Yeah, you go ahead stating that like it's a fact. Go on! Keep repeating it until everyone believes it!

One of the most appealing things about the TBS genre to me is that I can walk away from my game.

I really do not enjoy walking away from a multi player game. I played my fair share of starcraft on battle.net. But a game of starcraft rarely lasted more than 2 hours, and even that was rare.

a game of GalCiv that I really want to draw out can last me a week.

I doubt I'd ever play GC2 multi. I might test the waters for a hot-seat game if I found a friend in real life who was really interested in it. but i doubt it. the only other multiplayer gaming i have to compare are pencil + paper games and MP games on consoles. i think the only thing that would attract me to MP for a TBS would be working in some kind of game master role or story to follow and work through. and that seems like more than 5 slots, to extend your metaphor.

so if it'd been an option, i'd have voted for "No, and I'd rather see StarDock's resources focused on different areas of this game."

i'm waiting on Neverwinter Nights 2 for a good shot of MP-RPG.

NT yr really starting to sound like a broken record
how much larger will this game get, multiplayer wont really increase its fan base, and i would suspect that Stardock will sooner or later make a third one for its strong sales. Civ 4 player base didnt grow when they annoced it was going to have multiplayer. y would u think this would be an exception

here is an example a little story

a little boy name Brutus walked into his local eb games with his momey. the little boy says to his momey i want to get civ 4 . the momey says well brutus why do u want that game. and brutus says because I saw a comercal for the game and it looked cool, i can play as a big empire and no kill every one...


you see Brutus never whent an bought the game for its multi player but for its single player. when did u ever here some one say they bought a single player game for its multi player. Civ 4 is a single player game and no one bought the game for its multiplayer and no one will i think

I would be happy to purchase a multiplayer-only expansion pack. An AI, as perfected as it can be, will never match up to a human unless that human hamstrings himself. I love this game, but really, its lasting value won't be high if I don't get a multiplayer expansion. So if you're planning on making multiple expansions, why not have 1 of those that includes multiplayer? Its not like you can't design something else afterwards.

If possible, it would be best to include a Map Editor similar to something like the Warcraft World Editor (easily the most versatile and easy-to-use editor I've ever used, with a great GUI, JASS coding for advanced modders, extensive file import/export support, and all-around modability. This was probably one of the main reasons Warcraft III remained popular for so long - there were new maps and scenarios being developed all the time so the variety and replayability was virtually infinite) in the multiplayer expansion pack to increase replayability.

On the other hand, given what I've seen from this thread, it might be better to wait until Galactic Civilizations III to implement multiplayer

Brad has already said that they'll make a GalCiv III - it'll just be a couple years before that happens (Society's the next thing to come).

The thing people don't seem to realize that want multiplayer - a single turn will take ages. A single turn for me longer in the game probably takes 2-5 minutes on average (just guessing). If you add one player, it means that you just *sit* there for 2-5 minutes after each turn - most people don't have an attention span for something that long because there is literally nothing that you can do. Each additional player that you add compounds the problem... and you end up waiting longer than you're playing. If you play a 75 turn game (really short)... 3.75 hour game (assuming an average of 3 minutes/turn) solo, meaning 7.5 hours for a two player game, 11.25 hours for a three player game... and so on. The play time is just not practical for people via the internet (lan/hotseat is a different matter... especially since it opens up the option of saving the game and starting anew).

The only way to get a flushed out multiplayer without that time commitment (you have to look at a full game lasting on average an hour to an hour and a half) is to completely change the gameplay dynamic of GalCiv II, which in development time would dominate whatever they do (along with completely changing the way the sandbox game would be played). The only way I really see having a successful and fun multiplayer (to the *majority* of people, not the few diehard supporters of MP) is for Stardock to completely revamp the game - which would be a viable option in GalCiv III (where they can design it with MP in mind; the only way I could think to increase the actvities of the player and to continue to keep it turn based is having a turn timer which switches after a set amount of time, limiting games to two players, and alternating the players between social and military building so that while one player builds on planets the other plays with their fleets).

MOO2 rocked in Hotseat MP with friends. And several other games. Note that this was the time before interened MP was of any significance. Yet all those old games had Hotseat MP and it was great think to play with friends.

Who cares about time? Compare that to pen and paper RPG and one computer game is still faster to finish.

I hope Stardock could get "1 slot" and do this kind of low time intensive MP.

I'm not interested in multi-player, I would rather you focus on improving the single player experience. Improve the AI (build up planets better, design new ships whenever new ship tech is researched not once a year, etc.) and expand the diplomacy (expand the role of the UP, multiple treaty types, etc.).

There's only one key reason I would find a multiplayer exapnsion for the game interesting and that's because I'm interested in the political side a multiplayer game would create. I voted no on the expansion though because turn based games such as this when I have tried playing multiplayer in the past would takes days if not weeks to complete even on the smaller maps, do a large map and you'll potentially never finish a game.

What I really want to see is increased diversity in racial abilites, like one person mentioned planets which are good for one race and not another.

I also really want increased political abilities, maybe an option to adjust how often the galactic counsel meets, the ability to choose between what is being voted on.

More options for territorial control, like ways to keep the computer from building starbases all over your territory without your permission and without having to go to war. And have ways to keep computers from having military ships in your space without facing the complications of strained relations.

Maybe the ability to bribe other civilizations in to voting along with you in the galactic counsel.

Some other options for economics would be fun to.
Not just having trade routes but be able to create interstellar tourist, and travel flights so you can increase your tourism income. Also make it so you can alter the flight paths of travel flights, and tade routes. Then make it so starbases can actually defend from a distance, so you can build starbases to protect the route and also so they can increase the income from the routes. Basically making it so you can create interstellar highways.

Doing this would also make pirate options more interesting. Pirates plagueing undefended routes.

You could also make it so you can assign your ships to patrol the routes.

More tourist wonders that you can build on your planets would also be nice.

I also agree with what NT Jedi has said.
It's a little *too* subjective/biased to put a question such as that to a community that has been, for so long now, spending much of its time refuting those that are begging for multiplayer. I bet if you were able to pose that question to the wider purchasing audience of GalCivs2 (let's face it, a miniscule amount are active on these forums or contribute to polls), you'd find a far different beast needing to be tamed.

If only from the many, many review responses that practically drool considering a multiplayer GalCiv2 it should be recognised that this is definitely a highly-requested expansion for this title. I'd hate for any design decisions to be inconsiderate of this wider audience.

But the results make it clear that there isn't a huge outcry for a multiplayer expansion.

The outcry for multiplayer has been very, very vocal, particularly at GalCiv2's inception. Unfortunately, posing this question to a restrictive sample for a shortish period of time...you're (unfortunately) not going to be able to accurately reflect anything.

My wishlist for the next expansion pack

-Fighters and Carriers In this game

-Special weapons for any other Race

I bet if you were able to pose that question to the wider purchasing audience of GalCivs2 (let's face it, a miniscule amount are active on these forums or contribute to polls), you'd find a far different beast needing to be tamed.

3000k is not a miniscule amount for a poll, especially considering the fact that this game was not put out by one of the big game companies and it is in an extremely niche category. Most polls put out by news sources use a small sampling of around 1000 and give a +/- of 3-5%. I agree that SD's poll was probably a bit biased but then again I would think most "unsocial" SP type folks would not hang out at an online forum. It would be the MP folks that are more use to hanging out and socializing. To have the "quiet" group end up the majority in a poll says that the so-called wild beast is a bit more tame than the MP folks are trying to make it.

If only from the many, many review responses that practically drool considering a multiplayer GalCiv2 it should be recognised that this is definitely a highly-requested expansion for this title. I'd hate for any design decisions to be inconsiderate of this wider audience.

Since when do the reviewers know what everyone wants? They know what they like and they rate the game based on their feelings. Just because they have a job playing games and writing down their opinion does not mean they are more qualified at knowing what the world wants than the 2000+ gamers who said they would not pay for this game to have MP. While most reviewers have said the game is lacking for not having MP, I feel GCII would not have made as many Editor Choice list if they felt it was something that the majority of players wanted/needed. Again, they just stated their opinion as have we all.

The outcry for multiplayer has been very, very vocal, particularly at GalCiv2's inception. Unfortunately, posing this question to a restrictive sample for a shortish period of time...you're (unfortunately) not going to be able to accurately reflect anything.

The minority of anything is almost always the most vocal so as to get their opinion heard. Anytime a discussion about MP rolls around, the MP'ers come out of the woodwork and when the majority of those on the forum tell them reasons why this game is not made for MP they start in with insults at posters and/or SD or start posting non-facts to prove everyone wants MP. While it may be hard for the die hard MP'ers to understand, there are many foiks on this planet that enjoy sitting down to a good game of solitaire.

Civ4 keeps getting referenced to as a reason for GCII to have MP and while I agree it is a good game, I payed nearly $60 bucks so that the MP folks could have a feature I've not used nor plan to. I bought it because I enjoy the series but I payed extra because of those who scream "it has to have MP or we'll not buy it". When SD offers to put out nothing but an MP expansion those same folks scream "no, I wont pay for just an MP expansion...it has to have other features". Those of us who do not feel the game needs MP end up paying for it while getting cheated out of other features that could have been included had the time not been put into pleasing a % of gamers wanting MP in a TBS. Not to speculate, but 100k sold on a game that it is known to be SP seems to say that there are plenty of folks that want SP only games. I find it hard to believe that even 50% of those that bought GCII were thinking "if I buy it, SD will make it MP." I personally think the SP folks should start screaming (with our wallets) to the gaming companies that we will not continually pay for the MP group and just see which group is actually in the majority. Money (or lack of) does talk extremely loud.

Responding to the original question...No! I do not like MP games (or FPS or RTS for that matter). I have limited time and spend that time playing single-player turn-based strategy games. Consequently, when one finally does get to market, I usually play it to death because there's nothing else available.

So, you wanna branch off from your existing cash cow? Try reintroducing the turn-based historical war game genre. I really miss playing games like Panzer General, et al. This time, though, try lesser known conflicts that haven't been re-enacted ad nauseum.

Well, that's my 2 __ (insert currency preference here).

I'd like to see some form of tactical combat, some utlilites that can be put on ships that do more than either defend or attack (like the varied utilities in MoO2 that often had unique even non-military effects), a way to use all the class 0 planets, the tech tree perhaps reworked a little to be more interesting and less bland, and definitely more portraits (race and flag) to choose from.

The thing people don't seem to realize that want multiplayer - a single turn will take ages. A single turn for me longer in the game probably takes 2-5 minutes on average (just guessing). If you add one player, it means that you just *sit* there for 2-5 minutes after each turn - most people don't have an attention span for something that long because there is literally nothing that you can do. Each additional player that you add compounds the problem... and you end up waiting longer than you're playing. If you play a 75 turn game (really short)... 3.75 hour game (assuming an average of 3 minutes/turn) solo, meaning 7.5 hours for a two player game, 11.25 hours for a three player game... and so on. The play time is just not practical for people via the internet (lan/hotseat is a different matter... especially since it opens up the option of saving the game and starting anew).

I keep hearing things like this, but then the people who want multiplayer have almost all played TBS games like this in multiplayer. It isn't like we don't know that games take much longer when you are playing multiplayer. The idea is that we actually have friends who enjoy playing this type of game too, and it is much funner playing against them than something you cannot brag to, or have any real emotional contact with. I mean it seems much more likely that you haven't played a MP TBS, or if you have you didn't play against friends. A supported Hotseat would probably even do if they put out an expansion that didn't include any other form of MP. I also can't think of any additional SP content that I would be willing to pay $20 to get. The game is pretty good as a single player game now, so it isn't worth it just to gain a few extra bells and whistles. I would probably pay $10 for a pack that expanded the campaign quite a bit - but then I was a little disapointed with the campaign that came with the game, so I would wait a while to see what others said about the expansion pack before I would buy it.

Everyone who loves the game should want Stardock to be more successful because this strengthens not only the chance of Stardock releasing sequels, but also increases the chance of other games being made similar to this by other companies.
With this in mind... Stardock will be more successful if its gaming community grows because this means more ' word of mouth ' about the game. Expansions with multiplayer as one of the features will draw a great number of multiplayer gamers which means more sales for Stardock.
Considering a funky workaround already exists for hotseat in GAL_CIV_2... thus it would take only ONE DEVELOPER SLOT for HOTSEAT to be made official.


STARDOCK 33% (one-third) wants multiplayer based on your poll..... please give us at least HOTSEAT

Another feature that I would like, but one you're probably not going to do: AI plugins.

I want you to expose a .dll interface that allows people to write their own AI plugins. It should be able to do anything that your current AI can do; access the same functions, save/load its state data, etc. The whole nine yards.

The PLAN to make everyone happy:

We have 5 slots. Multiplayer would eat up at least 3 of those slots...

Release the first expansion which provides Hotseat as one of the features since a funky workaround already exists that would be only 1 slot... 2 slots if you guys drink heavily at work. This leaves at least 3 slots for new game features.... which allows you to not only keep MP gamers happy, but also make existing SP_only gamers happy as well !!
The second expansion can do LAN multiplayer which would be another 2 slots leaving 3 slots for new game features. And because this will increase your gaming community your sales will increase as well making everyone happy.

The PLAN to make everyone happy !!!

I don't play multiplayer games at all so my vote would be no. And the fact it takes away from potentially other cool stuff I would rather buy digital expansion packs instead.

Note to Stardock:

I will not buy a single-player expansion period.

I am already bored of trashing computer dummies that feel no pain.

This web-poll does not qualify as viable market research.

I am not alone in my opion.

Thank you.

Well I was not included in the poll. I think if you're planning on doing multiple expansions, why not do:

Expansion #1: Single player features.
Expansion #2: Lots of cool art/ etc features
Expansion #3: Multiplayer

That way the people who really want multiplayer will get it. The people who don't will skip out on that expansion. Because you have _other_ expansions, the single player folks don't miss out on anything.

(As I personally don't think it should be an "Either/Or" choice given time = great enough number).

-Jara

Another vote here for "please add hotseat". That's actually the only type of multi-player I would look forward to in GC2.

3000k is not a miniscule amount for a poll, especially considering the fact that this game was not put out by one of the big game companies and it is in an extremely niche category. Most polls put out by news sources use a small sampling of around 1000 and give a +/- of 3-5%.

But you're not applying it to a random sample, so regardless, in light of how many people did purchase galcivs2, it's an unproportioned tiny amount.

The minority of anything is almost always the most vocal so as to get their opinion heard. Anytime a discussion about MP rolls around, the MP'ers come out of the woodwork and when the majority of those on the forum tell them reasons why this game is not made for MP they start in with insults at posters and/or SD or start posting non-facts to prove everyone wants MP. While it may be hard for the die hard MP'ers to understand, there are many foiks on this planet that enjoy sitting down to a good game of solitaire.

I'll stand by my comments, and refute that as being irrelevant. You can't apply a stereotype to 'minorities' and expect it to hold everywhere. I'd dare say that those seeking multiplayer have been practically chased off these forums (and it's definitely accepted that in these cases, the insults are not on a one-way street, please let's not be naive here). To exend that thought further, MPers have likey 'done their dash' with galcivs2 and have moved on. I honestly can't see there being a fair amount of multiplayer-enthusiasts on this here forum.

And-- what's more, reviewers certainly *DO* represent a large number of public thoughts. The popular ones have their work read by millions, and they serve to influence them too. And the 'popular' reviewers have all unanimously regretted the lack of multiplayer in GalCiv2. They are preaching to their choir here, make no mistake.

I personally think Stardock have definitely the creative talent to pull off multiplayer, I have my utmost faith in it. I also think the game would be better served by people contributing their suggestions rather than wasting time naysaying. It's outright ignorant to presume that there is no significant majority who are dying for multiplayer. Certainly a large enough portion to warrant a tidy profit on the sales of such an expansion pack too. (I'm sure Stardock won't even consider it if they can't establish profitability, I can guarantee that).

Wow, people who don't know how statistical analysis works! Remember kids - anonymous internet posters know more than SD marketing consultants. AM I RITE?

It's fun to read more and more posts which are basically 'I want multi wah wah wah make it for me regardless of manpower, economics, or marketing. If they don't they're rogues and cads'. EARTH TO PEOPLE - they AREN'T consisdering it because it ISN'T profitable. That's what this whole thread is about!

I would like to see more high level technologies, combined with more ship jewellery.

I would like to see jewellery and hulls for organic looking ships, and also crystalline ships - perhaps only available with higher level technology.

I would like to see alternate graphics for functional modules like weapons and engines to match the crystalline and organic themes.