how the game is to be played, you'll end up with a fractured community who bicker with each other about what the game is. Putting these things in a scenario editor will have a different (and more positive) effect on people's reactions IMO.
3) I still hate scavengers And I really do think you either need to keep races as they are (possibly, and by no means necessarily including some MoO 2 races) or make entirely new ones. If you were to go with a new set of races, I'm all for discussing completely different mythos and mechanics. But I still hate scavengers I don't think planetary depletion will feel fun to most people. People are instinctively drawn to growth and progress, I can easily see scavengers being high on the list of races not to play against when setting up games.
4) We agree completely about micro management. That said, there are multiple kinds of micro management. There is the MM that ensues from having sharp thresholds where you lose resources if you don't abide by them. A good example is production and research not carried over in Civ 2. You lose those resources at a rate of 100% if you don't fiddle around, so you pretty much have to. It's unsatisfying to play a game where you arbitrarily lose resources that way, whether you choose to submit to the MM requirements or not.
There is also the MM caused by requiring a lot of clicks to accomplish what you need done. This is where MoO 1 shines. You manage your planets with very few clicks, and you have excellent overview of most things from the main screen. In your game, you can do even better on this if you make it a focal point from the start. Always think of ways to get relevant information to the player in a practical manner, and always think of ways to require fewer clicks to accomplish tasks.
Then there is the MM caused by having a complex strategy game with multiple variables. Take worker micro in Civ 4 for example. You are strongly encouraged to plan out your moves in order to not waste worker turns down the road. You are also strongly encouraged to figure out when you need what technologies, as you don't want to pay the opportunity cost of getting them much too soon and you don't want to suffer lost worker turns from getting them too late. This kind of MM is the good stuff. It's easy to understand intuitively, and you can dig into it in varying degrees. I feel that food and freighters can easily fall into this category. You wouldn't have to change things around every turn, at least not if the system is done right. That said, the MoO 2 approach of ignoring distance for sake of food transportation can also work. I'm not married to the implementation above, that was just off the top of my head. I feel that adding food as another economic factor adds greatly to both immersion and gameplay value.
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.
I'm serious about doing it - but I'm only too aware I can't do it alone and I've found it's much easier to get buy-in from people when starting with a base that is already in existence that covers all the key mechanics, mostly ready balanced etc. etc. It is also much easier to explain concepts to people when they already have something they can directly relate to.
But your comments are certainly giving me the impetus to cut back on the (large) list of notes I've got compiled from the OSG and the manual (plus corrections from here) about MoO and just forge ahead with something new. There is, after all, an entire galaxy out there.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The problem with macro management is that you can end up uninvolving the player a little too much. Need to experiment with that. 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
A few quick thoughts - just my advice, so take it for what it's worth, although some of these are echoing others re: what went wrong with Civ5.
1) Neat! I'd love to see this actually happen! I agree that if this will be commercial you really have to depart quite significantly from MoO though. (But see Zeraan's threads here and his Beyond Beyaan blog for a game well along in the design process that is built specifically to be able to emulate MoO, with an engine that is not at all the same.)
2) If you're going to borrow just one thing from MoO, borrow the overall tech tree design.
3) If you're going to make just one simple top-level change to MoO, increase the number (and thus granularity) of difficulty settings: Something between Average and Hard, between Hard and Impossible ... and maybe one beyond what MoO calls Impossible too. (If you're going to make just one not-simple top-level change, add multiplayer.)
4) Please don't force the player to play a given race (or the game as a whole) in the way you envision that race (or the game) being played. Encourage the gameplay you want, but let your players make their own decisions and feel like - as long as they do it well - they're being rewarded for doing so. If you're concerned that Mrrshan gameplay is too similar to other races', don't try to fix this by penalizing the Mrrshan economy when they're at peace: Make it easier or more rewarding for them to go to war.
5) Multiplayer support is good. It's likely even to be worth creating an option that can be selected at game start to automatically let the computer play out all battles (allowing involved players to see the replay) just to make PBeM and other non-continuous MP formats manageable.
6) 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 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.
not worthy) I'd like some thoughts on what you'd like to see happen with such a project. I'm not empty handed myself in that department (I'm not the proverbial 19-year-old who sits in the corner and declares that in a weekend he's going to make a triple-A title if only he had the ideas 
been there, done that, heh), but I'd like some kind of feedback as to whether it really is worth pursuing, and I guess, to try and nail down not just what players might want but what *I* want as well. Right now I see a melange of ideas in my head and not yet with a single cohesive vision to bring them together - wood for the trees and all that.
I don't think planetary depletion will feel fun to most people. People are instinctively drawn to growth and progress, I can easily see scavengers being high on the list of races not to play against when setting up games.