4X M.O.R.E. - Oldschool turn-based 4X space strategy

[Monocause]

Makes sense. Never thought of that.

Designing AI for games is a really nice topic to think about. Chess is always a good starting point - it's a simple game, with very limited mechanics. The 'optimal', or close to optimal, or even merely beneficial in a specific move, course of action is fairly easily computable.

Now imagine you're trying to create an AI that emulates a human opponent. So you add personality types - brash, studious, aggressive, meek, maybe others. This is a feature that has a huge impact on the system - a brash player will prioritise eating your pawns here and now more and will often forget having long-term goals. However if you make it so it *always* goes for your pawns, then it is very easily exploitable by baiting it into vulnerability. So you want there to be a subset of 'personality-driven' moves that the AI will consider acceptable losses, but there's also a subset of moves that are so dumb (like exposing your king to a checkmate to eat a pawn) that you never want it to do it as all the challenge will be gone.

A meek player will play very defensively and will be very unwilling to sacrifice his pieces, so you want it to give the player the board control but at the same time make it tough to penetrate his defenses. At the same time, if an aggressive move would be of obvious benefit, you want the meek player to take that opportunity.

All this means that you went from simple calulations to designing something quite complex, with lots of conditions, priorities and maybe random factors influencing decision making and maybe even a few hard overriding scripts to fine-tune certain very specific scenarios. Which means you spent quite a lot of time at the drawing board figuring out the best way to map these systems out and then spend the time to code it - and then spend a lot of time testing it as there's surely going to be lots of things you haven't thought about that can happen, and you want to fish out as many of these as you can and tweak, tweak, tweak.

Now consider that a typical 4X strategy game, with all its staple systems and mechanics like research, warship design, colonisation, planetary development, diplomacy, espionage and a few unique ones, is orders of magnitude more complex than "personality chess" i've mentioned above. Therefore no wonder that plenty of times the AI is lame, exploitable or cuts corners and instead of using the mechanics, it is granted the outcome of these mechanics, ie. instead of opting to spend resources to gain something in 4 turns it simply is granted that very same thing magically after 4 turns so that it doesn't have to compute coming to that decision.

 

[RayF]

It's a simple problem that highlights how many factors and variables you can get when designing an AI for a game like this. And also the reason many studios cut some corners and give AI 'cheating bonuses' so that for example free warships spawn for the AI if the game realises that you're about to assault very early or grants it free buildings/resources if it fails to reach a certain level of development within a certain timeframe. That kind of a solution kinda works, protects the AI's blind spots from being exploited by clever players and is much easier to implement. With the caveat that once the same clever players figure out the AI is cheating, they're quite unhappy.

I really do disagree with this approach. The AI should be developed incrementally as game features are added. For example, an AI for properly developing a colony should be done when the colony development features are added. An AI for spying should be done when the spying features are added. An AI for research should be done with that feature is added. In a complex game, it's too much to ask to write a comprehensive AI only at the end that incorporates all of the variables created through two years of development. It's much better to have an AI that works at 80% efficiency at the end and then polish that.

Deferring the AI until the end is precisely why developers give the AI 'cheating bonuses'. Since the game is functionally complete (except for the AI), executives are screaming at the developers to release the game (i.e. for sales) instead of polishing the AI. So the developers have to give simple cheating bonuses to create difficulty instead of making a quality AI. They don't have time for anything else.

 

[RayF]

Designing AI for games is a really nice topic to think about. Chess is always a good starting point - it's a simple game, with very limited mechanics. The 'optimal', or close to optimal, or even merely beneficial in a specific move, course of action is fairly easily computable.

Chess AIs are actually a bad example. They are all tactical and have no strategic depth. Because chess is simple and has well-understood rules, chess AIs are little more than calculators, processing the values of millions of board positions and finding the local maximum. There is absolutely zero strategy in chess AIs and their approach does not apply to strategy games.

 

[Monocause]

I really do disagree with this approach. The AI should be developed incrementally as game features are added. For example, an AI for properly developing a colony should be done when the colony development features are added. An AI for spying should be done when the spying features are added. An AI for research should be done with that feature is added. In a complex game, it's too much to ask to write a comprehensive AI only at the end that incorporates all of the variables created through two years of development. It's much better to have an AI that works at 80% efficiency at the end and then polish that.

Deferring the AI until the end is precisely why developers give the AI 'cheating bonuses'. Since the game is functionally complete (except for the AI), executives are screaming at the developers to release the game (i.e. for sales) instead of polishing the AI. So the developers have to give simple cheating bonuses to create difficulty instead of making a quality AI. They don't have time for anything else.

The problem with what you're saying is that I'm not sure if this is even possible. Going along with your example - the choice the AI makes when developing a colony can be influenced by the AI personality, the diplomatic situation, whether or not the AI is under military threat. Colony management is very interconnected with lots of other features, and the AI has to encompass them all. What does "AI for colony management" even means? Picking the best building option out of the possible ones? But what constitues which option is the 'best'? How would the colony management AI know what is best in a 4X game without having access to the broader data context?

In other words, I believe you'd really struggle with creating a truly 'modular' AI for a 4X game, and that seems to be what you're implying. Because the major difficulty was never getting the 'modules' done, it's always making them work together.

I know some games go that route, and the AI usually ends up...uninspiring and most of all very predictable and bland. Therefore not fun.

Re: chess, not sure which of mine points are you arguing - although I'd say a chess AI is very directly comparable to most strategy game AIs in terms of principles they're built on. It doesn't matter if you're talking strategy or tactics or even pathfinding - the task at hand is to analyze the limited set of possible actions you have and choose the best one, where what is 'best' is defined directly or indirectly by the programmer. In that sense moving to E4 from D4 because it means a checkmate in 4 moves is a very similar decision to make compared to sending a colony ship to Orion since it's the best one there is in terms of a weighted distance travelled vs. planet habitability comparison.

 

[RayF]

The problem with what you're saying is that I'm not sure if this is even possible. Going along with your example - the choice the AI makes when developing a colony can be influenced by the AI personality, the diplomatic situation, whether or not the AI is under military threat. Colony management is very interconnected with lots of other features, and the AI has to encompass them all. What does "AI for colony management" even means? Picking the best building option out of the possible ones? But what constitues which option is the 'best'? How would the colony management AI know what is best in a 4X game without having access to the broader data context?

Well, it depends on the game of course. But the internal, colony-specific know-how of how to "increase research production" or "build ship X" or "maximum revenue" can be done when the colony features are developed. At a higher level, the individual colonies can be given broader direction by subsequently added logic.

In other words, I believe you'd really struggle with creating a truly 'modular' AI for a 4X game, and that seems to be what you're implying. Because the major difficulty was never getting the 'modules' done, it's always making them work together.

I know some games go that route, and the AI usually ends up...uninspiring and most of all very predictable and bland. Therefore not fun.

Well, to me what's not fun are AIs that are incompetent and rely on massive production bonuses to be competitive.

Re: chess, not sure which of mine points are you arguing - although I'd say a chess AI is very directly comparable to most strategy game AIs in terms of principles they're built on. It doesn't matter if you're talking strategy or tactics or even pathfinding - the task at hand is to analyze the limited set of possible actions you have and choose the best one, where what is 'best' is defined directly or indirectly by the programmer. In that sense moving to E4 from D4 because it means a checkmate in 4 moves is a very similar decision to make compared to sending a colony ship to Orion since it's the best one there is in terms of a weighted distance travelled vs. planet habitability comparison.

That only works because chess is a very regimented game with very limited move options and a completely fixed ruleset. And even with that, good chess engines can only look about 10 moves ahead in VERY NARROW paths because of the exponential growth in positions after each turn.

In addition, chess has been around in its current form for about 500 years and the value of pieces and positions are well-understood. This allows chess AI programmers to solve the problem through intensive, but dumb, mathematical evaluations. There is no strategy involved whatsoever -- just brute force computation. A typical 4X would have an order of magnitude more moves every turn with a much less rigorous way of evaluating current positions. There is just no way to computationally solve the AI problem for a 4X game the way we do with chess.

I love chess. It's a great game. I have written a rudimentary AI to play chess just to understand how they work, and found it pretty boring because you quickly realize how little "chess knowledge" is actually involved in it.

 

[coldcrow]

Chess AIs are actually a bad example. They are all tactical and have no strategic depth. Because chess is simple and has well-understood rules, chess AIs are little more than calculators, processing the values of millions of board positions and finding the local maximum. There is absolutely zero strategy in chess AIs and their approach does not apply to strategy games.

There will never be any "strategy" in common game AIs. Chess AIs got so strong because many programmers spend so much time on it that:
- evaluating positions improved very much
- optimized code (0-move, selective brute-forcing, general advances in speeding up the loop)
- dedicated engines instead of ingame scripted crap (compared to PC games)
- availability of modern fast CPUs increase the move threshold so much, that it seems as if the AI understands chess

Yet there are still positions where it has no clue, albeit they are far and between.

Now, if someone would undertake the same endeavours for TBS X, the result would be the same - optimized AI code that will crush any human player and dances on its remains.

Edit:

This allows chess AI programmers to solve the problem through intensive, but dumb, mathematical evaluations.

Actually there is strategy involved - translating chess strategy into mathematical equations. In fact that's why modern engines are so good - they can "accurately" judge a large swath of positions. Parenthesis because they don't really know of course. 15 years ago engines were much worse in evaluating a give position.

 

[RayF]

Actually there is strategy involved - translating chess strategy into mathematical equations. In fact that's why modern engines are so good - they can "accurately" judge a large swath of positions. Parenthesis because they don't really know of course. 15 years ago engines were much worse in evaluating a give position.

Tactically evaluating a position is not strategy. There is no AI code that says, "his queen side is weak, I"m going to exploit it with c5". It's just a blind evaluation of positions, which is why computers often miss long-term trends in games --- especially drawn games. Modern GMs will say, "there is no way for either side to move forward in this position" whereas a computer will shuffle rooks around on the back rank for 20 moves before finally realizing that that a repetition draw is unavoidable.

 

[coldcrow]

Exactly. But nevertheless is it very skillful rook shuffling since it "understands" the position quite well. And as you see, there are alot of positions where skillfully keeping the balance and waiting for your opponents error just wins -> Carlsen.

Anyways, not my point. I was only comparing modern chess ais to their predecessors.

 

[Grotesque]

2 way, unstable wormhole.

 

[WhiteGuts]

Can you build Stargates at each end of the wormhole ?

 

[Grotesque]

Can you build Stargates at each end of the wormhole ?

Deep space stations.


"I don't like it.. you probably won't like it too.. because it will move playable version a little more in time... but today, after some talks in our team... we've started working also on Deep Space Stations. Many Wormholes things, like orbiting fleets, battles etc.. uses almost the same methods like Space Stations - which we also planned to have in M.O.R.E. This topic was all the time somewhere near while working with wormholes.. but finally we've decided to create most of Deep Space Stations methods, objects, procedures... now. It would take less time now, than if we will go back again to those topics after few months, somewhere around Beta version.

Simply, doing it now will be faster and easier.. big % of methods, procedures are already created... Anyway, as we are still independent studio and we want to have a good game (this is our priority) ... we decided to start working on those Deep Space Stations. The only disadvantage is ... additional time, and moving away playable version further in time. I hope it will be only few days... but we will see."

 

[Irenaeus II]

Awesome, keep it up. I bought this game for my son to play anyway.

 

[Grotesque]

Merry Christmas!

Hello all,

This is a concise update about the current progress in creation of M.O.R.E. The time schedule is tight to meet the project milestones planned by the end of the year to keep us on track for a playable Alpha soon.

As you know we are focusing our strengths to finish a playable version of M.O.R.E. as soon as possible. Due to that we were working on polishing game and adding neccessary features. A full list of bug fixes would be too large to write, but here are few examples of what has been fixed:

• very rare fleet orbiting errors causing game to crash
• splitting fleets bug
• chasing enemy fleets bug
• bug while zooming space object on info screen
• bug while chasing enemy fleets scanning ended up with a loss of contact with enemy fleet
• and many many more...

Since the last update, the first big item to disclose is the space fleet detection system. Depending on fleet "noise" (more like radiation from engines powering starships than actual sound waves) and your scanners strength, enemy fleets will be discovered in close or long range. When we've finished the enemy fleet detection system, we moved to create battle detections. Those battles can occur in deep space, in star system, near pulsar, blackhole or wormhole... or deep space stations. Yes, this was one of our objectives from the second kickstarter campaign. A decent amount of work was done with deep space stations, which now are new additions to our galaxy map.

With all those detected battles, we need to create battle selection system as we didn't want that some players in big multiplayer games to have to wait an extended period of time for his battle or next turn - while other players are fighting. So we've decided to add a game setting where you can chose which battle option you want to play. For this option it will be possible to choose:

• play all battles manually (in Single Player, or in Multi when you are playing with only 1-2 friends, and you can wait for all battles to be played)
• play only one battle manually, other battles are automatic (in Multi, where there are 3 or more players). This will allow you to oversee the most important key battle for a turn while not creating a big time delay for other players.
• all battles are automatic (in Multi, when you want to focus only on the higher level strategy of the game)

This will probably stay this way to account for game time balance, but You can tell us what you think and vote (if you are in Kickstarter Voting Group). You can find more details about this here:http://morethegame.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=772

With detected multiple battles among many players it was required to determine battle order list. This depends on Fleet warp speed if battle occurs in deep space, or normal speed (thrusters) when battle occurs in space system, around wormhole, space station etc. After determining battle order, we have to determine targets for all fleets. This is only short description of task we were facing. There was a lot more work with battles, but almost all is ready. The only thing which needs to be done is to connect this selection system, with previously created automated battle system. We plan to do this by the end of this year.

Also we've upgraded some sections of our game economy and "next turn" procedure, preparing some parts of it for multiplayer games. All those upgrades forced us to work on some parts of AI. And yes - in the last month, we were also working on some AI procedures.

Beside some internal methods invisible for player, we've done also some visible features. For example we've upgraded some galaxy prefabs (blackholes, pulsars, wormholes) and created new (deep space stations). With those we need to adjust other parts of game like: orbit camera, filter space objects, move camera to object, showing GUI label name, showing objects info, zoom camera, flying through wormhole etc. It may sounds a little bit enigmatic, but all these little things need to be done before Alpha. The next thing which we've done is upgrading first encounter screen, but on this section we will be still working hard in the upcoming weeks.

New features require new 2D graphics, 3D models, music and SFX files. Our team members are creating them.

As you can see we've done huge work in the last month and we are much closer to playable tests. We will be spending last days of 2015 on polishing game, connecting battle detection and auto battle systems. The beggining of 2016 will be focused on multiplayer economy and network layers, and hopefully soon we will starts our playable tests.

There are also some other news from M.O.R.E. for example our website have been also slightly upgraded. Now we are working on new administrator panel and new private websites for players. Also you've decided which races will be present in Alpha. We are pleased to announce that they are:

• Terrans (Humans)
• Brutas
• Mechimerans
• Zientzielari

Those races are good representative for Alpha, as they are quite standard races. Brutas are pure warriors, Mechimerans are dangerous cyborgs and Zinetzielari are in love with science, so everyone should find a race for most play styles. Also very close to get into Alpha was Arranos, Myrmecians and Proteans races. Right now there is new poll where you can decide about our warp speed scale type. You can read more and vote on this topic here:http://morethegame.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=789

Also we need a naming scheme for wormholes. If you have any ideas for a workable naming convention, please check this link: http://morethegame.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=788

That's it for now, but we hope that next update will be sooner and will bring you even more exciting news. Also we wish all our supporters Merry Christmas and Happy New Year for 2016.

Idea-L-Center Team.

 

[Perkel]

Good, should be fun when it will reach beta phase. Hope it will be released in full summerish time

 

[Grotesque]

Current M.O.R.E. progress

Hello all,

Here is the newest report about progress made by us in "M.O.R.E."

It's been a while since our last update, but we wanted to post it when we'd start work on multiplayer. We are very close to achieve this goal, but we still need few days to finish some tasks and fix some bugs. But you've been waiting far too long for this update, so we've decided to create it today.

You may ask - what we've been doing in the last few weeks? There were literally dozens of new small game features created and fixed hundreds of bugs. But mainly we've finished:

• working on wormholes. (There is active poll on our forum we should do when wormhole change it's position and the fleet is goint to it.)
• working on Deep Space Stations (We've new type of spaceship - "constructor ship" which is able to start creating Deep space station)
• working on planets models (atmosphere, city light textures, etc)
• upgrading many parts of our game to be ready for multiplayer version, including such big ones like AI players economy, and the turn info event system.
• creation of ground troops reproduction procedures with associated colony buildings.
• impact on planets during battles in space system. (This mean that now a stellar converter is changing planets into asteroid belts and moons in the planetary rings. Planetary bombardment gets radiation and nuclear winter etc.)
• creating space ship modules for 17 races. Another 2 races are under construction.

Also our turn events lists has grown up, and now have 63 event types (for example: "we've finished construction of deep space station" and "Our colony was bombarded by mass destruction weapon" etc.) We've optimized our game code, because because of new features FPS on tiny galaxy dropped to value of 20-30. After some game code optimization we have again 70-90 fps. For all of the new functionalities we've created necessary GUI elements and textures.

This is only main list of things which was done. If you want to see our progress in more details, you can read our "Status of current M.O.R.E. development" topic on our forum. Also you can take a look for example on this and few next posts. Those days I've wrote in little more details about what we were doing, so you can see how many little "invisible" things we are creating every day. If we published every little change we've done in last two months, this list would have over thousands points.

Also we've updated our forum (so its changed its skin a little), and we are still working on new website for our players. Our plans for next week is to finish fixing bugs, finish and test space battles and focus our strengths on economy upgrade and creation of multiplayer.

Also we have to mention that there was released alpha version of "Master of Orion: Conquer the stars". We've received many comments about this game. Mostly it wasn't favourable for new MoO and people have hope that our game will be better. It won't be polite to give you our opinion, but from what our team was able to see, new MoO may be at most a decent game, but not a revolutionary game which we want to see. It only proves that we've chosen maybe not the easiest way - but probably the right one: to create extended game with many unique features.

Also we rarely post here a recomendation for other games, but some time ago "TK Games" asked us to give you a hint about their horror game called "The triangle". It looks like they are doing a nice job and in our opinion they are worth of support. Despite that their campaign on Kickstarter ends in less than a day and they are far away to achieve their £8,500 goal, you may take a look at their video and if you want support them here. Who knows? Maybe they'll achieve their goal?


We are also very grateful with all people who have not lost faith in us and still support us with occasional donations or pre-orders. Thanks to your support we are still able to buy necessary game assets and continue to work on M.O.R.E.

It's all in this update. We think the next one should be here soon, and hopefully it'll be about our pre-alpha test of playable M.O.R.E. Keep your fingers crossed for that.

Idea-L-Center Team.

 

[RayF]

Also we have to mention that there was released alpha version of "Master of Orion: the stars". We've received many comments about this game. Mostly it wasn't favourable for new MoO and people have hope that our game will be better. It won't be polite to give you our opinion, but from what our team was able to see, new MoO may be at most a decent game, but not a revolutionary game which we want to see. It only proves that we've chosen maybe not the easiest way - but probably the right one: to create extended game with many unique features.

I really do hope your game goes well, but it seems kind of weird to see you taking shots at the company who is reviving the franchise that you are basically copying from.

Let's remember that M.O.R.E. was already in development for a year before Wargaming even bought the rights to Master of Orion back in 2013. And when they officially announced MOO4 last June, you guys couldn't resist comments then about how M.O.R.E. would be better. But while M.O.R.E. has for the last 4 years always been 3-6 months away from their "alpha", Wargaming has bought the rights, made a game, resurrected the franchise and released an alpha. They have earned a lot of credibility when they say it will be out this summer.

I guess my point is that you guys so far have no track record besides a long, long list of broken promises so criticizing the company that is at least doing SOMETHING looks more like sour grapes than anything.

And it's beside the point whether MOO4 turns out to be a great game or a shitty game. You guys have no room to criticize.

 

[hello friend]

This is the Codex. Always plenty of room.

 

[Grotesque]

Also we have to mention that there was released alpha version of "Master of Orion: the stars". We've received many comments about this game. Mostly it wasn't favourable for new MoO and people have hope that our game will be better. It won't be polite to give you our opinion, but from what our team was able to see, new MoO may be at most a decent game, but not a revolutionary game which we want to see. It only proves that we've chosen maybe not the easiest way - but probably the right one: to create extended game with many unique features.

I really do hope your game goes well, but it seems kind of weird to see you taking shots at the company who is reviving the franchise that you are basically copying from.

Let's remember that M.O.R.E. was already in development for a year before Wargaming even bought the rights to Master of Orion back in 2013. And when they officially announced MOO4 last June, you guys couldn't resist comments then about how M.O.R.E. would be better. But while M.O.R.E. has for the last 4 years always been 3-6 months away from their "alpha", Wargaming has bought the rights, made a game, resurrected the franchise and released an alpha. They have earned a lot of credibility when they say it will be out this summer.

I guess my point is that you guys so far have no track record besides a long, long list of broken promises so criticizing the company that is at least doing SOMETHING looks more like sour grapes than anything.

And it's beside the point whether MOO4 turns out to be a great game or a shitty game. You guys have no room to criticize.

I know you're super grateful to Wargaming for not shutting down your Java MOO project for licensing reasons. Maybe that's why you feel morally obligated to come up with a butthurt and moronic post like that one.
If only these impertinent amateur developers (who clearly make MORE out of pure passion) would've had the money Wargaming poured in the shitty Master of Orion reboot...
But "at least they did SOMETHING", right?

And your common sense which seems you lack should've made you think that credibility should only be earned by making quality games (Wargaming's Master of Orion will not be one of them, more so if the game will be out this summer.)

If these polish guys who don't give a fuck about dev circle jerking call their product superior, let them. Maybe the joke will be on them in the end.
But even if MORE will be utter shit in the end, it will still be a greater achievement than Wargaming's just by having a release date.

 

[Perkel]

well considering what they just talked about in this update alone they do have more extensive game in mind.

though whatever they will deliver it without it imploding (due to amount of features) we will need to see that.

 

[Beowulf]

This game has great scope, but it's all empty promises until released.

I wish them best of luck, because even if they end up implementing 80% of what the plan to, it will be The 4x I always wanted to play. I'm worried though, about their ability to code challenging AI< because I'd think any 4x can stand on its own being mostly a multiplayer game.
We shall see, crossing fingers for this (for a couple years more at least )

 

[Volrath]

Also we have to mention that there was released alpha version of "Master of Orion: the stars". We've received many comments about this game. Mostly it wasn't favourable for new MoO and people have hope that our game will be better. It won't be polite to give you our opinion, but from what our team was able to see, new MoO may be at most a decent game, but not a revolutionary game which we want to see. It only proves that we've chosen maybe not the easiest way - but probably the right one: to create extended game with many unique features.

I really do hope your game goes well, but it seems kind of weird to see you taking shots at the company who is reviving the franchise that you are basically copying from.

Let's remember that M.O.R.E. was already in development for a year before Wargaming even bought the rights to Master of Orion back in 2013. And when they officially announced MOO4 last June, you guys couldn't resist comments then about how M.O.R.E. would be better. But while M.O.R.E. has for the last 4 years always been 3-6 months away from their "alpha", Wargaming has bought the rights, made a game, resurrected the franchise and released an alpha. They have earned a lot of credibility when they say it will be out this summer.

I guess my point is that you guys so far have no track record besides a long, long list of broken promises so criticizing the company that is at least doing SOMETHING looks more like sour grapes than anything.

And it's beside the point whether MOO4 turns out to be a great game or a shitty game. You guys have no room to criticize.

 

[Perkel]

This game has great scope, but it's all empty promises until released.

I wish them best of luck, because even if they end up implementing 80% of what the plan to, it will be The 4x I always wanted to play. I'm worried though, about their ability to code challenging AI< because I'd think any 4x can stand on its own being mostly a multiplayer game.
We shall see, crossing fingers for this (for a couple years more at least )

I don't think AI will be that much of a problem.

Like they said they didn't implement yet AI because they don't have finished features yet. Creating AI early would create whole chain of rebalancing that is not needed early in the game creating ton of additional useless work.

 

[RayF]

I know you're super grateful to Wargaming for not shutting down your Java MOO project for licensing reasons. Maybe that's why you feel morally obligated to come up with a butthurt and moronic post like that one.
If only these impertinent amateur developers (who clearly make MORE out of pure passion) would've had the money Wargaming poured in the shitty Master of Orion reboot...
But "at least they did SOMETHING", right?

And your common sense which seems you lack should've made you think that credibility should only be earned by making quality games (Wargaming's Master of Orion will not be one of them, more so if the game will be out this summer.)

If these polish guys who don't give a fuck about dev circle jerking call their product superior, let them. Maybe the joke will be on them in the end.
But even if MORE will be utter shit in the end, it will still be a greater achievement than Wargaming's just by having a release date.

Hey man, I hope M.O.R.E. succeeds and it is a great game. But criticizing what they clearly perceive as competition when they haven't officially released shit after 4 years of being 6 months away is just a tad hypocritical to me.

I don't really understand the hate for Wargaming's MOO. It's not remotely another MOO3, and it's nice that a company is investing again in the franchise. I am willing to see how their game turns out before I critique it.

 

[thesheeep]

But criticizing what they clearly perceive as competition when they haven't officially released shit after 4 years of being 6 months away is just a tad hypocritical to me.

So you cannot critize a game if you happen to develop a game that is similar before your own game is released?

Sounds completely logical to me!
We should bring up some more requirements here.
After all, most people aren't even developing any game to begin with. Those cretins should clearly be removed from discussion about a game. Except for those born on a month that starts with H.

 

[Destroid]

This game has great scope, but it's all empty promises until released.

I wish them best of luck, because even if they end up implementing 80% of what the plan to, it will be The 4x I always wanted to play. I'm worried though, about their ability to code challenging AI< because I'd think any 4x can stand on its own being mostly a multiplayer game.
We shall see, crossing fingers for this (for a couple years more at least )

I don't think AI will be that much of a problem.

I'm pretty sure AI is always that much of a problem when making 4x games.