I have been following GalCiv 2 for quite a while but it *never* even occured to me that a game nowadays, especially a TBSG turn based strategy game would not have a MP option.

Where ya been the whole beta teting Cycle! It has always been a non-multi-player's game.

I love multiplayer RTS games btw. It's the time issue really.

Totally agree with you Frogboy. Family life and multiplayer RTS is sometimes hard to reconcile.

Every multiplayer TBS game I've ever played on-line versus strangers goes goes something like this: 1) I play for an hour and the other guy quits. 2) I play for an hour and the game starts to turn in my favor slightly. Guy quits. Whether this be CIV IV or HOMM3 or MOO2.

Yes thats why whenever I see someone bitch about no multiplayer being in such a game I believe them to be strange.

I played MOO2 for SIX years, Civ 2 multiplayer for quite a few years, SE4, and a few others as well. NEVER finished a multiplayer game for ANY TBS.

TBS multi games really don't appeal to me, since I could not sit at my comp for the 2- whatever hour long it takes to finsh. One thing to the op that you should understand about gal civ and probably gal civ 2's(when it's done) ai, is that they can be very brutal. Playing galciv 1 on norm and civ 3 on norm was two very different experiences.  The ai for the most part will do everything and anything in it's power to win. Personality I couldn't even take the ai on the hardest difficulity level, as it was that great. That kind of ai plus the metaverse scoring system is a great replayablity factor in my opinion.

 

That's understandable that a multiplayer group would be disappointed. No game can be all things to all people.

That is true and I have written as much. However, I think that there are more groups like mine out there. How many, I don't know. And I hope that some day, hopefully in the near future, Stardock will decide to implement MP.

One thing, MoO3 had a huge forum while it was alive. I see many but by far not all people here that also were on that forum. I wager at least some of those are MP fans

Btw, Apoc527, are you the same as the moderator on those MoO3 forums? If yes then a hearty hello to you.

a lot of people here are MP fans, just because we dont see the point of MP in GalCiv 2 doesnt mean we only play single player games.

Legendde, at least wait until you play the game before deciding whether or not you'll enjoy playing it.

Frogboy has already stated his case regarding the lack of MP over several posts on different threads. I happen to agree with the bossman on this one, it's not worth pouring a significant part of a game's budget into a feature that will not be used by most of the people buying the game.

This way, the people who aren't ever going to use it (like myself), can save some money on the game AND enjoy all of those features that wouldn't have made it into the game if MP was planned from the outset of the games design.

Frogboy has also said that they may bring in MP in the expansion pack, but only if there's enough support for it. So get all of those friends of yours that want MP onto the forums if MP is the ONLY thing that will make GC2 worthwhile for you.

@ leggende

There is still the option to play mp-moo2 online with your buddies..(or some other "strangers" lol)..

I guess most moo2 fans are unaware of this, you find some details here:

http://masteroforion2.blogspot.com

Look for the Kali guide there.

I have finished hundreds (or even thousands) moo2 mp games successfully.

...plus most of the people who were polled by stardock would rather have a game with customizable ships than a multiplayer...

I need to point out that the surveys that were conducted, as I understand it, went something like this:

Pick the one thing that is most important to you: (1) Ship Design, (2) multiplayer, (3) blah blah blah.

I really want multiplayer in this game, but I wouldn't pick it as the ONE thing that's most important to me. I'd rank ship design first, and THEN multiplayer. My point? THE SURVEY WAS FLAWED.

Vagabond, how was the survey flawed? From what you have posted it looks as if Stardock were looking for the one VERY time consuming task that potential buyers of the game wanted.

You yourself say that if given the choice, you would pick ship design before multiplayer.

I think people should perhaps look at this a different way. Multiplayer is not the be all and end all of a game. Would any of us sacrifice all the cool extras that are in the single game so Stardock could design and implement a multiplayer system?

At least the way they're doing it just now means that there is the possibility for people to get the best of both worlds. Think about it, if enough people want multiplayer, Drag and the team will bring out an expansion pack FOCUSSING on multiplayer, rather than just tacking it on to satiate the vocal few.

Personally though, I prefer playing these types of games by myself, if I ever feel the need to play with others, I have Planetside and World of Warcraft to satisfy those urges.

We also had a poll that asked "How important would multiplayer be to you in a sequel?"

Options were:

Very important

Fairly Important

Not important

I don't have the results handy but over 70% said not important, about 20% said fairly important, and 10% said very important.

Let's be clear - as much as I love working 70 hours a week for months on end to develop Galactic Civilizations, one of our goals is to make money on it. So believe me, we put a lot of energy into trying to know who buys these games and in what numbers as we could to cater to them.  Since we've made a lot of multiplayer games, we have a lot of first hand experience. 

Multiplayer advocates are vocal but few in number.  We will certainly have a sign up sheet for a multiplayer expansion.  It'll be $19.95.  I bet we can't get even 5,000 people to sign up.

You know, as I recall, StarDock actually started taking preorders on a GC1 MP expansion. They stated that if they got enough pre-orders, they'd make it. Less then 100 people pre-ordered the expansion (at the price of $15 or $20, IIRC). With over one hundred twenty five thousand units of the game *sold*, less then 100 people were willing to pre-order an expansion to provide MP.

MP is a troll. Most MP vocalists wouldn't use the feature more then a few times, by thier own admission. GC2 is a *lot* longer then GC1. Medium galaxy maps with rare/rare are taking me a almost a week to complete (at 6 hours per night!). Imagine that in MP environment. Think it over, and think about trying to play a small map with just you and three of your MP buds, being coordinated. You start off playing a couple of hours on LAN or TCP/IP, then swap over to PBEM because your turns are taking so long to get through. Most turns, in in a SP game, you'd just slammed the TURN button 15 times, and had one long pause (as you update the designs of all your fighting ships to integrate in the newer, smaller engines, or better defense, or pack in twice the weaponry as the old generation). Of course, in MP, there's your buddies, going through the same cycles of "locked on course" (hit that turn), then that sudden burst of redesign and upgrading. But they aren't on the exact same schedule as you, so that means they need to take their long turns when you are still just doing a click or two (launching a new ship and sending it to a rally point) and slamming the TURN button.

GC2 is not suitable for MP as it stands. Its a long, slow burn game. Much longer and slower then (mostly) sane players would be willing to go through for MP.

I don't give a rat's ass about multiplayer. If I want multiplayer, I'll play a 3D shooter (FYI: I love Day of Defeat: Source and CS:S). I buy TBS games so I can play them at my own pace and save the game anytime I like. I've played computer games for more years than I'm willing to admit (LOTS!), and the only time I ever played a TBS game on multiplayer was against a friend of mine. After playing the whole game over several sessions, we both agreed that it was too hard for us to both find time to play another long game together. Someone raised a good point earlier about opponents who quit. That is so true. It's hard to finish an online game of backgammon without the other person getting frustrated and quitting, so what are the chances that your opponent will finish a long game of GalCiv if they started to lose. Stardock stated VERY CLEARLY at the start of development that there would be no multiplayer. I was glad to hear it.

If there is one critical thing I look for in a TBS game, it is an intelligent AI (and an AI that cheats doesn't count as "intelligent"). Even those who play multiplayer will get tired of a game with a gimpy AI, unless EVERY player is a real person.

I hope Frogboy doesn't reply to this thread anymore. Every minute he spends reading posts from MP whiners is a minute that is taken away from important development efforts.

I admit I like the idea of multiplayer being added in an expansion, but the fact that it's being exluded from the original game is definitely *not* going to ruin GalCiv 2 for me. I would certainly like to see multiplayer added eventually, sure. Before that happens, however, I have a feeling the good folks at Stardock are *first* going make sure that the single-player mode is as solid and as fun as is reasonably possible--which is how it should be.

I hope Frogboy doesn't reply to this thread anymore. Every minute he spends reading posts from MP whiners is a minute that is taken away from important development efforts.

LOL. Yeah, I admit I've had that thought as well, although I'm generally too genteel to say such things out loud. Also, I'm not about to tell Brad what he should and shouldn't do.

OMG No cheese... I can't believe this game doesn't have any rare or pedigree cheeses in it. I thought it did, but after beta testing I haven't found any. Not even a single reference to Biere. I'm so Old Gold Bitter now.

OMG No cheese... I can't believe this game doesn't have any rare or pedigree cheeses in it. I thought it did, but after beta testing I haven't found any. Not even a single reference to Biere. I'm so Old Gold Bitter now.

LOL!!

Rogerano, you are an odd, demented man....and a very funny one too. Cheers!

Multiplayer advocates are vocal but few in number. We will certainly have a sign up sheet for a multiplayer expansion. It'll be $19.95. I bet we can't get even 5,000 people to sign up.

Hum... sad. Well, I for one was not here when the surveys were conducted, so now you have +1 in the multi-player faction. Even a few more.

However, would I preorder such an expansion? Don't know, I have never preordered a game yet.

I also did not know that adding multiplayer is so tedious to implement. Up until now I thought you just had to provide the software for the connection and not change much in the behavior of the AI. In my mind that would not be much work, but what do I know ^^. Maybe it is a challange if you want to do it 100%, but if there is only a minority who is at present vocal on wanting the MP option, is there a way to provide a toned down version? I have absolutely no clue (thought I had but from the comments that were made I now wonder) how much it takes, in money and mandays, to get MP to work. My guess was just write up the connection software and then make a few minor tweaks for turn management and battle management. Which would be a basic MP version I am sure.

But for USD 20 for the expansion, that looks like a rather huge project. Totally destroys my perception of computer software and the world in general (just being dramatic if anybody wondered).

I never said and I do not honestly think that the exclusion of MP would *ruin* the game. I said that MP is important for some and unimportant for others, with probably most in the middle leaning one way or the other or just not caring. So why not provide a basic MP version and then expand on it as it becomes clear how popular it is.

Preorders are imho difficult to read, as only the absolute MP lovers will preorder. Most are content to have the basic game at first and will not spare a thought on MP. That will probably come later.

Ummm. You can't just "do" a "basic" MP version of a game. You been reading Frogboy's posts about developing that functionality? About the effort and budget and return on investment and those kinda real and practical things that tend not to be thought about a lot? Anyway, as I said, sometimes it's the cheddar that makes a game, not the multiplayer.

I tend to like Galciv as a single player game. I do have experience with TBS games that are also multiplayer. Generally they were designed from the ground up to be multiplayer. My favorite example is VGA Planets. The thing about these games though is that they are SUPPOSED to take months. You spend 15-30 minutes a day giving orders to the system then you get the results the next day. Such a thing just wouldn't fit in with the Galciv 2 system design.

Stellar Crisis is the only other computer TBS that I've played that had an enjoyable multiplayer mode. It had blitz modes that usually lasted a couple hours and regular modes that could last for a year and were a turn per day.

If I want multiplayer, I'll play a game designed for it that favors interaction over depth in gameplay...

Personally, I prefer to play solo offline. I have played on line games, MMO, Diablo, and the like. What I enjoyed about those games wasnt the other people I was grouped with but the game play itself. If the gameplay sucked the game sucked. Then you add in the ??? factor with real people and you are setting yourself up for a possible horrible time. IE... members of the group arguing, members getting bumped offline, members not knowing what they are doing and getting the whole group killed, members that have cheats that give them an unfair advantage. There are just alot of reasons that I personally dont enjoy MultiPlayer online games. An example would be America's Army, I really enjoyed the game yet the cheaters completely ruined it.
I prefer to sit at home and match wits with a good AI any ol' day. The problem with most games is that they are scripted and therefore the replay value drops nearly to nill after the first completion. I am really looking forward to GalCiv 2 since it promises to be everything I want in a game and none of the frustrations of online play.
I say to Stardock for GalCiv 2. It sounds like it's really gonna rock!
PS> BTW I would support an expansion that offered Mult-player ONLY if it came with a whole lot of stuff for solo players too.

wow. In my own heffalump opinion, I wish I hadn't posted earlier. I saw in GC2 the success that Civ 4 experiences, and desire GC 2 to be as successful. I suck so bad Intelligent AI can kick my butt, would I really do MP? No. I also agreed with some of the posts. Well, wish you success Stardock.

Stardock, have you ever contemplated making a GC real time, perhaps akin to the style of Europa Universalis 2? It looks and feels like a TBS, but everyone can move and maneuver at the same time. Would love to hear your thoughts on the subject. Thanks!

Brad has mentioned that they consider, from time to time, making an RTS version of GC. However, I think the current game projects are GC2 and their MMO-RTS called Society (IIRC).

If galciv was turn based it would be unrecognisable and a totally different game altogether. Im not a fan of TBS as with games such as age of empires, star trek armada and command and conquer it ends up as build as many units as you can and herd them all at the enemy. I don't see much 'strategy' involved. Though the real time elements in rome total war are tip top!

I think if GalCiv 2's sales are strong- two compatible expansions should be released.

A SP expansion worth $10, that adds all the new SP content, if any is needed. Even though I haven't played the beta, I have a strong feeling an expansion won't be needed- as modmakers will do it.
A MP expansion, worth $10, that offers basic functional MP- and nothing else, with enhancements patched.

My main MP game was Kohan

Hi!
Let me add a few words about multiplayer. I am a long-time strategy gamer, but my slow dial-up conection made me playing only PBEM games. Recently installed ADSL has just showed me I'm too old to compete in RTS games with kids that can click twice as fast as I can. So I remained at TBS, Stars! being the most played.

Despite a Stars! game takes some months to finish by playing 5 turns per week, 15 min to 2 hours per turn, a game is usually over in less than 100 turns. In those 100 turns there's about 30-50 planets settled and fully developed, most important tech maxxed, several thousands ships built and destroyed, many dozens of planets bombed / packeted / pop-dropped, and at least half of usual 6-12 players eliminated, before the rest of players can decide, who's the winner.

Now please check, where is a GalCiv game in 100 turns.
So it's not just "add MP", it's also a radical redesign of game pace, else I doubt there will be much players playing the second MP game.
BR, Iztok