MOO3
 

It seems only fair, I asked basically the same question on the MOO3 board, so really this is not flame bait.

BTW, my decision is already predjudiced towards SEIV...

So now to my question.

Why should I buy SEIV instead of MOO3?

AtP

Re: MOO3
 

Uh, is MOO3 even out yet? That's one http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

I don't know much about it, but here's a few good points about SE4 (Gold)

-extensive mods already available, more possible
-graphics for many favorite SF races
-good custom race creation system
-good pre-game setup options
-simultanious or sequential play
-Play By Web (like PBEM, but the site does all the work for you)
-TCP/IP support
-really good developer support, a lot of the stuff in patches comes straight from requests. Sometimes he manages to give us stuff we hadn't known we wanted yet http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
-good ship customization system

Phoenix-D

Re: MOO3
 

err..since noone really know how moo3 will be like, this question is kind of... stupid.
Try downloading the se4 demo, that should give you a good feel of how the game is.
And for moo3.. just buy it. Judging from the screenshots and development story's this should be a winner.

And since moo3 is still quite some time away before being released you can easily buy this game, play it to death (not possible) and then within a few month's buy moo3.

Re: MOO3
 

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Atilla the Pun:
It seems only fair, I asked basically the same question on the MOO3 board, so really this is not flame bait.

BTW, my decision is already predjudiced towards SEIV...

So now to my question.

Why should I buy SEIV instead of MOO3?

AtP<hr></blockquote>

Question should be "should I buy SE 5 or MOO 3".

SE 4 exists and has a demo to try before buying; MOO3 doesn't exist and may never exist. Easy choice I think.

Re: MOO3
 

SE4 and now SE4 Gold, in my opinion is the best space combat, wargame, on the market today. Why SE4 over Moo3,?

1st Moo3 is not out, plus until it is, no-one is able to judge its playability or support. Demo's really don't count as without the full game, errors, playability, etc are to hard to judge

2nd SE4 has the best, greatest, friendliest Company Game Support and Forum then any other game company out there today. IF you don't believe it, go ck the others out.

3rd, SE4 is published by a game company that cares not only about its game but the needs and wants of those who play it. NO other company has this type or kind of support

4th, Shrapnel, Aaron, Richard, or MM will always get back to you if you have a problem or question, it may take a day or two, but you will get an answer, This doesn't happen with the other game companies. They are all very user friendly, you can't say this about any other company out there, especially not to their degree

5th, The modders, take it from one who knows, every modder on the Forum will help you out if you are having problems or have questions, they will answer you as well as get back to you. They actually talk to you even if you are a newbie. You won't find that on other forums not to the extent of our SE4 Modders. They are the best and friendliest

6th The game is addictive, plus with its moddability, more, new and interesting aspects are continuoulsy added

7th. NO FLAMING ON THE FORUM, its not welcomed, nor is it acceptable by the SE4 community. Banter yes, fun yes, discussions yes, disagreements yes, FLAMING most definitly NO - you won't find this on other forums where flame wars are almost always an ongoing problem

8th. if you enjoy space games, then you'll enjoy this one.

9th This is not to be construed as slamming MOO3, I even plan on buying it when it comes out, as I have both Moo and Moo2, but it will really, really have to be an exceptional game to beat out SE4 in all the areas.

10th. to each his own, everyone has their own likes and dislikes. it really depends on you and what you want and like.

just some ideas mac

Re: MOO3
 

I don't want to get flamed http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
But I think the diplomatic model of even MOII was better then what I have seen in SEIV right now. And there is no way to MOD around that. In all other aspects I think SEIV is the winner

Re: MOO3
 

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by comisar:
I don't want to get flamed http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
But I think the diplomatic model of even MOII was better then what I have seen in SEIV right now. And there is no way to MOD around that. In all other aspects I think SEIV is the winner<hr></blockquote>

Standard SEIV, yes. But did you try TDM-ModPack ?
Galaxy springs to life !

"You are breathing ? We will fix that now !"

"As we are currently in an election campaign, we cannot decide such a delicate treaty. Please contact us again after the election."

"Your lands, your ships, your women. They shall belong to us."

Re: MOO3
 

TDM Mod Pack adds flavor, true. But the bottom line is there is just no enforment of anything. Yes, I tell computer I will declare war on such and such, but then do nothing.
And there is no punishment for me at all for that. That is just not right.

Re: MOO3
 

Got tired of waiting for MOO3 and disgusted waiting for Stars:SN. That's why I bought SEIVG. Plus it appeals to the tinkerer in me.... although a far cry from the serious modders here who've made a science/art of this (I'm almost positive they don't have small children.... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif )

Re: MOO3
 

I agree that the diplomatic model is iffy at best in SE:IV. But that's okay, it can be improved. If you want their threats to have greater consequences just increase their anger for their demand/requests...next thing you know if you don't break your treaty with the Jraenar, the Amon'krie are going to come after you!

I like MOO2, but the fact is it got boring after a few weeks. I'm sure MOO3 will be great and will have cool graphics, good storyline, and lots of weapons...but if there is no customizable options...will it just get boring after a while?

Re: MOO3
 

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by comisar:
TDM Mod Pack adds flavor, true. But the bottom line is there is just no enforment of anything. Yes, I tell computer I will declare war on such and such, but then do nothing.
And there is no punishment for me at all for that. That is just not right.<hr></blockquote>

Yes, but I pretend to be an honorable person when I play against computer. If I say "Yes", I mean it. Sometimes. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: MOO3
 

Buy both. Because if you don't Stars SuperNova will win http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

Re: MOO3
 

I've enjoyed SE4 since it came out (and SE3 before that). I will buy MOO3 when (if?) it comes out. I expect to enjoy that as well.

One thing I truly hope that MOO3 does better than SE4 is, indeed, the Diplomacy. In SE4 it is worse than useless. I'm not even convinced that it is implemented. It doesnt appear to do a blessed thing.

I was showing a new player the game and he was thrilled by all of the options in Diplomacy. He was at war with one race and he went through all of his allies and asked them to break their agreements with that race etc. They all agreed and some agreed to attack that race as well (some to the effect of "Together we will destroy the Piundon".) But looking at the relations the next turn and they all still have Partnerships with the enemy... And it happened repeatedly. He became very disenchanted with the game at that point.

IMO, there is no reason to even included diplomacy features in the game if they arent going to do anything. All it does is frustrate players. About the only things that appear to work are the treaties. And even they are just an exchange of points. There are no 'alliances' in the game that I can see. I've never seen a race raise a hand to help in a war (that wasnt inadvertant) and I've never seen them sever relations even when they are requested to and agreed to.

The truly annoying thing about this to me is that it really wouldnt be that hard to fix. Just have those agreements to break relations be MANDATORY and have a period of time (10 turns maybe?) where they cant establish relations again above maybe Non-Aggression. If they agree to 'declare war', the declaration should be there for a minimum amount of turns as well.

At any rate, that completes my rant on diplomacy in SE4. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif I think it only really bugs me now because it cost me a potential player in my area. I had more or less just ignored it since a week into playing as I had dismissed it as a waste of time. But after watching him try it and become frustrated, I was reminded just how inane it really was.

Talenn

Re: MOO3
 

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>The truly annoying thing about this to me is that it really wouldnt be that hard to fix. Just have those agreements to break relations be MANDATORY and have a period of time (10 turns maybe?) where they cant establish relations again above maybe Non-Aggression. If they agree to 'declare war', the declaration should be there for a minimum amount of turns as well.<hr></blockquote>

Well, that looks like it's easy enough to fix (though it might be a hardcode thing, so none of us will be fixing it). It would add a great deal to the game too - if the mandatory length of war footing is long enough, you'd definitely get the desired results. The only problem is that you may need to modify how AI respond to requests by allies for help in war; quick affirmative responses could make for a foolish AI.

Should we petition that something like this be added/changed?

Re: MOO3
 

I would say no. No need to cripple human vs. human politics to deal with the AS.

Phoenix-D

Re: MOO3
 

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Phoenix-D:
I would say no. No need to cripple human vs. human politics to deal with the AS.

Phoenix-D<hr></blockquote>

Human vs. human will survive, don't worry. To have chalenging and belivable AI is paramaunt to any strategic computer game success. It does not mater how voiceforus are proponents of "humans only" games. Compare the number of total SE IV sales with number of PBW members or number of this forum regulars. If it will make human vs. AI more interesting, by any means, go for it !

[ 08 May 2002: Message edited by: oleg ]</p>

Re: MOO3
 

"Human vs. human will survive, don't worry."

I had a recent game that was a bit complicated in turns of politics. There was a treaty change or relations change almost every other turn! This proposed change would not allow that.

If done, it should apply ONLY to games with the AI, and be disableable. Enforcing a "no backstabbing" rule IMO is a very stupid thing anyway.

Phoenix-D

Re: MOO3
 

Phoenix-D:

Its not a question of enforcing a 'no backstabbing' deal. Its a question of whether or not the AI is even WORKING with regards to it's diplomacy.

Tell me, what is the point of having all of these options available and have none of them actually do anything? All it does it give the impression that either that game is bugged, or that taking the time to use the diplomacy feature is a waste of time. To your average single player SE4 player, its a detriment to the game, not a benefit.

I would have no qualm at all with the AI if it simply refused your offers and demands, but when it agrees to a request, it should happen. Its the same as if it agreed to a Trade Agreements, but you never collect any money from it...whats the point of having the feature if it doesnt work?

With regards to HUMAN players, I agree that anything should go. They are free to do as they please with one (IMO, important) exception: If there is a diplomatic 'hit' for refusing an AI demand, the human player should suffer it if they dont follow through on an agreement with the AI. Nothing is sillier than having an AI player demanding that you break a treaty with another and having the player AGREE to the deal, get diplomatic points with that race for agreeing, and then not doing it (and suffering no reprecussions). This is just plain exploitation of the diplomacy system and should be removed IMO.

Let me try and quantify it:

Lets say that relations between Human Empire 'X' and AI Empire 'Y' are at 100 points (number picked out of the air for point of example). Ok, now lets say that when the number gets to say, 50, the AI will break Trade off with the player, and at 30, it will declare war. Now lets assume that when the AI makes a 'demand' that agreeing to it gives you, say, 10 points and refusing takes away 20.

Using that basis, the AI demands that you break treaty with another race. You agree, get the 10 points (upping you to 110). You welsh on the agreement and dont do it. Two turns later, the AI sees the treaty and again demands its removal. Again, you agree, get your 10 points (to 120) and ignore your agreement. Continue ad nauseum.

So now, instead of having steadily worsening relations with the AI for rebuffing their demands (and approaching the 'War threshold'), they are happily 'Brotherly' with you and agreeing to all kinds of Trade and Research etc. And it never changes because the AI doesnt 'know' it is being double screwed.

What happens here is TOTAL suspension of disbelief that the AI is another Race out there. At least MOO and MOO2 gave the ILLUSION that your diplomatic efforts and faux pas actually MEANT something.

Finally, if you want an AI (and a system) that is capable of 'backstabbing' on an agreement, the game should be changed so that it isnt quite so easy to monitor the agreements. Its just far to easy to see compliance via the 'Treaty Grid' screen. If they are supposed to be 'covertly lying to me', at least game mechanics should require me to find that information out on my own rather than blatantly flaunting that the diplomatic efforts accomplish nothing.

Sorry for the dissertation, but this is just, IMO, one of the absolute weakest points of the SE4 single-player experience.

Talenn

Re: MOO3
 

Yes, the diplomacy is lacking in this: but really, diplomacy lacks in all games.

An Example:

In Age of Empires: there is NO diplomacy. I've tried to talk to the AI's believe me. All they say are useless chatters, even ones allied to me.

Sid Meyer's Civilization: I have not played this game *yet* but from what I've heard, it's not like talking, rather like sign language.

Sid Meyer's Alpha Centauri: This is like talking to a person actually, when you begin. After a little while, after you become the superpower, everybody begins to declare war on you for not giving you technology, having a specific Social choice, not giving you money, or just for the heck of it (!).

Space Empires: It gets boring with the diplomacy, but they respond, and it must be the only game I have seen with the choice of "General Message" http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: MOO3
 

Sid Meyer's Civilization: I have not played this game *yet* but from what I've heard, it's not like talking, rather like sign language."

?

Phoenix-D

Re: MOO3
 

Lacking in diplomacy is one thing. Not having any is another. SEIV might as well have no diplomacy. There is absolutly nothing that can be accomplished in SEIV by the use of diplomacy.

Re: MOO3
 

Well, a lot of the "promises" in diplomacy with SE4 AI's don't seem to really work. Until they do (or, assuming they won't) it would make sense to set all of the AI's to just ignore Messages it can't respond to, and/or to send appropriate refusals. This can be modded, though it'd be a bunch of work - maybe Suicide Junkie would be willing to adjust his AI modder to do this.

However there is quite a bit that can be accomplished with diplomacy with the AI. As I mentioned in another thread, I've even tried to play games where practically the only thing I allow myself to do is diplomacy (this makes a very fast game, and is not meaningless).

Diplomacy determines two very important things:

* Trade, which can multiply resource production, resources, intel, and knowledge.

* Hostility - who fights with whom.

It also determines other things, such as sharing of resupply depots.

Gifts and trade can be used to make up for resource imbalances and therefore keep production and maintenance flowing. It can also lead to vital tech gains (the most powerful of which might be trade for colonization technology, which of course can be a huge advantage). Gifts and trades can also be used to beef up an allied AI with your own designs, techs, resources, and production. It can also allow you to "fight" nations without declaring war on them, by gifting warships to aliens who are at war with them, while you maintain friendly relations.

PvK

Re: MOO3
 

I agree with PvK, there are a lot of useful possibilities presented in the diplomacy screen - for me the most useful is the "trading" of resources and technologies.

However, I do have to agree that it's annoying to strong arm a long-time ally into helping you fight an enemy, only to find out that the ally is doing nothing to help! A few simple hardcode changes would likely solve the problem (ie. if AI agrees to break treaty, then break treaty for 10 turns; if AI agrees to declare war, then declare war and reject peace-treaties for 10 turns).

Perhaps the AI could be moded to even negotiate the length of the term of the agreement.

It could become more complex of course. And this is what we all are hoping for. The AI could be programmed to respond with many different responses - and as long as it does them, then the coding efforts would be worthwhile:

"Hmmmm... a long term war with the B'Jong would be costly. We would be willing to declare war for 10 months instead of the 30 months that you propose"

Or

"Declare war on the B'Jong?! They've been our allies since the birth of the Grak Nork. But for 100 000 kT of minerals and your Sheild Generation 3 technology we would be willing to break our trade agreements with them"

Or

"Declare war on the B'Jong?! Perhaps if we were to punitively sanction them by giving you some of our war ships instead?"

just my $Cdn 0.02


edit - of course the human player would have to be held to his/her agreements with other players, otherwise we're right back to square one with the AI abuse http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

I suppose if we were to get really fancy we could make various diplomatic options unavailable at the diplomacy screen for the duration of the players "agreements". That is, if you make an agreement with Alien1 to go to war with Alien2 for 30 months, then you would have a greyed out button when it came to entering into diplomatic relations with Alien2 until the 30 months was up.

Or, you could start up normal relations with Alien2 again, but you'd be warned that if Alien1 finds out, your relations with Alien1 will go right down the tubes (say -20 points for backstabbing).

That's 2 more of those Canadian coppers for ya http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[ 09 May 2002: Message edited by: jimbob ]</p>

Re: MOO3
 

I think it might be usefull to create a new thread about SE IV diplomacy and revert this thread to its original purpose: to articulate why somebody would like to buy SE IV when Moo3 is on horizon.

Personally, I think SEIV is far superior to Moo3.
The reason is simple: Moo3 is a rigid, uncustomizable hybrid of RTS/TBS (this is my impression upon visiting Moo3 web site). SE IV is not simply a game, it is a lego set to make your own Universe the way you like and then add every single piece of Sci-Fi you like.

Re: MOO3
 

Hi all,

I just stumbled across this preview of MOO3 at Gamespot.com. There is also a boatload of screencaps with the article.

Here's a link:

http://gamespot.com/gamespot/stories...864668,00.html

Re: MOO3
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Oleg - That is exactly it! I couldn't put it any better than that. I always wished that I could make my own 4x space game but since I lack the skills for such a task - SE IV gives me enough control to the point where it feels like my own game. If I want phasers - then I just type in some info, draw a pic, and bam I got phasers. This is why SE IV and SE IV Gold are the only games I have bought in the Last year and a half.

Plus, what other game do you know where you can actually influence what new features are added or get your name listed in the credits?

[ 09 May 2002, 19:32: Message edited by: Captain Kwok ]

Re: MOO3
 

The problem with SE IV's diplomacy is that the AIs have no memory of the past beyond the current and proposed treaty status, their Mood towards the other race, and the time since the Last proposal or war. (I think that's all of the factors.) It's the same problem as with most of the other failings of the AI, not retaining information.

The basic diplomacy model in Civ1, Civ2, and Alpha Centauri is pretty much the same, and not all that different from MOO1 or SE IV. They just get progressively more sophisticated in terms of what choices you have. I expect the same pattern holds for Civ3 and MOO2, which I haven't played.

Getting back to the original point, the reason to buy SE IV now rather than wait for MOO3 is that you can buy SE IV now. If your disposable income is so low that you can't afford to buy both, you probably won't be in any better shape by the time MOO3 is released, anyway. (If it is. I know quite a few people who think MOO3 is getting more vaporous every day.)

It's like buying computer hardware, if you wait for the Next Big Thing, you'll never buy anything. Buy what you need when you need it.

[ 09 May 2002, 19:57: Message edited by: capnq ]

Re: MOO3
 

&lt;BUMP?&gt;

Re: MOO3
 

Thanks for all the feed back gang! This is waaaaay more info than I got from the same request on the Apolyton Boards. Where I might add that MOO3's lead designer used to post before he got canned.

AtP

Re: MOO3
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Do you mean Alan Emrich .. or someone else ? If Alan got the axe... the hopes of a decent game have gone way down. & of an eventual MOM .. have vanished.

Dog

P.S. They can be arrogant as hell over there at "Poly" sometimes... Ming is ok tho ( just in case he hears about this )

[ May 14, 2002, 07:08 AM: Message edited by: Dogberry ]

Re: MOO3
 

AFIK, Alan is still in charge of Moo3. There were some rumors, but he posted himself that he took a short break for personal reasons and is back now.

Re: MOO3
 

They have also said that many of the features, once implemented, were found to add little to the game or detract from the fun-ness. The controversial imperial focus points, for example, caused people to spend more time deciding if they were gonna do something than they actually spent doing it. And supposedly with so many levels of ministers you often felt like you were not playing. I think a lot of the changes are for the better, as they have said that the ministers are still there but you are no longer forced to use them.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Alan is gone. He is technically available as 'consultant' but he is no longer a QS employee. They are in 'meet deadline' mode now and just trying to put together a game that works without trying to meet all the lofty and very ambitious goals that Alan had originally set for the game. Some people are calling it 'MOO 2.5' instead of MOO 3. And yes, much of the originality has been abandoned. This is put down to corporate ruthlessness by the grumblers, of course. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif No one thinks of just how hard it would have been to actually do all the things Alan wanted to do with the game. They would have to set the release date back to 2010 if they wanted to implement all the things he had originally planned.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">

Re: MOO3
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Alan is gone. He is technically available as 'consultant' but he is no longer a QS employee. They are in 'meet deadline' mode now and just trying to put together a game that works without trying to meet all the lofty and very ambitious goals that Alan had originally set for the game. Some people are calling it 'MOO 2.5' instead of MOO 3. And yes, much of the originality has been abandoned. This is put down to corporate ruthlessness by the grumblers, of course. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif No one thinks of just how hard it would have been to actually do all the things Alan wanted to do with the game. They would have to set the release date back to 2010 if they wanted to implement all the things he had originally planned.

[ May 14, 2002, 12:32 PM: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]