MOO3

Captain Kwok · #1 May 8th, 2002, 05:18 PM

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?

oleg · #2 May 8th, 2002, 05:57 PM

quote:
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.

Yes, but I pretend to be an honorable person when I play against computer. If I say "Yes", I mean it. Sometimes.

tesco samoa · #3 May 8th, 2002, 06:10 PM

Buy both. Because if you don't Stars SuperNova will win

Talenn · #4 May 8th, 2002, 06:51 PM

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.

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

jimbob · #5 May 8th, 2002, 08:39 PM

quote:
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.

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?

Phoenix-D · #6 May 8th, 2002, 09:33 PM

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

Phoenix-D

oleg · #7 May 8th, 2002, 10:01 PM

quote:
Originally posted by Phoenix-D:
I would say no. No need to cripple human vs. human politics to deal with the AS.

Phoenix-D

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 ]