Hi there.
I was looking for an answer in my MP 'quest', and i just fell on this thread. I took sometime to read it all, carefully, and i think that some people have the MP idea wrong.

Let me first clarify that this is a TURN BASED game, and thus, people who are bored with slow paced games would really play this game anyway

However, to back up the MP idea, i will call uppon another REALLY favorite title (which i happen to play since its very first version). I'm talking about Championship Manager (now called Football Manager).

Have you ever played FM in MP mode? Well, let me give you some insight...
1. You may wait for your opponent (MP) to continue the game for ages!!!
2. When your games and his don't play at the same time you might wait like FOREVER!
3. When you just NEED to find that new unknown star quality player, human opponent might as well go have some coffees!
I can describe you like a billion situations where the other player just sits there and 'enjoys his team' waiting for you. Still, do you know how many people play CM in MP mode?! Every single one who can have an opponent on over a LAN!

If you want action, then go play some action game. GalCiv is something between MOO and Civ, and BOTH of these games had successfull multiplayer sessions (Hundreds of hours), and in both games, MP SUCKED!!! Even in CM MP mode SUCKS due to poor design over the matter.

Regarding the pole...
If Stardocks target is keeping the same amount of customers (repaying for Expansion), then thats fine. But if they wonna multiply their customers then i think MP should be the very next thing to be planed amongst others.


Comments are most welcomed

---

Are you a LemMinG?

I find it funny that all of you people saying multiplayer in a turn based game is boring. If you don't like it, and you find it boring, don't play it. It is that simple. Atleast allow the other people who would like to play against friends in epic struggles have the option to do so. Online multiplayer gaming is the wave of the future and allows for much more in depth game play, and a bigger personal feeling.

And AGAIN. CG-II will NEVER have MP. GC-III probably will though.

Mupper, that was considered, but the response wasn't enough to make such an expansion worthwhile.

I wouldn't mind some kind of hotseat MP, I guess, but I wouldn't pay for an expansion that did nothing else. I just wouldn't use it enough.

That said, I'm not sure why hotseat MP would be so difficult.

Scott, as the devs have said several times, resources are limited. They have asked their customers what they want prioritised, and MP wasn't even second on the list. You're asking them to burn off the customers who have paid in favour of those who might pay.

If you want MP so bad, why not set up a web-page with a paypal pledge account. Have everyone who wants MP pledge $10 or whatever, and when the total reaches whatever amount Stardock say is required to break even on a MP expansion, then you're good to go. Then we'll see how many people want MP bad enough to actually pony up for it. SD can sell the expansion for $15 to everyone who didn't pledge and make their (gauranteed) profit on it there.

Then if there really is a huge, untapped market for MP GalCiv2, the deprived thousands can vote with their dollars. If, on the other hand, there are only a few hundred loud-mouths who want their pet feature implemented at the expense of the desires of the majority, you'll know for sure.

Loorn, it's great for you that you have the friends and the shared time to play this way. I and many others don't, and are very glad to find a game that gives such good single-player experience.

No, it really isn't that simple. People that don't want multiplayer are considerably less likely to pay the extra premium that adding multiplayer would bring to the price--especially in a theoretical expansion pack that adds just multiplayer and associated features, where noone at all would buy it who didn't want multiplayer. The descision to leave multiplayer out (and to not make a multiplayer expansion ala Civ3:PTW) is not based on 'not liking multiplayer', but on plain old cost vs profit.

When Civ3:PTW came out, I bought it as much for the additional civs and other features that it offered as anything else. I played a few PBEM games that were fun, but I could have gone either way on it.

CivIV came with multiplayer out of the box, and the later patch that included the pitboss application really made it a lot of fun. It was the first time I really got into multiplayer TBS. I think if we're going to see GC2 (or 3, or whatever) have multiplayer, it needs to have this particular feature.

I think the expansion pack that includes it also needs a few other features in order to satisfy the single-player-only crowd. But, personally, I really don't understand the anti-multiplayer sentiment here. I don't think the logic is sound, and the attitude is irrational. I play a lot more single-player than multi-player, but I have nothing against either variety, and I think adding that dimension will increase the overall gaming community and bring a lot to the franchise. The resistance to it here makes no sense to me.

Won't anybody please think of the horses!?

      

I think the expansion pack that includes it also needs a few other features in order to satisfy the single-player-only crowd.

Nooooo!!!!!!! (Dives in front of Frogboy's keyboard, saving the world from a combo expansion pack, yet at the horrible cost of a severe rib poking.)

Seriously though, I'm not sure how you can say the SP crowd would be 'satisfied' with one or two SP features, while most of our money funds the MP hobby.

I say split them, and we can see from the number of sales who wins, and that way neither side will have to subsidise the other.

So, is the MP 'huge market' just a fantasy cooked up by pro-MPers? Split expansion packs would prove it once and for all.

Nooooo!!!!!!! (Dives in front of Frogboy's keyboard, saving the world from a combo expansion pack, yet at the horrible cost of a severe rib poking.) Seriously though, I'm not sure how you can say the SP crowd would be 'satisfied' with one or two SP features, while most of our money funds the MP hobby. I say split them, and we can see from the number of sales who wins, and that way neither side will have to subsidise the other. So, is the MP 'huge market' just a fantasy cooked up by pro-MPers? Split expansion packs would prove it once and for all.

That's a really weak argument. It's like saying I don't like asteroids, and I refuse to buy the expansion pack because I would be funding the asteroid belt feature.

Perhaps more on the point (because, really, who doesn't like asteroids?), would be something like the religion feature in CivIV. I'm sure there are plenty of atheists who think that having religion be a major factor in the game is a waste of money - but I'll bet most of them still bought it anyway.

The point is, the game isn't going to please everybody with every little feature - but if multiplayer can bring in a few more people and give us all a chance for real online, LAN, e-mail, and hotseat play, I really don't see what the problem is. You don't HAVE to use it...

... and it will make the game better. Even if you don't use it, it will make the game better for you. I'll give you an example. I play Front Office Football a lot. In the latest version, multiplayer leagues became available. I tried a few. I didn't like it. I never play multiplayer anymore. Ever. But the feature has improved the game a number of ways:

1. More players. Which equals more money. The online leagues themselves become small internet communities of their own. Word gets around.
2. Better strategies. Beating the AI is one thing. Beating a human (or a whole league - or galaxy - of them) is another. The addition of multiplayer has spawned a whole new level of thinking with regards to FOF.
3. More mods. Each league in FOF likes to have its own flavor. People wrote historical league files to have a historical league. They figured out how to place teams around the globe for a global league. They created draft file editors to have custom draft picks. Most of this third-party development wouldn't have happened were it not for the multiplayer community, but I get to enjoy the fruits of their labor.

I'm telling you - multiplayer GalCiv2 galaxies all over the internet would be a beautiful thing.

That's a really weak argument. It's like saying I don't like asteroids, and I refuse to buy the expansion pack because I would be funding the asteroid belt feature.

Not really. Frogboy said MP would take up more than half of the expansion pack (about 3/5ths I believe), which is a lot different from not liking one small feature.

You know, Multiplayer wouldn't obligate stardock to create host servers and all.. Just a Hotseat function would already be good...plus maybe... a TCP/IP connection, so we can directly connect... I used to play that way long before game servers existed, and even when they did, to beat their restrictions i often ended up doing so. I don't ask for game servers, which would honestly be a mistake, but those people dedicated enough to long games that could be saved and picked up later on could play on those other features.

Think about it.

AGAIN....GC-II will NEVER have MP (according to the DEVS). So why continue to argue it.


GC-II will NEVER have MP.

Do we have to say it again?