For a forum that prides itself on trying new things, for the love of all that is novel and interesting, please can we have a new QotM? - Krill

Create an account  

 
New MoO announced

(March 2nd, 2016, 22:42)Ray F Wrote:
(March 2nd, 2016, 22:32)Psillycyber Wrote: But the thing that really made SMAC stand out was the flavor. My god, the flavor!

You know, I think even people who say "flavor is important" are underestimating its importance.

It's ultimately what makes a game a "game" instead of a mathematical puzzle. Lack of flavor is what drives people to say that MOO3 and Endless Space had "no soul" or were "sterile".

It's why so many gamers idolize MOO2 and overlook its significant flaws. And since few developers truly understand the importance of flavor, it's why so many space 4X games have since failed to recapture the magic of MOO1/2 despite having more modern interfaces and improved mechanics.

I honestly believe that flavor is probably the most important element of a game. Maybe it's because I come from a strong RPG background. But it's probably the one area where I am excessively obsessive about adding to the game with my MOO1 clone.
Flavor is what gives context and meaning to your actions. It gives you a sense of your place on this made-up world. A game is vastly more fun if you are "saving your people" rather than just trying keep a number as high as possible.
Reply

(March 3rd, 2016, 06:18)HansLemurson Wrote:
(March 2nd, 2016, 22:42)Ray F Wrote:
(March 2nd, 2016, 22:32)Psillycyber Wrote: But the thing that really made SMAC stand out was the flavor. My god, the flavor!

You know, I think even people who say "flavor is important" are underestimating its importance.

It's ultimately what makes a game a "game" instead of a mathematical puzzle. Lack of flavor is what drives people to say that MOO3 and Endless Space had "no soul" or were "sterile".

It's why so many gamers idolize MOO2 and overlook its significant flaws. And since few developers truly understand the importance of flavor, it's why so many space 4X games have since failed to recapture the magic of MOO1/2 despite having more modern interfaces and improved mechanics.

I honestly believe that flavor is probably the most important element of a game. Maybe it's because I come from a strong RPG background. But it's probably the one area where I am excessively obsessive about adding to the game with my MOO1 clone.
Flavor is what gives context and meaning to your actions. It gives you a sense of your place on this made-up world. A game is vastly more fun if you are "saving your people" rather than just trying keep a number as high as possible.
why is it more fun? I think that personal attachment plays a role. the player starts to care.

the New MoO will be in Early Access only for three months?

what is the point of releasing a complete game as Early Access? yikes
me on civfanatics.com
An ideal strategy game would tone down efficiency challenges, while promoting choices and conflicts
No gods or kings. Only Man.
Reply

(March 3rd, 2016, 14:04)Hail Wrote: the New MoO will be in Early Access only for three months?

what is the point of releasing a complete game as Early Access? yikes
Complete game? Hardly. I'm not sure 3 months is enough to get all the features in place and still retain some semblance of balance.
Tactical combat still needs a lot of work before it's fun, and "MOAR MISSILES" is the answer to all problems.

The economic system is particularly troubling, as large colonies are not actually significantly better than small ones. A bunch of factors combine to produce a situation where the most valuable thing you can do with a Size 2 colony is just build another colony vessel.
-Diminishing Returns: A medium abundant planet will have a Production yield of +3 for the first citizen, +2 for a second through fourth, and then any subsequent ones give only +1. Works the same way with food too. Not with science though, fortunately. This means that your citizens are overall better off working in a new and less crowded colony.
-Increasing Growth Costs: On a Size 8 colony, +1 pop costs 104 Food. On a fresh Size 1 colony, +1 pop costs 32 Food. Said Size 1 colony will also have a farming slot worth 1-2 food more than on your crowded homeworld. I think you see where I'm going with this.
-Free Production from Buildings: Civ5 strikes again: Automated Factories give a flat +2 Production. Hydroponic Farms give +2 Food. Research Labs give +2 Science. These buildings all pay for themselves in 20 turns...I'd like to build these things all day if you'd let me!
I guess I'll just have to build more colonies to get more free stuff... duh
One-Per-City Buildings are for production MULTIPLIERS, not flat bonuses. nono
-Unhappiness Rounds Down: This is minor, but it means that for the most part, a small colony can avoid having any citizens going on strike.
60% Morale: 3rd citizen goes on strike.
70% Morale: 4th citizen goes on strike.
80% Morale: 5th citizen goes on strike.
90% Morale: 10th citizen goes on strike.
Keep your colonies small (until you can afford good morale buildings), and you'll never have to worry about unproductive striking citizens!

All of this adds up to one thing: Your early empire should consist of as many Size-2 colonies as you can roll off of the assembly line. Even settling a crappy world is better than having a food-expensive citizen go on strike, and even the most god-forsaken rock still earns you +1 science. Oh, did I mention that the Colony-Base itself gives you free resources? +2 Resources costs around 40 production, so the +1 Food/Production/Science of a colony-base makes it worth around 60 Hammers, which is 65% of the price of the Colony Ship itself (93 Hammers). Nearly 2/3rds the cost of a Colony ship is paying for free-production in the new colony!

Needless to say, Colonies pay for themselves VERY quickly.
Reply

*Free per-planet bonuses? Check.
*Diminishing returns from pop growth at each planet? Check.
*Flat-bonus facilities that cost maintenance (rather than making the number of planets cost maintenance)? Check.

So, IPS (infinite planet sprawl) is clearly the only optimal way to go in New MoO, huh?

It's almost like we've flipped back into an alternate reality where Civ4 never happened, and where game designers never learned how to balance horizontal vs. vertical growth incentives...

MoO1 handled vertical vs. horizontal growth incentives well, in my opinion. For the most part, one population point at one planet was just as good as one population point at another planet (disregarding modifiers like ultra-rich, etc.)

*In favor of horizontal growth: you got free population growth from having, let's say two planets at half of the pop max rather than one planet already near the pop max. Thus, as the Silicoids you could keep even in pop and eventually surpass the other races by settling a like of planets and harnessing the middle of that sigmoid growth curve, despite the Silicoids growing slowly at each planet. Also, more planets gave you increased coloniztion range and scanner range.

*In favor of vertical growth: having more development on fewer planets made it easier and less expensive to defend your planets with missile bases and fleets, especially early on when missile bases are expensive and fleets are slow-as-molasses. If your empire is compact enough and your engines are comparable to your opponents, you might even get away with having one consolidated fleet playing zone defense, ready to go to any of your threatened planets.
Reply

(March 4th, 2016, 09:12)Psillycyber Wrote: *Free per-planet bonuses? Check.
*Diminishing returns from pop growth at each planet? Check.
*Flat-bonus facilities that cost maintenance (rather than making the number of planets cost maintenance)? Check.

Wow, I've never seen it summarized that succinctly. You're right... this is an obvious recipe for Infinite Colony Sprawl and turns into a "this is how you win every time" formula.

Hopefully they address this.
Reply

I feel compelled to address some of those points. Have you had a chance to try playing the MOO reboot, HansLemurson or Psillycybe? I don't agree that the economic system is as bad as you've made it out to be.

On a per-planet basis, it's true that the early buildings provide flat benefits like +2 food or +2 research. And the fact that the player often ends up constructing the same buildings at new colonies in repeated fashion is one of my bigger criticisms of the game. However, this overlooks the fact that these early buildings are intended to jump-start colonies early in their development. All of the really big bonuses come later in the tech tree, and they are not flat bonuses. Take research, for example. The first research building is a flat +2 beakers. The second one grants +1 beaker per research cell being worked by a population point, which neatly doubles the base rate of 1 beaker per citizen allocated to research. It's a huge jump up in research power, and it heavily favors larger planets over smaller ones. Then the third research building grants +3 beakers per research cell being worked by a population point. On my mature colonies, that can easily be 30-40 beakers from that building. The flat bonus of the early game easily pales in comparison.

Of course, you can build the stuff that grants flat bonuses on each world, and that means that bigger is inherently better. My response to that is "Yeah, and what's wrong with that?" [Image: wink.gif] The original Master of Orion game made it clear that you always wanted to grow as large as possible, and the MOO reboot functions in exactly the same way. This is a good thing! Unlike a Civilization game, the number of planets is strictly limited in Master of Orion. There are only so many planets on the map, and either you get them or someone else gets them. The fact that the MOO reboot doesn't engage in Civ5-style "penalties for expanding" is a gigantic plus in my eyes. The reboot still has the Galactic Council, and you still need to get 2/3 of the population in votes to win. Adding some kind of corruption or maintenance costs to the gameplay doesn't make sense in the MOO context, and I'm glad that no such system exists.

Expansion is balanced in several different ways in the reboot:

* Colonization choices: There are lots of planets out there to colonize, and no barriers on what you can grab right away. However, many of the worlds are very low quality, and there's MASSIVE difference between a high-quality world and a low-quality one. This is the biggest thing missing from your analysis posts, I think. A Large/Terran/Rich world is vastly superior to a Small/Radiated/Poor world; think of the difference between a Civ4 cities full of resources and a barren patch of territory. As a result, choosing key spots to colonize is an important decision. You'll want all the planets eventually, but there's real pressure to pick and choose between them. This is then compounded by the second issue below...

* Colony ship costs: Unlike in the original Master of Orion, colony ships are fairly expensive in the reboot. They're roughly about as expensive as settlers in Civ4, and that means your first couple of colonies are big decisions. Picking a high-quality planet versus a low-quality planet in a strategic location can be a really tough decision. You can only build fortifications with the space factories (i.e. this game's version of workers/constructors) in systems with a colony, and that may overwhelm other concerns.

* Building costs: This is the other way the game tries to control expansion somewhat. You make credits on a per-citizen basis. The tax rate is constructed this way, and the credit-producing buildings also generally produce money per citizen. Meanwhile, all of the buildings cost money to support. If the player colonizes a whole bunch of low-quality planets, the economy rapidly begins to drain as the small planets don't raise enough in taxes to pay for their infrastructure. As in Civ4, it's the big planets with lots of population points that bring in the most production/research/credits for your empire.

Now this system is far from perfect, but I'd say it works decently in practice. The real thing that the reboot needs right now is better AI, or at least a higher difficulty level than Average, which is the only selectable option right now. There isn't enough pressure on the player right now because the difficulty level is too low. But if we can crank the game up to Impossible, where the AI will be aggressively colonizing and moving big fleet around? I think this whole system will be pretty effective there. Of course, I could always be wrong too! lol
Follow Sullla: Website | YouTube | Livestream | Twitter | Discord
Reply

Let me split this into a separate post. Here's what's working well and poorly in the reboot right now:

The Good

* Planetary Colonization: the best part of the gameplay right now. Really big, noticeable differences between the different quality worlds out there.

* Galactic Council population-based victory condition still exists

* Morale/Taxes: this system actually works surprisingly well in practice. I'll have to write more about it at some point. Long story short: the player can choose to run the empire at several different tax levels, each with advantages and disadvantages.

* Simplicity: the reboot generally keeps things pretty simple. There isn't too much Civ5-style feature bloat.

The Average

* Colony Management: It does some things well, but can also get repetitive. I do like how Terraforming is handled.

* Space factories: a neat idea if a bit micromanagement-happy.

* Starlanes: while I dislike the starlanes in general, the ability to block off entry points and fortify systems with ships/structures is pretty neat. I love the notion that no one can pass into my sector of space without declaring war or signing an Open Borders treaty.

* Tech Tree: It's pretty well constructed, now that I'm starting to know where things are. I find myself getting the Civ4 feel of wanting different things located down different paths, all at the same time. But the whole system is inherently far inferior to the variable tech system of the original MOO.

The Bad

* The AI: it's bad right now. Needs a lot of work. I want to see how much a higher difficulty level can compensate for its shortcomings.

* Diplomacy: all of the AIs seem to hate me no matter what I do. Perhaps because I out-grow them so easily? There need to be more options here for making friends.

* Combat: it's bad right now. I don't think combat is all that important in Master of Orion (unlike the people on the forums who seem to spend 90% of their time talking about this), but it's still not very good. Definitely needs improvement.
Follow Sullla: Website | YouTube | Livestream | Twitter | Discord
Reply

Quote:Have you had a chance to try playing the MOO reboot, HansLemurson or Psillycybe?

I have not played this MOO reboot, but I have watched your livestream recordings of it, so I have been able to get a decent sense of what is going on with this game.

Quote:* Building costs: This is the other way the game tries to control expansion somewhat. You make credits on a per-citizen basis. The tax rate is constructed this way, and the credit-producing buildings also generally produce money per citizen. Meanwhile, all of the buildings cost money to support. If the player colonizes a whole bunch of low-quality planets, the economy rapidly begins to drain as the small planets don't raise enough in taxes to pay for their infrastructure. As in Civ4, it's the big planets with lots of population points that bring in the most production/research/credits for your empire.

The per-citizen-boosting buildings are certainly a welcome addition, I agree. It makes much more sense to build one of these buildings at a high-population planet than to have to build a bunch of copies of these buildings at a bunch of low-population planets to get the same effect.

As for BCs being generated per-citizen, it still seems like it would be easier, all other things being equal, to support your tax needs with a bunch of low-population planets than a few large-population planets. Less need for morale buildings (so you could hike the tax rate higher), faster population growth (fewer diminishing returns).

Quote:* Colonization choices: There are lots of planets out there to colonize, and no barriers on what you can grab right away. However, many of the worlds are very low quality, and there's MASSIVE difference between a high-quality world and a low-quality one. This is the biggest thing missing from your analysis posts, I think. A Large/Terran/Rich world is vastly superior to a Small/Radiated/Poor world; think of the difference between a Civ4 cities full of resources and a barren patch of territory. As a result, choosing key spots to colonize is an important decision. You'll want all the planets eventually, but there's real pressure to pick and choose between them. This is then compounded by the second issue below...

Now, I agree, obviously if you have 2 large terran planets and 5 small barren planets to choose from, you will want to colonize the 2 large terran ones first.

Where the infinite planet sprawl worries come into play is: is it ever better to colonize those 2 large terran planets and then just focus on building those planets up for a long time while postponing the colonization of the 5 small barren planets for a long time, or is it always better to colonize the 2 large terran planets and then colonize the 5 small barren planets, and THEN only after you have run out of planets to colonize, only THEN choosing to build up your nice planets?

Ideally, this should be a tough decision to make. Is it in the MOO reboot? Or is the answer always obvious: colonize moar planets...and only as a last resort build up your good planets vertically?
Reply

Those are good questions to be asking, Psillycyber. Would it be more efficient to have all planets focus on producing colony ships are quickly as possible? My gut impression is that that wouldn't be a particularly good strategy, mostly because colony ships are expensive and they drop the population of the colony by 1 upon completion. I think that one of the potential flaws with your theorycrafting is that planets don't necessarily grow faster at smaller sizes; in my experience, they often seem to grow faster at LARGER sizes. Larger planets can assign more population as farmers, and benefit from what is probably the most important building in the game, the Cloning Center (25% less food needed to grow to next pop point). I've found that new planets are often quite slow to get that second population point, as they only have 1 citizen to play around with, and that means either slow/no growth (if that citizen goes into production) or no production (if the citizen becomes a farmer). It's also important to remember that a large number of planets, roughly 33% of the total, are Toxic/Radiated/Volcanic worlds that don't even have their own food supply. They need infrastructure before they can grow to size 2, so it's not possible to pursue any kind of colony rush strategy out of them. Then there's also the Poor/Ultra Poor planets, and anything with Low/High gravity where production also gets crushed...

I dunno, I haven't tried this in practice yet, so I could be totally wrong. But it doesn't feel like a singular focus on nothing but colony ships would work very well. Maybe if you had a galaxy with a bunch of high-quality worlds, perhaps. The galaxies I roll always seem to have way more weak planets than strong ones though. lol

On a more theoretical level, I've never liked the "Tall" versus "Wide" discussions. That seemed to come into vogue with Civ5, and I don't remember anyone talking much about it beforehand. I reject the whole idea as something of a false dichotomy; I don't see any reason why a player can't be doing both things at the same time, or any reason why they need to be consciously balanced against one another. In the original Master of Orion, I'm always trying to claim as many planets as possible, and so are the AI empires. The checks on expansion are not some nebulous definition of Tall versus Wide, but rather the other empires trying to do the same thing. Either they get a planet or I do - end of story. I expand as much as I can while trying to protect what I already have from attack.

Anyway, not trying to get too far off on a tangent here. I simply don't think the question is all that useful as a tool of analysis. I reject outright the notion that small empires somehow have to be balanced with large ones (I don't know if this is a point you're trying to make). Empire-building games have one basic rule: expand or die. With the Galactic Council mechanic, this is more true than ever in Master of Orion. So I think the answer is to Tall versus Wide is "Both", at the same time, while making sure not to die in the process. If that makes any sense at all. crazyeye
Follow Sullla: Website | YouTube | Livestream | Twitter | Discord
Reply

I think the idea is to provide incentives for growing cities/planets early so that the game doesn't turn into spamming settlers/colonies ICS style.

A large empire of cities/planets with X population should be better then a small empire with cities/planets with X population, but a large empire of tiny settlements should be more on par with a small empire of large settlements.
Reply



Forum Jump: