I do remember reading about when Wargaming.net got the IP to MoO two years ago... At first I was worried, and then possibly relieved, thinking of them largely as a one-trick pony who would've just used it for a harmless spinoff. Now I'm kinda worried again.
Partly, it's when they step out to already begin marginalizing and downplaying a COMMUNITY in the name of what they're pushing. "It's about 10% of the players", really? We're talking about a game where it's a well-known joke that if you forgot to enable "tactical combat" for the game... You immediately trash it and restart it over. And Wargaming has absolutely zero backing to suggest that this "10%" was anything other than "100%"; they basically pulled the number out of their rear end.
I'm less worried about their current suggestion of focus (which can and does change) rather than the more-telling approach where they tried downplaying part of their own player base: that's the real sign of when a studio has already irreversibly made up their mind, and has just started preemptively getting defensive. That statement alone, unless unequivocally retracted, basically means that even if the game isn't outright bad, it won't be a decent MoO game. (possibly read: MoO 1/2)
To be a good MoO game (rather than just a generic space game with the name/trademarked races slapped on) it'd have to recognize what the "core game" of MoO is... Which includes several key things:
- Ship designing. Sure, other games may not "succeed well" with it, but that's a mix of their design not being a critical strategic consideration, nor them doing it particularly well... And it's an incorrect blanket statement to think that no other games succeeded with a high reliance on ship design. (Stars! is one where it arguably mattered even more)
- A free-form, decoupled research line. No "tech trees," and certainly nothing like Civilizations "tech ladder." A major tennant of what set MoO 1/2 apart was not just your CHOICE to invest in research, but WHAT you researched: it was a strategic choice there as well. Contrast with say, Civ, where the choice isn't WHAT you research, but merely WHEN... You have potentially very challenging choices to make in MoO 2, such as picking between the cloning center or soil enrichment, or bigger yet, the ENTIRE chemistry ladder was full of nothing but hard choices that could make or break your game.
- An open galaxy map. The pictures I see already suggest some more of the "direct lines between worlds" rubbish which basically makes it a land-based 4X with space-based visuals. Both MoO 1 and MoO 2 made for some very important strategic choices through ALL four "X"es based upon your reach and ability to defend areas, and being able to travel directly between any two stars was key to how its power game played out.
Other factors, which Wargaming might call "Core," are not really as important in MoO as they are in all the other 4X games: colony development was actually a relatively background task, as there rarely were that many choices to make; in MoO 1 you just built factories, terraformed, and built missile bases to the best of your ability. MoO 2 let you diversity between picking your housing, production, and research colonies, and in all fairness, it's focus on a LOT of gameplay on individual colonies was one of its (few) weaknesses.