Q: How many of you haven't played Master of Orion -related games?

Q: How many of you haven't played Master of Orion -related games?

Drasca
Drasca

February 12th, 2003, 4:27 am #1

Assuming you have interest in Master of Orion 3, but have no experience? What are your concerns?

It seems we have introduction posts so far, Sirian addressing opening moves, giving his take and I agree with much of the basic strategy--though personally disagreeing with mechanics.

To us Moo 1 & 2 veterans, it'll feel like an old hand at a new table. I'll personally miss the alluring, xenophobic Elerians. Matriarchal, militaristic, and a race of telepaths--but feudal governmentally. This is a new realm before us, and the possibilities seem endless, the veterans must unlearn old habits, and all must learn., to adapt, from our own experience and others.

It looks good from here. I'll make my personal take on strategy intoductions in Sirian's opening manuevers thread.

-Drasca

Quote
Share

Joined: March 14th, 2002, 7:31 pm

February 12th, 2003, 3:52 pm #2

I even tried to get the free downloaded version of MOO1 to run, to get an idea, but it won't on later Windows platforms. Hopefully my Civ and SMAC experience won't lead me too far astray.
Quote
Like
Share

Sullla
Sullla

February 12th, 2003, 8:14 pm #3

Assuming you have interest in Master of Orion 3, but have no experience? What are your concerns?

It seems we have introduction posts so far, Sirian addressing opening moves, giving his take and I agree with much of the basic strategy--though personally disagreeing with mechanics.

To us Moo 1 & 2 veterans, it'll feel like an old hand at a new table. I'll personally miss the alluring, xenophobic Elerians. Matriarchal, militaristic, and a race of telepaths--but feudal governmentally. This is a new realm before us, and the possibilities seem endless, the veterans must unlearn old habits, and all must learn., to adapt, from our own experience and others.

It looks good from here. I'll make my personal take on strategy intoductions in Sirian's opening manuevers thread.

-Drasca
Played quite a bit of Master of Magic way back in the day, but from what I can see that's quite a different story than Master of Orion (even if the Klackons appeared in both). I will be going into MOO3 as a relative newbie to the series.
Quote
Share

Zed
Zed

February 12th, 2003, 11:42 pm #4

I even tried to get the free downloaded version of MOO1 to run, to get an idea, but it won't on later Windows platforms. Hopefully my Civ and SMAC experience won't lead me too far astray.
Most people can get MOO1 to run without a lot of trouble, especially if you don't mind playing without sound. Try making a shortcut to orion.exe, and editing the properties of the shortcut. In the memory tab, set EMS to at least 2048 KB, or auto, and that should be enough to let you run it sans sound. If you really want sound, you'll need a DOS emulator program (a DOS box.) That's a bit more tricky to set up, however, from what I understand.
Quote
Share

Sirian
Sirian

February 12th, 2003, 11:54 pm #5

Played quite a bit of Master of Magic way back in the day, but from what I can see that's quite a different story than Master of Orion (even if the Klackons appeared in both). I will be going into MOO3 as a relative newbie to the series.
Although I got my money's worth out of Master of Magic, it was at the "wrong end" of the strategy spectrum for me. I like precision. I like chess, and anything on that side of the scale. I don't much like Monopoly, nor am I fond of games that play like it.

What scale am I talking about? Luck. The sliding scale of luck and the role it plays in the game.

Civ3, for example, is about in the middle. It's got some HUGE luck factors, as we've seen in the Epics, with whole games (and which civs live or die) turning on a few different seeds. That's considerably more luck than I prefer.

Master of Magic was wall to wall luck factors. The leaders/heroes, especially, turned me off.

Master of Orion was just the opposite: it was so ideally skill-based, end to end, that it was virtually chesslike in its gameplay. Other than the layout of the map, where you could get some luck factors in how the star systems near your home world were arranged (distance, type of stars, type of worlds, special bonuses), and that's about where it ended. There was no luck in the combat, at all. Combat was about math, pure and simple. There was a bit of luck in the tech tree, but not as much as it appeared, just that you had to adapt. You ALWAYS got enough techs to succeed, so there was really less luck about which tech options you'd be dealt in a given game than there was flavor. As long as you weren't dealt an Epic 14 Dud Start (TM), you could win every time, IF you played your cards right. A few mistakes might be your undoing, though, and that's what made the game worthwhile. I actually lost a goodly number of games. MOO1 is the only strategy game I've ever played that could, frankly, kick my tail on occasion, without resorting to cheap stunts (like Civ AI's knowing where the resources are) to do it.


Well, Master of Orion 2 was a blending of MOO1 and MoM, and in my view, it was about 1/4 MOO, 3/4 MoM. Frankly, if you loved MoM, you'd probably enjoy MOO2. It was not, in my view, an MOO at all, but MoM2 "Magic in Space". Whoever came up with the idea to merge the two ought to be taken out, stoned, then burned at the stake.

YMMV.


I know MOO3 is going to have some remnants of MoM1 and MoM2, but I'm praying it's not too many. That's the only thing I can currently imagine that might cause me to be dissatisfied with the game.

May MoM and its influence on MOO rot in the lowest Hell.

("Hey, Sirian, tell us how you really feel!" Uh... Oops. Sorry.)


- Sirian
Quote
Share

Jester
Jester

February 13th, 2003, 12:32 am #6

Assuming you have interest in Master of Orion 3, but have no experience? What are your concerns?

It seems we have introduction posts so far, Sirian addressing opening moves, giving his take and I agree with much of the basic strategy--though personally disagreeing with mechanics.

To us Moo 1 & 2 veterans, it'll feel like an old hand at a new table. I'll personally miss the alluring, xenophobic Elerians. Matriarchal, militaristic, and a race of telepaths--but feudal governmentally. This is a new realm before us, and the possibilities seem endless, the veterans must unlearn old habits, and all must learn., to adapt, from our own experience and others.

It looks good from here. I'll make my personal take on strategy intoductions in Sirian's opening manuevers thread.

-Drasca
Looking over this, MoO3 looks to be pretty slick. Tycho actually called the graphics 486-quality, which to my ears is like the sirens' call, except if the sirens came with free cable.

My worries? None. I'm going to pick this puppy up, and dive right in. The number of strategy games I've played in my lifetime is sick, and I don't anticipate anything more than a brief (possibly not so brief, depending) period of acclimatization.

After that, I'll be as good a MoO3 player as I am a Civ3 player; sloppy, inattentive and tenacious.

Jester
Quote
Share

Griselda
Griselda

February 13th, 2003, 2:01 am #7

Assuming you have interest in Master of Orion 3, but have no experience? What are your concerns?

It seems we have introduction posts so far, Sirian addressing opening moves, giving his take and I agree with much of the basic strategy--though personally disagreeing with mechanics.

To us Moo 1 & 2 veterans, it'll feel like an old hand at a new table. I'll personally miss the alluring, xenophobic Elerians. Matriarchal, militaristic, and a race of telepaths--but feudal governmentally. This is a new realm before us, and the possibilities seem endless, the veterans must unlearn old habits, and all must learn., to adapt, from our own experience and others.

It looks good from here. I'll make my personal take on strategy intoductions in Sirian's opening manuevers thread.

-Drasca
With a few exceptions, I started playing games of all sorts very late. I also tend to focus on a single game at a time, and I'm perfectly happy to keep playing that one game for as long as it holds my interest, even if it means ignoring other games that I might otherwise have bought.

While I'm concerned that I have not MOO'ed before , if I enjoy the game I think I'll have the time to learn about it and develop my playing ability. In fact, in most of the computer games that I've played extensively I've had to come from behind. I started playing Diablo between 1.05 and 1.07. I had DII when it was released, but didn't have a lot of time to play before LOD. I was more than a year late to the civ 3 party (not to mention the rest of the series), and it's taken until now for me to feel like I had even a basic understanding of the strategies involved.

My main concern is finding a balance between RL family, RL job, various DII endeavors, various civ3 endeavors, and MOO. If I'm interested in the game, though, you can bet I'll find the time! Even if I'm not, I'll do my best to support RB'ers who are, because that's also important to me.

Now I just have to figure out what WB cartoon character I am and I'll be all set!

-Griselda
Quote
Share

Charis
Charis

February 13th, 2003, 2:39 am #8

"What she said!"

- NO MOO experience whatsoever
- "I also tend to focus on a single game at a time, and I'm perfectly happy to keep playing that one game for as long as it holds my interest, even if it means ignoring other games that I might otherwise have bought."
- "My main concern is finding a balance between..."
- Looking forward to it

Charis
Quote
Share

KingOfPain
KingOfPain

February 13th, 2003, 2:50 am #9

Assuming you have interest in Master of Orion 3, but have no experience? What are your concerns?

It seems we have introduction posts so far, Sirian addressing opening moves, giving his take and I agree with much of the basic strategy--though personally disagreeing with mechanics.

To us Moo 1 & 2 veterans, it'll feel like an old hand at a new table. I'll personally miss the alluring, xenophobic Elerians. Matriarchal, militaristic, and a race of telepaths--but feudal governmentally. This is a new realm before us, and the possibilities seem endless, the veterans must unlearn old habits, and all must learn., to adapt, from our own experience and others.

It looks good from here. I'll make my personal take on strategy intoductions in Sirian's opening manuevers thread.

-Drasca
I am already having fun with Moo3 - The site designing process
(tho I can use some help with the site itself ;p)

My corcern? Waves good bye to fighting my insomnia...

KoP
Last edited by beyond on February 13th, 2003, 2:53 am, edited 1 time in total.
Quote
Share

Sullla
Sullla

February 13th, 2003, 2:59 am #10

Although I got my money's worth out of Master of Magic, it was at the "wrong end" of the strategy spectrum for me. I like precision. I like chess, and anything on that side of the scale. I don't much like Monopoly, nor am I fond of games that play like it.

What scale am I talking about? Luck. The sliding scale of luck and the role it plays in the game.

Civ3, for example, is about in the middle. It's got some HUGE luck factors, as we've seen in the Epics, with whole games (and which civs live or die) turning on a few different seeds. That's considerably more luck than I prefer.

Master of Magic was wall to wall luck factors. The leaders/heroes, especially, turned me off.

Master of Orion was just the opposite: it was so ideally skill-based, end to end, that it was virtually chesslike in its gameplay. Other than the layout of the map, where you could get some luck factors in how the star systems near your home world were arranged (distance, type of stars, type of worlds, special bonuses), and that's about where it ended. There was no luck in the combat, at all. Combat was about math, pure and simple. There was a bit of luck in the tech tree, but not as much as it appeared, just that you had to adapt. You ALWAYS got enough techs to succeed, so there was really less luck about which tech options you'd be dealt in a given game than there was flavor. As long as you weren't dealt an Epic 14 Dud Start (TM), you could win every time, IF you played your cards right. A few mistakes might be your undoing, though, and that's what made the game worthwhile. I actually lost a goodly number of games. MOO1 is the only strategy game I've ever played that could, frankly, kick my tail on occasion, without resorting to cheap stunts (like Civ AI's knowing where the resources are) to do it.


Well, Master of Orion 2 was a blending of MOO1 and MoM, and in my view, it was about 1/4 MOO, 3/4 MoM. Frankly, if you loved MoM, you'd probably enjoy MOO2. It was not, in my view, an MOO at all, but MoM2 "Magic in Space". Whoever came up with the idea to merge the two ought to be taken out, stoned, then burned at the stake.

YMMV.


I know MOO3 is going to have some remnants of MoM1 and MoM2, but I'm praying it's not too many. That's the only thing I can currently imagine that might cause me to be dissatisfied with the game.

May MoM and its influence on MOO rot in the lowest Hell.

("Hey, Sirian, tell us how you really feel!" Uh... Oops. Sorry.)


- Sirian
I hope you don't take my past history with Master of Magic to be a wholesale endorsement on my part of that game. I have views fairly similar to yours on this game - though not quite this negatively tinged:

May MoM and its influence on MOO rot in the lowest Hell.

Hehe, I understand how you feel. I can think of plenty of games where I loved the original, then the programmers went and changed things around in the sequel, only to make it much worse. Although considering your feelings on the original MOO, I doubt I have ever experienced quite as big of a letdown in any one particular game.

You're right about MoM, the problem was that it was ridiculously unbalanced on certain points and relied way too much on factors beyond the player's control. And that was sad, because there was real potential there for a great game if everything had been balanced out correctly and some game mechanics changed. I mean, why would anyone ever choose to use the Lizards as their starting race, when they were clealy inferior to every other one? Which heroes showed up at your castle could wildly swing the game in any direction, as well as things like which lairs were near your starting position and what treasure was in them. Combat was a travesty; a good player could easily defeat much stronger opposing armies due to the boneheaded use of units by the computer civs (wait, I guess that should be mages ). And let's not even get started on the ridiculously unbalanced list of spells, with some uber-powered and others completely useless.

MoM was very entertaining, and I had some fun with it. But it fell far short of a good strategy game, not even in the realm of a game like Civ3 (and Civ3 is far from the best strategy game I've ever played). I don't think that MOO3 is going to play anything at all like MoM, so I'm probably going to go into this experience as cold as any newbie. Well, we all have to start somewhere, so I won't feel bad at all.
Quote
Share