Galactic Civilizations II: Would you purchase a multiplayer expansion?

Poll results

By on May 17, 2006 4:58:46 PM from GalCiv II Forums GalCiv II Forums

Frogboy

Join Date 03/2001
+1077

The question we asked was, would you purchase a multiplayer only expansion pack that was $20.

Multiplayer expansion are nothing new.  Civilization III had one. Even the original Civilization had a multiplayer expansion. 

My own thoughts on a multiplayer expansion pack are ambiguous. Unlike an EA or Take 2 or any number of big publishers, Stardock's ability to get widespread retail space for an expansion pack for Galactic Civilizations II is a real challenge.

Hence, future expansion packs for Galactic Civilizations II are likely to be digital-only.  This way, the retail version of Galactic Civilizations II can hold on to its space as long as we can and people who want more can come here to get it.

Which brings us back to what exactly should be in an expansion pack.  We plan to make multiple expansion packs. One of the mistakes we made with the first GalCiv was that we only made one and users made it clear to us that they would have liked to have seen more.  So this time we will make sure we do that.

The first expansion pack would come out this Fall.  The second one next year. It would be that second expansion pack that we have to finalize what features for that could potentially be mostly about multiplayer.

When one thinks of an expansion pack, think of is like designing a ship in GalCiv II.  We have 5 slots. Multiplayer would eat up at least 3 of those slots, more likely 4 slots.

So the question really boils down to, are there OTHER features you would prefer to have instead of multiplayer.  This multiplayer poll won't be the last one on the subject.  But the results make it clear that there isn't a huge outcry for a multiplayer expansion.

I think most people are of the opinion that they'd happily by an expansion pack that included multiplayer if it had lots of other features. But that's not how these things work out. Multiplayer is a huge feature so other features would have to be taken out.

Once the first expansion pack comes out, we can then look at what might go into a second expansion pack (including multiplayer) and put the question up as to which features would people want the most.

249 Replies
Search this post
Subscription Options


Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
May 17, 2006 7:24:38 PM from GalCiv II Forums GalCiv II Forums
I would totally buy it if it came with multiplayer. I mean, sure, the AI is good, but I would rather play against other humans. And as for people dropping out of the game before it's over, you could do it the way Civ 4 does: make their civ available for another human player to take over, instead of allocating it permanently to the AI to control.

That said, there are a number of single player features I'd like to see implemented:

* a scenario creator
*more eye candy - i.e., asteroid belts, supernovas, different sized stars, etc.
*colonizable moons
*more options for invasions and ground troops - i.e., the ability to train soldiers, not simply calculate the number of soldiers based on a fraction of the population
*larger ships
*and, as always, improved AI (not that it isn't already good)
*or even, better, AI that learns from and remembers its mistakes
Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
May 17, 2006 7:40:02 PM from GalCiv II Forums GalCiv II Forums
I shall continue to represent the minority

Myself and 2 of my friends greatly enjoyed Civ IV's internet multiplayer. However I admit that I had never tried a public game... and to be perfectly honest public multiplayer "rooms" wouldn't interest me at all (and would probably be a very daunting prospect for a turn-based strategy such as galciv 2). I much prefered to relax and play online with my friends while chatting to them with ventrilo.
I do love to play this game with AI, and lets face it, the AI will still be a very large factor in multiplayer games, but I was unable to convince my friends to purchase this game purely because there is currently no multiplayer support.
I realise there are many complications to multiplayer with this game, who would want to wait around while an opponent designs a new ship?

As a reaction to the poll results, I believe it would be closer to a 50-50 opinion because some people will not have purchased this game for the very reason that there is no multiplayer... and so the potential extra customer's voices cannot be heard.

I greatly prefer Galciv 2 over Civ IV. Multiplayer would keep this game on my HD for years!
Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
May 17, 2006 7:40:50 PM from GalCiv II Forums GalCiv II Forums
well said Spleeze I agree that this is most things that i think that should be in the expansion pack. also i say more diplomatic aspects, Larger fleets (logistcs are to small tho i think i can change it here), More hull types (by that i mean more hulls for each one like Large), and carriers ships that have the abbility to lanch like 30 weak small fighters (smaller that Small ships), longer and cooler battles in fleet combat ( battles are short and the same thing over and over and over and over. would like to see it more like the battles if i may say like in deep space nine, when the federation was retaking deep space nine, more options for u to say what stratigy u will take in battle more cooler statiges like u see yr bigger ships staying off to the right and u watch yr smaller ships go it and then yr bigger ships flank the buggers. (i say more stratgic battles), sieges of planets, planet taking is way to fast take a whole planet in 1 week.. um ill post more when i think of them
Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
May 17, 2006 7:43:22 PM from GalCiv II Forums GalCiv II Forums
I want to change my vote to yes now that Ive played more. I would love to play this online, or even just on a LAN
Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
May 17, 2006 8:03:52 PM from GalCiv II Forums GalCiv II Forums
Hell no is about right.

Instead of MP, I want a map editor/maker.
If you REALLY want to add a big feature, consider the tactical combat of MOO2. But it would be better to add more STARS features. Especially the world stats (temp,grav,atmos) and have different races need different combinations of stats with the ability of terriforming to a better combination. If not this complicated, at least do it like MOO2.

Chris.
Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
May 17, 2006 8:05:47 PM from GalCiv II Forums GalCiv II Forums
I voted no both because of the lost features and because $20 just seemed a little too much for just one new feature.

$10 for just a multiplayer feature seems right to me.

But also, since it comes down to either multiplayer or other features (new techs, a new tech line, improved AI, new governments, maybe another race, hopefully a feature that lets you be able to choose to build an older version of a building if you don't want to build the latest and greatest version of the building) I'd rather have those features over the multiplayer.
Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
May 17, 2006 8:33:44 PM from GalCiv II Forums GalCiv II Forums
i vote no, for mutliplayer on turn base game would take forever. Honest I feel most people who never finish a big multiplayer game.

Personally, I like see popalation of each race on all planets.
Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
May 17, 2006 8:38:27 PM from GalCiv II Forums GalCiv II Forums
I see that you have a poll that shows a full third of the people on this site would buy a MP only expansion pack for $20, but you have no idea how many people would pay $20 for a SP only expansion pack. Somehow I think it will be less than the MP only pack.

I was one of the people that was glad that you made the game SP only. But that was because I liked the first game with the exception of the bad interface, graphics, and sound. (The gameplay was good though.) I figured that this would be the same, except it would fix those problems. It did fix those problems, however it is nowhere near as challenging as the original game (at least for me.) I often got beat on only normal difficulty in GC1, but I have yet to come even close to lose in GC2, even on Masochistic Difficulty. For this reason only, I would like to have the opportunity to play against another human being, so that I would get a new challenge.

I would also like to see the race AI's to be split up in GC3 with another person coding some of the races to give them a little more flavor. (Have two people coding AI, hopefully giving the different races a little different flavor and strategy) Even though they are slightly different, they all are very similar in many ways - such as how they build their ships amongst other things. It is obvious that Frogboy has specific strategies that he usually uses, because all of the races do a lot of the same strategies. I am not saying that he did a bad job - far from it - but I find that the races generally have similar priorities in what they build, research, and design (ship design).

Anyway, I wish you luck on selling your expansion. $20 is a little much for me, but I am sure there are people here who will buy it and love it.
Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
May 17, 2006 8:44:30 PM from GalCiv II Forums GalCiv II Forums
I am sorry to say this but your multiplayer polls are a load of bullshit. First of all the poll does not even remotely represent an accurate numbers of players who would purchase the expansion if it had multiplayer. You have already alienated the multiplayer gamers like myself who have no more time to waste coming to the site to see if you hired enough talent to actually pull it off. From what I remember it was officially stated that if the game sold well you would put out an expansion pack with new content that also featured multiplayer. Obviously the easy road has been chosen again. I don't care what anyone at Stardock says about multiplayer. It's clear you guys have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to multiplayer and it's clear you don't have the talent to make it happen creatively or technically.

GalCiv2 is a great single player game no doubt. One that could have reached alot more people if it had shipped with mutliplayer. Most of the people that want to play multi don't even care now because they already know your stance on the subject and have moved on to other games. Now your talking about the third expansion pack possibly having multiplayer? Yeah like that would make it any easier to add multiplayer down the road. I hate to be so blunt but it's the truth. Just stop talking about it altogeather and quit wasting people's time.


this says it all

Im sorry for all you anti- multiplayer gamers out there with no mates

clearly all the time alone has made you deluded into thinking that the AI will ever be as fun or challenging as playing another human - sorry to say it wont

this game for me is already at the occassional play level - primarily due to it bland sameness

are SP expansions going to re-envigorate the game - doubtful

I laughed at comments about tactics and strategy - its pretty light on really

I wont be spending any more money trying to flog this dead horse

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
May 17, 2006 8:44:57 PM from GalCiv II Forums GalCiv II Forums
It's clear you guys have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to multiplayer and it's clear you don't have the talent to make it happen creatively or technically.


That is a very strong statement. It is also, structurally, falacious.

The design (and production) choice to not implement multiplayer has no bearing on whether or not they could do it. Just like not picking up a piece of trash doesn't mean that you couldn't; it just means that you can't be bothered at the moment.

As for the relevant question of what other features would one want for an expansion:

* Espionage. Do something more with it. Possibly even an espionage victory, with espionage techs.

* Planet Defense and specialized military units: Say, planets can have planetary defense grids capable of killing off whole fleets. But, bring along a special planetary siege ship, and that grid drops. Planets can have shields, which requires a huge fleet to breach, but bring along a shield-cracker, and it goes away. These should be in separate tech trees. Starbases should be able to build similar modules to protect themselves. The goal is to slow down invasions and allow someone to be relatively strong without having to have a large military. The downside is that it takes tiles.

* Influence Defense Starbase Modules: There need to be modules that can protect a planet from influence attacks.

* StarBase Galactic Wonders: A new kind of starbase. Requires building a new base of a new type. If you research down a particular tree long enough, you get a series of modules to build. If you build all of those modules on a WonderBase, it provides a massive (galactic wonder-quality) effect. The benifits are that they don't take tiles. The downside is that they're starbases, so they're vulnerable.. And there should be lots of useless modules to build between the initial base and the actual wonder power (or perhaps a gradual increase in ability). The Wonder Base, if destroyed, can be rebuilt by another side. Eyes of the Universe should definately be one of these; that way, it wouldn't be so incredibly powerful.

* Starbase capture: Resource bases, in particular, should be able to be captured. However, this requires a new tech and a new ship module.

* Starbase Interdictor Ships: A ship module (big) that suppresses the output of non-resource starbases inside a particular radius of effect. It must be stationary for a full turn before it becomes active, and it can't move while active. Using one should be considered an aggressive act, of course.

* Better battle visualization: Play Wild Arms: Alter Code F. It's battle visualization is very dramatic and very effective. Learn from it. It does have discontinuities, but nobody cares; it looks really cool.

* Planetary Siege Missiles: A module built onto a ship that allows it to function as an orbital bombardment missile. When it "invades" a planet, you can select a non-wonder improvement to be destroyed. If you have no espionage, then the missile picks something at random. Should be a very expensive, very large module. It's better than orbital bombardment, because it's something you could see coming (if you're not close to the source), and the missile is expended, so it can't be done forever. Also, siege missiles would be stopped by planetary defenses, as above.

* The "Genesis" Torpedo: A ship module that turns a ship into a "Genesis" weapon. It can turn a Class 0 world into a higher-quality one, depending on your society's "Genesis" rating. The ship, of course, is lost in this act. You should only ever be able to use like 3-5 of them (neutrals get one more) in the entire game, but there should be a new branch or two of the tech tree to support them. They cannot be used on already inhabitted planets. Improving your Genesis rating would improve the quality of all previously Genesis'd planets.

* The Anti-Genesis Torpedo: A ship module that allows you to unGenesis a previously-Genesis'd world. Not unsurprisingly, this is considered a hostile act. Previously Genesis'd worlds need to be indicated as such, with perhaps a fragile ecosystem or something.

* More explicit control over galaxy generation: Perhaps via some kind of Lua scripting interface, were we can specifically determine where stars go, how many planets they have, and which stars are homeworld stars. Failing that, just better control over galaxy size and number of planets and habitable ones. Real numbers, not "phrases" like "abundent". Actual percentages. And being able to select galaxy sizes based on actual numbers of tiles (5x5 is too small, but 8x8 is too large for my tastes. I want to increment by 1).

* Bomb Them Into the Stone Age: An invasion tactic: Your goal is to raze the planet to the ground, killing everyone who isn't on your side. The enemy should get a population bonus, because the non-tax payers are going to come out once they realize that you're trying to kill eveyrone. The result is an uncolonized planet. Perhaps an added version could include a mass-driver one, but it would drop the PQ. The purpose of this idea is to get rid of buildings that you don't want and can't ordinarily remove.
Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
May 17, 2006 8:52:23 PM from GalCiv II Forums GalCiv II Forums
Thanks for asking and listening.

I would like to see true land battles like in IG II.

Totally unique “everything” for each race in the game. (Buildings, Ships, Planetary needs, etc.)

Better Moral Choice outcomes for those that want to take the Pure Good path.


Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
May 17, 2006 9:48:16 PM from GalCiv II Forums GalCiv II Forums
I've been playing for a couple weeks (despite the bugs) and have two sorts of requests.

First, some make it easier ideas:
--a "best offer" button so I don't keep slowly working to make sure the credits stay green
--a gauge of how useful my counterpart thinks his and my offers are. (credits are a uesful measure)
--a "revise design" button that replaces existing modules with their more advanced counterpart within the same series -- so Laser I gets replaced by Laser II. But Laser V does not get replaced by Plasma I.
--tooltip text telling me how many modules my starbase has -- preferably broken down by category -- attack/defence/production/trade/sensor for Economy, for instance.
--different shading (crosshatching?) for zoning starbases. The current gray on black is hard to make out.
--different colors for Starbases and exploited resources in your Zone. They're hard to pick out on the mini-map.
--a range circle for how far ships can travel in a turn. Don't try to resize it while in motion.
--ability to upgrade freighters involved in trade routes.

-----
Now some big ideas.
--Try to get the races to stand out from each other more. Anyone here play Twilight Imperium? Great board game with double plus distinct races.
--Ability to render some worlds habitable, paving the way for late game colonization. Perhaps through massive terraforming, orbital colonies (living near/over, not on). This requires distinguishing among the Size 0 planets. I like the idea of building tiles and launching them at gas giants. Jupiter has an easy 15 hexes, but needs lots of work.
--Ability to build immense scale structures -- Ringworlds. Dyson spheres.
--Variant tech trees. Perhaps with some XOR gates. Good/Evil with associated techs is a clear step in this direction.
--Make the UP less random. Some techs/projects/activites allow setting the agenda and provide an advantage with the voting.

Rylen
Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
May 17, 2006 10:11:10 PM from GalCiv II Forums GalCiv II Forums
Honestly, with the number of big problems still unfixed with GC2, this particular customer isn't going to buy another Stardock product unless future patches bring some serious improvement.
Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
May 17, 2006 10:14:30 PM from GalCiv II Forums GalCiv II Forums
An online version would require some very complex classes to work well, I'm guessing that's why it would take up 3 or 4 "slots." I could see a hot seat mode not being very complex compared to a normal online game. If the game Ai truely treats all opponents equally and all of the races information is stored the same way, not much code should be need to be modified ( The only thing I can think of it the Diplomacy Menu). I could see a hot seat mode being more likely, which is good because that is the only kind of multiplayer I like to play in these kinds of games.

That's my $0.02.
Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
May 17, 2006 10:44:24 PM from GalCiv II Forums GalCiv II Forums
No to multiplayer.

I am one of those that plays games to relax, I don't want the added stress I get enough of that in real life. When I want to interact with people, I'll go outside and do so.

Cheers,
Reaver
Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
May 17, 2006 10:44:34 PM from GalCiv II Forums GalCiv II Forums
As for Multiplayer options? I voted 'no'

As far as options go, Think Tradewars 2002 OLD school. The replayability on that was GREAT.
ahhhh old times.

anyway. I would like to see completely different sets of ship jewelry for each race (with a little overlap for basic parts) so each race's ships would look distinct. for example, one very organic looking, and another smooth and sleek.
perhaps a 'shiny metal' finish to some parts to add to the eye candy. a ship jewelry expansion alone I'd pay for.

Also
according to the game history, races used to move around via wormholes prior to the hyperdrive. why not have a permanent wormhole as a possibility for anomalies? or maybe something more dangerous.. a black hole that will eat your ships.. maybe slow movement in a certain sector


Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
May 17, 2006 10:47:03 PM from GalCiv II Forums GalCiv II Forums
The only multiplayer I ever see working for this is a sort of continuous universe one where teams of players can log on and play a single game or sets of games to a conclusion.

With the old Plato academic timeshare system there was a star trek type game that had 4 races that could have 20 players logged on at a time. Games went on for weeks with players loging on two hours or so at a time.

In this case, a game could be live, with players logging on to act as the race emperor. Races not occupied by a real person could be run by the AI. If the human player failed to make all moves within a time linit, the AI could make the turns for him, with a liv e time limit chess clock counting down.

Players could log in or sign up for selected shifts, or just observe only.

Certain sabotaging options could be disabled. Sub-governers could be enabled during a session.

The story editor could tell everyone what had happened during the last turn.

Players could be limited by their stardock account so they would be discouraged from playing on multiple teams or could be recruited for playing a losing team.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
May 17, 2006 11:06:02 PM from GalCiv II Forums GalCiv II Forums
Heres another idea to go along with my other ideas about renvoating and making combat more cooler, first make relistic damage, if a laser beam hits the shield generation then the shield generator is down, if the hull of the ship is hit with rail guns than show the detailes of that, not just the damage that we see now but much more relisitc looking ones that corrispond to where the ship was hit. and also explosions the explosions in the game are the same over and over and over, add some cooler explosions and make it look more plziing, like making it explode from the inside some times.

Admirals, this goes with the idea i said before about diffrent fleet stratiges, have adrmrals contol yr fleet. this would basicly mean that the ai will control a sector (compsisng of mutipal fleets) or a fleet. u give it general orders like protect the sol system and then the ai takes over and uses the fleet accodnely. and the admrals of course would gain expierance as time goes on. and each admaral will have thier own stregths and weaknesses. this of courese u can take command of the fleet, to do yr bidding, so its basicly letting the ai handle most of the fleet aspecrts but u still can take over or change the orders, and it may be possible make it so that u get reports from the adrimals each week a sourt of battle report. this will help a lot when yr fighting a 3 front war and u have 20+ fleets to manage at the same time and still maintain yr planets it will make it easer
Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
May 17, 2006 11:18:21 PM from GalCiv II Forums GalCiv II Forums
I also would not pay $20 for a multi-player expansion. As one previous poster surmised I would have no one to play it with. My previous experience with public/anonymous games has always been negative. Yet, I understand those who have friends to play with might find GalCiv 2 quite fun to play on-line. What to do?

Like several of the previous posters, I would pay $20 for an expansion that included controllable space battles and ground combat; and I know that these features would take up several of the slots that Frogboy mentioned earlier.
Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
May 17, 2006 11:25:43 PM from GalCiv II Forums GalCiv II Forums
If only two "slots" are left after multiplayer, maybe these two slots will have to be given to features which enhances mp experience while being nice in sp (simple player) too.

Ex:
- Diplomacy features permitting backstabs (great in mp... not bad in sp)
- More specific kinds of political, economic/other alliances. Disarmament or whattever.
- Insertion of "colonialism" and "influencing policies" of others' world
- Metaverse-oriented material, competition, whattever

But maybe those voting for a mp XP-pack wouldn't have voted mp at the expense of sp... like me, which had not thought about this
Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
May 17, 2006 11:36:09 PM from GalCiv II Forums GalCiv II Forums
It's really too bad that there is no direct multiplayer function. Many folks state plenty of reasons why they think it wouldn't work for the game. As it is, the AI provides no challenge for me simply because it doesn't ACT like a human. It always knows what planets have no atmospheric defenses and makes a beeline for them. Predicably, I simply put fleets within response range a sector back. The game is boring without human intelligence.

So what if the larger games would take a long time. My friends and I have the patience to play a 4+ hour game, but simply because too many other folks don't have the stamina to do it, I'll never get to experience a game against my friends. I didn't get a chance to vote in this poll, but I would've voted yes.

I also will not buy ANY expansions for this game unless it involves direct multiplayerablitiy.
Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
May 17, 2006 11:50:39 PM from GalCiv II Forums GalCiv II Forums
Where was this poll?! I haven't seen anything other than the 1.11 patch poll for a long time now.
Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
May 17, 2006 11:58:35 PM from GalCiv II Forums GalCiv II Forums
I voted no to the expansion, only because I wouldn't pay $20 for only a multiplayer option. There would have to be extra content for me to purchanse, and even then, I would probably pay only $10.
Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
May 18, 2006 12:28:35 AM from GalCiv II Forums GalCiv II Forums
Instead of multiplayer, which holds zero interest for me, I would like to see an in-game galactopedia, comprehensive game editor, custom soundtrack support (please), more 'jewelry', more portraits, the ability to start a game with every system explored and colonized (evenly) and a certain number of tech's researched, I would also like an enhanced planetary invasion module that didn't rely on reflex and had more options for the player. Yes. I would like this and buy it.
Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
May 18, 2006 12:50:05 AM from GalCiv II Forums GalCiv II Forums
what NTJedi said
Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
Stardock Forums v1.0.0.0    #108433  walnut3   Server Load Time: 00:00:00.0001734   Page Render Time: