Main page

In the last couple of days, I have been looking at other X4 games arround... Played a lot of em in the meantime to get more ideas what this game(MOO) needs to succeed.

I hate to say this, but at this point, with the plan of not changing core gameplay mechanics, this game is already doomed... 

The reason for me to write this is simple, i hope that the higher ups are able to see what this community needs.

The game has no depth, boring same technologies research each time you play, basically no replay value.

If you look at other developers, you can see that they take their (franchise) fans seriously. They mostly accumulate experience through other games the release, lets say Paradox or Amplitude studios..

I know that Wargaming is a new player in the 4x genre, but the company needs dedicated fans of the game with serious innovation in their mind.

At this point, beta or not, there is simply not enough content, the game is extremly shallow, AI is basically sitting around playing mindless Diplomacy and i CAN'T believe that Wargaming can release such a shallow BETA while saying that the core machanics will remain unchanged.

For 2016, this game is unacceptable, i reccomend the developers to look at (for example) Stellaris, the game is in development but there are already gameplays available, and that game has some strong content backing it up. If Wargaming could deliver something more sophisticated, like the example I have mentioned you could build yourself a nice base of dedicated fans and new ones too.

Anyway, I would also reccomend to check the steampage of MOO to see what kinds of improvements are needed, there are a lot of them..

If you have any ideas on how to improve the game, please write a list (Short) with all the improvments you would like to see, reply to this thread to make sure the devs can see this.

Fellow MOO fans, we can make this game great again! (we just need some luck and devs that listen, hope we can get both)

Signing off,

Space Veteran

Patus Grizly

I do not think the game is in beta phase.

Early access is kind of different from Alpha/beta stuff, because the game is still under development and not really ready, at all. Like We are still lacking 2 races, a victory condition and hell knows what(espionage).

That is why are we here to tell them what they should add, therefore it is a given that the game lacks features.

So viewing the game as complete isn't advisable.

In the matter of Stellaris,..uhh..It is from Paradox and I looking at EU 4 and CK 2...Uhh, My wallet is not prepared to buy a game that costs over 140 euros.

I believe that those games are good, but as I read from some reviews You have to actually buy the whole package to be that good. So How good Stellaris will be at launch is, questionable.

I am sure it will be a great game, but I also think that I will be after a bunch of DLCs and expansion packs. 

I played with Endless Space, that game didn't really win me over, It was kind of..dark..and blank? Endless Legend is better, and interesting, just badly optimized(was at launch who knows know), at least for me.

This game lacks depth.

That is true, however It is not as bad as Civilization: Beyond Earth at launch. Therefore It is not catastrophic. And since Rising Tide kinda made BE fun, I am hopeful that this game will be good at launch.

Like We do not even have espionage, yet.

There are still stuff that They could add.

Like limiting fleet sizes, more anomalies, more diplomatic interactions, improve the galactic council, make something with alternative travel modes beside starlanes, better map generation, better tactical combat and more info on weapons.

But these are smaller things, that are planned afaik.

For me the greatest 4X game I played that came out in this DECADE is Civ 5.

And Civ 5 was terrible at launch and became the best 4X(this DECADE) with G&K and BNW. 

So, I am like okay with just a good MoO at launch If It becomes way better with subsequent expansion packs.

Yes, the game is not ready yet BUT Wg has said that the core mechanics are already there... and they are kinda without any innovation, just copy and paste.

I ain't viewing the game as complete, but there wont come any more big changes. What, Espionage?

It's like saying, hey, im playing Company of Heroes, and uhm, with next update we will add a mechanic so you can have 2 more guns that the enemy has researched....

Do you really think this will change the core mechanics? I don't thinks so.

Back to Stellaris, I am talking about the current state of the two games, NOT ANY FUTURE DLC'S. Paradox loves money.... (Actually who doesn't? ) At the current state, stellaris is freaking big.....

While Moo has like 20% of that stuff? They have time, but.... what they say, what the future updates will bring.... is the top of the icberg on needed updates...

There arent any prices available so i count your argument as invalid. And paradox games dont cost more than 60 bucks at release, propably around 50.

MOO is looking now like it's Endless Space without the Disharmony DLC. Except worse.

The DLC made the game a lot better, i see you see it this way too in case of MOO.... BUT this was 2012, and a limited budget from a small company, while they ANNOUNCED the updates...

(Dont start about Civ Beyond Earth, nice Frak up)

And I hear something funny.... : "So, I am like okay with just a good MoO at launch If It becomes way better with subsequent expansion packs."

Yes, as long as they will stay free. If i have paid for an incomplete game, without a depth, boring mechanics and ESPIONAGE (woohooo -,-) then WG will disappoint me.

"

There are still stuff that They could add.

Like limiting fleet sizes, more anomalies, more diplomatic interactions, improve the galactic council, make something with alternative travel modes beside starlanes, better map generation, better tactical combat and more info on weapons.

But these are smaller things, that are planned afaik. "

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

This is not what they COULD add, these are core mechanics....

They need to add them. the question is, will they? We need more race variation, more random events, more travel possibilities, in depth battlefield, commanders, council that can act, no plain diplomatics, possible federations, more random**** research, government types, trade (real trade) traderoutes, some interesting anomalies more players at start, emerging new civilizations, i could talk for hours.

I can understand you defending the game and the developers, but they need to throw us a bone, tell us they see the lacks in gameplay... For now they are following the plan they announced when the game was released to the public, it's like saying.... Hey guys, we appriciate your input, please tell us more, we can read it, print it on paper, and throw it in the garbage because you know... We already got thoose cool mechanics and we wont change them cause this would cost us a lotta money.... You have seen the roadmap right? This will be it.....

Sorry for eventual errors in spelling, as i wrote this very fast.

Greetz,

Patus Grizly

Core mechanics means everything that You can build the game on. Basic management, combat, economy, diplomacy. The basic stuff e.g. What BE was at release.

Everything above that is not core mechanic. Such as more complicated diplomacy, functioning council, espionage, diverse tactical combat, and the like, e.g. what Rising Tide is.

You seem to think that WG does nothing while developing this game, I urge you to read this topic: Response to Feedback: Upcoming Changes to Master of Orion

That was from EA phase 1.

Your sole misunderstanding comes from not understanding what core mechanics mean, mister.

Other than that Stellaris seems like a Grander strategy than MoO, certainly interesting, but MoO can never even attempt to become something like that. Not with the current fanbase.

I'd still play MoO over Stellaris, tactical battles FTW.

Seriously Tho Stellaris is cool, but in no way has 5 times the content MoO has.

Except of espionage there are no core mechanics missing. But a lot of them need changes and improvements and like the post above mentioned this changes are planned. Of course e.g. diplomacy at this point is not whats it's meant to be but there is no core mechanic missing but e.g. the AI needs to be provided with a concept of how to react on things.

But I don't think of it being a good idea to compare MoO with Stellaris because Paradox is aiming for another type of players with their Grand Strategy Games than MoO is.

And another point you should not miss while comparing to any content mass of Stellaris is that Stellaris is built on the Clausewitz Enginge which is Paradox' game engine for grand strategy games developed years ago and already used in 4 other grand strategy titles and further developed over many years with 4 games and their constant stream of DLCs paying for that developement.

At the moment, if you think about how far the Death Star was close to completion, during Return of the Jedi, then you have where I think MOO CTS is at. It is operational and the shell is there, but they need to fill in a lot of the gaps. 

Don't get me wrong it is fun to a point as it is, but this is MOO, it needs to be the best game in its class and to achieve this they have a way to go sure, but don't give up on them, they are big MOO fans also, so will keep working until it is the best. 

I think they mean by core game play that just spying is due to be added. I cannot think of any other core game-play that is missing, sure, most features need polish and fleshing out - only the tactical combat and AI need an overhaul imo. 

Hopefully once they have sorted out all the core elements so it is stable and an acceptable game, they can then build on the parts that give you the idea of playing in an immersive universe and a unique game each time - with race traits that matter, interesting events, maybe individual race techs if we are lucky - deep strategic tactical combat options and diplomacy that makes sense. They never said that the current build is near to release and that they will keep working and doing phases until the feedback is really good. Then will be time to talk of expansions, when hopefully we will get the missing races and Antaran story arc. 

I think you dont understand exactly what i mean. Okay, lets say Research is a core mechanic... But as long as it stays the way it is, it will be pretty basic right?

They have said that the core mechanics are done, and that they need tweaking. That's where we come in... But tweaking isn't rebuilding from the scratch. And at this point, a lot has to be built from scratch imo.

So now we get something like Beyond Earth, yea like you said, we can build on top of it.... yaay. Now dont get me wrong, but you dont want to build a tower on a pile of garbage right?

You need to have core mechanics that DO work.

Maybe it's nostalgia talking, but Moo2 was a freaking rpg while this is some low level rip off with thesame name.

We all will wait and see, but until that point, I aint very happy with WG taking over the IP.

Ps. I have read the Link you have provided, and honestly, they are going the good way, at least on paper, but the list is still too short.

"only the tactical combat and AI need an overhaul imo" = that's more than tweaking, it's broken right now and needs to be redone.

I hope that WG realises this.

I just want this game to be awesome and that WG can live up to the expectations.

Research Is actually quite fine now, as a base It is good enough.

Honestly when I dipped into MoO 2 I was extremely annoyed with having to choose one option from the bunch of stuff that I researched.

Partially because I played games like Civ, SoaSER and such in which You get everything, and It didn't even make much sense to me either. 

But because these games are now the standard, I have to compare MoO's research to them. And honestly MoO does not fall short in any regard.

It is clean, You know what you will get and the choice in some tech means that You have to have some diplomatic skill in order to get them, It also increases the replayablity.

It is a solid mechanic.

It is way better than Beyond Earth's spiderweb of confusion. 

The foundation of this game is solid. It isn't like They are gonna release the game in this state. Tactical battles will be more immersive, diplomacy, research more impactful , the AI will be better. They are working alternative traveling methods other than starlanes. 

I honestly do not know what You expect them to do.

Start the entire thing from scratch, revoke our early access and delay the game 2 years?

The game is solid, and it will be a good enough game. I certainly can see myself playing a couple hundred hours.

And after a couple of expansion packs it will be even better.

I don't know, to me It seems you have unreasonable expectations from this game.

It is solid, already better than Civ V or BE at launch, I expect it to be on par with the Endless titles, You kinda expecting a Witcher 3 level sequel from this.

E.:

Also, Changing the core aspects of the game now would be impossible I reckon.

There isn't much sense in arguing about something that is already set in stone.

I don't think they need to throw MOO CTS in the trash can either, the game now is a lot of fun, with a good overhaul of the AI, it will be a lot of fun. If they make the tactical combat more immersive and well, tactical, then the game will be magnificent. 

I do think a lot of what you might call the fluffy stuff will be bolted on the end. No point having a derelict unique ship you can salvage yet, as if they have to re-balance the stats, they just add one other thing that needs to be updated with each pass. 

So my hope for early access phase 3, are first pass at spying + the 2 new races, plus improvement in the AI. Then hopefully a phase 4, that gives us a lot more options in the tactical combat, akin to what you can do in Sins with grouping, hotkeying and fleet commands + plus dotting all the is and ts on the tech, telling us exactly what they do etc. Then we can hopefully persuade them to add fluffy stuff, like unique leaders, in game missions, race specific tech trees. Then onto an official expansion with more races, ships and the Antaran arc. Not trying to get carried away! :-)

Well, but that "you'll get everything"-principle is imho the biggest problem within the actual MoO! It makes every race almost identical in playstyle in the long term because the racial benefits or weaknesses are just important in the beginning of a new game. After that you'll get Tech that is better and compansate what you miss. You can always build in every single match you play the same ship constructions, the same building queues on planets etc., there will be no difference! That MAY be funny in the first 2 or 3 times you'll play the game, but after that, it is just really annoying and leads to some kind of casual playstyle, MoO series never was known for! Instead of thinking about your next turn, and whats best to research, you just have to click the next button, like kiddies on their mobile phones and tablets do. Even my 5 year old nephew could play it after a while, this research is a no-brainer actually!

It would be a hell better to have choices to make at every single tech you're researching! Not just "bomb or engine" like it is now, EVERYTHING! That makes the race skills a lot more important because you have the choice, you can research techs that cover your racial weaknesses, or boost your strength even further. Missing techs you can trade in by diplomacy, or steal it from your enemies by espionage. Capturing planets instead of wiping everything out become also more important because you'll also have a chance of capturing techs. It would make the game a lot more complex. Doing the easy way, like Civ & Co. doing it, isn't always the best choice to make a good game! Think about why people STILL prefer playing MoO2 over any other 4X space strategy game! It's the re-playability because every game with different settings will also need a different playstyle. In the new MoO you can play every single match with the same tactics, regardless of your race and your enemies and settings. And the only reason is because of this "everything-for-everyone"-techtree :-(

Just from a logical point of view, If this kind of research model in games is actually superior to the ones like in Civ, TW, SoaSER, Endless games, Age of empires etc etc.

Then Why does no game use it besides MoO?

Tell you why.

Because It is bonkers.

It is a nice mechanic, but fails against all iteration of common sense.

Technology and research does not work this way.

I understand the benefits of this mechanic and yes, It is okay to have it in a game like MoO2.

But seriously, This is just simply does not make sense in this decade.

If research would be some kind of important element of the game, maybe.

But honestly research in games is just there, because it is there.

It's just something that you click on every 5-10-20 turns.

The content of the technologies and the "cleanness" of the UI is way more important than the actual method of acquiring them.

It needs to be well balanced, so It forces you to choose, but not within a technology block, but rather which technology block.

You only notice a research systems If it's a bad one, like that of BE which was just confusing.

Other than MoO2 I do not even know any other game with this kind of research.

None.

In this already, heavily scientifically illiterate world, let's not try to spread even more misinformation How science works.

I feel that that post is heavily influenced by your personal opinion and nostalgia, because calling MoO 2 "by far the best 4X TBS" isn't exactly right.

It is "one of the best" not "by far the best"  because, well It has score of 8.2

That is preeeety far from the best.

It set a standard for 4X games, and in that standard the research model was not included. 

For example World Of Warcraft set the standard for MMOs. Basically any MMO after WoW felt like a WoW-clone.

You could argue as much as You'd like how good that research model is, but If it was that good, then Why wasn't it used in subsequent titles?

Most of what You say is true, but It is just unnecessary. Research doesn't have that much of an impact in games. And that model is way too much work for something that just does not make any sense. Literally that research model, is just stupid. Honestly It is just stupid. How the hell can you get the technology to build hydroponic farms, but not get the one for Biodomes? You get what I mean? It is just stupid. Science and Technology simply does not work that way, You do not throw away research, You do not leave out something that you could research. You get all the sweet, sweet science.

Even the argument that species should have different research trees, because They are isolated from one another isn't true at all. If you know what convergence means in evolution, You know that even two completely isolated species, faced with the same problem, often develop the same answers.

I understand that You think that the MoO 2 style research could make the game better, but honestly I do not believe It would matter at all.

Civ V and IV had a research like this MoO and they have scores as high as 9 and 9.2 scores respectively. A whopping point higher than MoO 2.

Research does not make the game better, not necessarily. 

It is the innate randomness of the AI each game that makes those games interesting, with some player sinking thousands of hours into them. And also that they have what You'd call a "soul", a charisma.

Research is just there.

And by the way, the best 4X TBS game is Civ II, believe it or not.

The Devs should just balance this hybrid model out, and leave it alone. It is perfectly good for this game.

I think research at is is - is pretty good.

In Moo2 there were a few research elements that were keystones. Its the same here. If you play a spiral galaxy you want to have the technique to get through the blocked starlanes.
I'm pretty happy with research. To me it is very important in early game (go for production, weapons, antipollution or money?). I like it how I have nothing at the start (cannot build ships as command points lack, going for production and having pollution everyhwere, or going out of money).
I do agree tho that in midgame I simply go down the line choosing whatever is researched fastest. It doesn't matter anymore then.

As to the post needed I really do like the core elements of the game, as they basically come from Moo2.

People always live in the past trying to desperately find something that is missing. And yes at this early stage there is. But heck right now I see myself loading this game even in this state and not my virtual XP machine with Moo2 anymore.

Especially the starting phase is extremely interesting already, just like Moo2. Surviving the first 200 turns is not easy and while I won practically every Moo2 game, I don't do it here anymore - even if people all over the board say differently. But a large circle galaxy is easy to loose if your starting conditions suck.
I cannot remember that I had so much fun in a space game the past few years. "Stack of Doom" was the solution to everything in Moo2 and the so called brilliant 10 year old AI was simply hoarding ships and attacked you then. Without starlanes there was not much of pathfinding anyway. Park ships along borders, then create a stack of doom once you can and wipe out the human player - was what the AI did. The only difference I see now is diplomacy and spying which can be heavily improved.

The best fun I had so far was the recent large circle galaxies where I had to give up several starsystems cause they got overrun, but could fight my way back as the AI was loosing small ships at every defense they encountered.
Granted after 200 turns you can simply turn the game off - but that was in Moo2 the same.

I love the game already and am sure the devs will make it something that we can compare to all games following saying : "hey but Moo CTS was better".

Lets see whats coming

I completly agree with Boswelli as the tech three  is done now every game tends to be the same no matter what race I play. The tech selection of MoO2 is what made that game great. I prefer the turn based combat of MoO2 when playing single player but that combat system is now outdated and Is not what defined MoO2 as the classic it is. I seriously wonder how they can create a spy and tech stealing system with the current tech three that would not become completely broken. The tech stealing and trading of MoO2 rely enhanced the diplomacy too.

But the main thing is that the tech selection of MoO2 made each of the opponent races different each game. You always had to adapt you fleets depending on what techs the enemies got. The tech selection and ship design adaption at was strategy that made MoO2 stand out. With all techs available all fleets will become the same all fights will be the same and the game will not last.

Another solution is to add different tech threes for each race with maybe at least 10-15 race specific techs for each race would seriously improve the situation. The race specific techs would be special and suit each race. That way the races would feel more different and add a lot of flavor. Each race would get some less important and perhaps more flavor techs like special improvement buildings, but also very special game changing techs that the other races rely like to get hold off. Perhaps some that are already in the game. The race techs would be unique ond that  would make it much more worth to get hold off, thus making spying and tech trading worth while. But I am not sure this would be better than the MoO2 tech selection system concerning replay ability.

Examples of possible race techs.

Meklar. - Tactical AI: Gives dauntless guiding system

             - bionic computers: 

             - Robotic factories: production buildings

              -Robot workers

Bulrathi  - Battlepods

              - Battle stim pacs: Ground combat buffs

              - Caring about mother natur: some sort of Recycling tech reducing pollution

Psylon   - The universal archives: late game tech building

             - Mobile science labs: Early game ship module

             - Powered armor: Their tiny bodies need them

Silicoids - special ship armor materials

              - special mining techs

              - Crystal enhanced lasers

              - Crystal bombs that reduced the planets to barren

Mrshram  - Powerswords : Ground combat buffs

I think the overwhelming opinion is that each race needs to have something different that defines it and / or the game needs to be such that two games are very unlikely to be the same. Race techs are one way of achieving that. The idea I posted of rare minerals giving early access (haha!) to some techs I think has merit as well. 

If I open up and play MOO2 today I am pretty much guaranteed that the game will be very different from the last one I played. Based on what techs the aliens have, what race and tech path I take and what real estate I find and also which leaders turn up offering their services. Quite often finding space monsters early helps and / or natives. Whenever I get a tech there is scope for trade via diplomacy and spies find a lot of useful stuff you missed earlier.

At this early stage of MOO CTS , I can pretty much tell you exactly what the aliens will have and will do. It is the same every time and the same for each race. We are only in early access, so this is not a criticism, just an observation. I think with improving the AI and options in tactical combat, this is the biggest challenge the Devs have up to release. I am really looking forward to seeing what ideas they come up with.