|
Oh god. I too was one of the whippersnappers whose first experience of developer interaction was the MOO3 forums. I remember playing the game when it finally arrived with a certain amount of desperation in an effort to wring any possible fun I could out of it. It took me ages to accept that the game was actually just a buggy mess and there was no rescuing it. One thing I remember in particular is that the combat sensor model was hopelessly bugged to the point of rendering sensors irrelevant - if you stacked insufficient sensors you wouldn't see the enemy until they were right on top of you, and if you stacked too many they would overflow and enemy ships would disappear when they got close. The game was insanely ambitious for its time, and the UI was already uglier than MOO2's when it came out. I never played the player-made patches because I didn't see any way it could be rescued. I will follow this LP relatively obsessively to see if I was wrong.
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2016 07:28
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 12:49 |
|
|
You could refit your ships in MOO2. You also didn't need to research upgrades individually. There are so many aspects of MOO3 that were apparently designed to be as convoluted as possible.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2016 16:18
|
|
|
PurpleXVI posted:One thing I remember liking, back when I played MoO3, many moons ago, were some of the diplomatic speaking animations. Furious silicoid ranting was particularly kinda cool. Yeah, especially encountering humans and having them jabber in a crazy language that sounded almost real.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2016 23:25
|
|
|
That AI. I don't think I ever trusted it to do anything and instead just focused on a few forge worlds I could be bothered to control directly.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2016 10:27
|
|
|
PurpleXVI posted:Also an increased variety of things to play with warfare-wise and species-wise. I think that about the only special equipment in MoO2 I never found at least some niche use for on ship designs was self-destruct devices. Do you have an excess of industrial production but Uncreativity means you've lucked out of decent ship components but have somehow picked up Quantum Detonators from a lucky Antaran capture? Drown your oponents under wave upon wave of exploding frigates!
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2016 10:34
|
|
|
my dad posted:Speaking of other 4X games, I watched a couple of LP episodes of Stellaris. Is it just me, or did Paradox borrow (and de-grog) quite a few game mechanics from Aurora4X? They borrowed lots of elements from lots of games. The three-section design comes from SOTS, and the genuine late-game threats come from there too (Locusts!). Antarans don't really count. The multi-species worlds hark back to MOO2, while Pops are from Vicky and the planet grid is from Ascendency. Difficult to spot particular Aurora influences though - what did you have in mind?
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2016 10:42
|
|
|
Thankfully the economic model looks totally transparent and quite simple. May 9th cannot come soon enough! Apologies for Stellaris chat in your thread Lib, although I assume you're as excited as everyone else.
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2016 11:01
|
|
|
Lucky is terrible, and if you're going feudal you need to expand as quickly as possible, so the benefits of Rich Home World are minimal. I would switch out Rich and Cybernetic for +2 industry and switch Lucky for +50% growth.
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2016 11:05
|
|
|
I actually quite liked the lore in this game, as it represents a really heroic effort to bind together the two previous games into a single story that just about hangs together. For ship names, I suggest referencing its creation and calling your most fearsome vessel *Deleted by Rantz*.
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2016 12:21
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 12:49 |
|
|
I loved that bit of the lore. "Hey guys, remember how you killed all the Antarans? YOU MISSED SOME!"
|
|
#
¿
Jul 8, 2016 21:29
|
|