I don't know if it has been said before but personaly my faveroute mode for any turn based game is defineitly Hot Seat where everyone uses one computer. I don't know if it is reasonably possable for your expansion to have it but I would love to have more games that work like that.

I do however think that 20$ is a bit much to ask for nothing else but a feature that should be part of a great game like this to begin with.

I think you are wrong
you can't just implement multiplayer alone
along with multiplayer you need to do the following :
-rebalance the whole game so as to disable cheap tactics and overpowered thingys
how many games have cheap tactics that everyone does sooner or later
think of DAOC (Dark Age of Camelot, a MMORPG) at first rangers were overpowered
later another class was overpowered...
and what did it lead to ? massive adoption of those classes that were overpowered in PVP so as to win
multiplayer is not a cheap feature from the developper/publisher point of view
moreover there's currently less than 50% "give me multiplayer" right now

I think this price has been well thought before being thrown into the poll
personnaly If I did like multiplayer I would have bought it, but I don't, I played too much bad PVP and now I'm sick of it

think of this for example :
why bethesda is ready to lower the price of the next small addon (like horse armor) compared to the previous ?
because they did not expect the horse armor to be so widely bought and the price was fixed to balance the smaller number of sales

BTW $20 for a good single player expansion --> Without a second thought!!

Yup I've got to agree with that one. But a NO from me for the MP. I have often found that a MP aspect to a game only props up a poorly implemented SP game.
Concentrate on what is good about this game, please

whismerhill you are comparing apples with oranges.

multiplayer in a turn based strategy game versus a MMORPG with a large PvP focus? c'mon, lol!

and Bethesda and TESIV is just another example how a developer can piss of their loyal fans and costumers, 3 useless additions for $$ when alot of people have been waiting for a much needed patch over a month now (especially for the non-english Oblivion versions. the german one is totally fubar).

Bioware and NWN for the win in that regard (crapload of patches, huge amount of new content and enhancements for free, and alot more content / $ with premium modules too than what Bethesda is doing).

I dont see any difficulties in adding multiplayer to GC2 unless the games infrastructure is designed badly in the first place (e.g. too many things hardcoded). players take the spots of some of the AIs. so what? if the AI is that independent and flexible as advertised it shouldnt have any effect. and what balance issues are there? every player AI or human has the same possibilities and options from the start aside from race bonuses. all you need is to figure out in what ways the action of AI and players are stored and forwarded to each other and if it should be strictly turn based or simultanous in some regards. then just make sure the Diplomacy skill works between players too (e.g. can only trade money/techs etc if the one with the lower diplomacy skill adds more to the bargain) and allow for ship designing outside the game or prior to the game so during the game you only add weapons and stuff and not work on the visual side of ships while the other players are waiting. but all in all those are just minor considerations. I dont see any reason the game needs to work much if any different at all multiplayer versus singleplayer.

if thats so hard then I suggest getting better programmers.

I do not miss multiplayer and hence would certainly not purchase a $20 multiplayer expansion.

However, I would be worried as to the development of such an expansion (call it GCM), since I couldnt imagine how you would implement relevant changes to GC2 without thinking about GCM, and vice versa. Would further expansions and patches be for both GC2 and GCM?
Also, would the price of $20 include all of the endless support you will need to have to keep multiplayer customers happy? Balance issues are of key importance to competetive MP folks, and I can bet that at least a patch a week is due for them once you release it.
Additionally, I would worry that once such a GCM patch is released, that your valuable time is no longer being spent on optimizing GC2. The excellent AI work will take second notch to MP considerations. Could that be an issue for those who cherish GC2 as an excellent SP experience?

The forum only looks cluttered because you guys didn't make enough stickys for bug reports.

I still don't see a sticky for the latest Beta. There should be a bug report sticky for every released version.

You guys still have 10.x bug reports in there. And that what makes it look like a "disaster zone"

whismerhill you are comparing apples with oranges.

well despite one being an MMORPG and the other a turn-based strategy game,
the fact is that you must ensure that there is no exploit, and that every player is equal when starting
whatever they choose. What I wanted to say was that this fact is true in every multiplayer game whatever the type


another point I'll add
you need very reliable & tried anti-cheat code in a multiplayer game
you may object that cheaters are spotted
but if your cheat is subtle enough ....
and they are always people who will cheat to win so as not to lose or to give them that little advantage

finally my point about bethesda is not if they pissed people or whatever
I just pointed that they said in a interview that they were thinking about a lower price but only because the said horse armor upgrade did sell better than expected

this was just to make a comparison with the price of 20$ which should be based on the amount of sales stardock may expect for this possible multiplayer add-on

I would definately not buy any MP only expansion. I also would hesitate to buy an expansion that was MP but included a few extra goodies. I probably would not as the game is fine as it is. Don't sucker your customers into buying a MP expansion by including a few SP "extras".

The amount of support you'll need to have ongoing for a MP environment doesn't seem to be worth the effort (but that's just me).

I'd buy one. I enjoy the game loads on SP, but I'd love to be able to play my brother and see who is the better. I'd definitely buy one.

If the choice is between multiplayer only or adding new content and features, then forget the multiplayer as there are plenty of games with that feature.

$20 is a good price for the expansion, but make it $19.95 so it appears I am getting a deal!

I voted no, because you would have to sacrifice a lot of the fun stuff in the game to make it multiplayer. I like the immersion feel of Gal Civ 2, and I feel that it would be lost in a "fast paced" multiplayer.

Also, the poll is extremely leading, because the first respone is "No". Typically in Yes/No questions, Yes comes first... So...

Trick question: Would I buy a MP expansion for $20? Yes. However, if that expansion displaces an expansion that would have added content or improved the AI, then I would prefer the other expansion, even if I would have bought either.

MP would work fine as anyone with some age on them knows MP can be done in this type game well. like i said before BOTF had a great MP. & is basicly galciv in almost every way. except its old now.

I do recomend to add to SP aswell to make a nice round x-pack.

As far as good MP games go, your better off playing with friends & not random online peeps.

I WOULD pay $20 (well, the UK equivalent) for an expansion pack that had multiplayer AND extra features. But that much just for the sake of multiplayer? Heck no. I agree with Coplann here: set up a poll for multiplayer, then ask what other stuff people would want in an expansion pack (for example, the often asked for destabilization option or some equivalent).

I would think a better poll would be: -

If we add Multiplayer to the game and have to spend more time sorting that out than expanding the original idea for the game i.e SINGLE PLAYER how many people are we going to #'%$ off, and how many of those will take their money elsewhere where the developers dont stick it up the rear ends of those who purchased this game because it was a single player and we knew the support for these games is better than an all-consuming multiplayer game.??

Answers on a post card please

BTW am i the ONLY member here to feel a bit annoyed about the entire topic of multiplayer and GCII? I know i may get 'flamed' for saying this but for those of you who are whining about a MP add-on i have a question... Did you buy this Single Player game (knowing it was this before you purchased it) just to sit up and start moaning that it did not have a MP part to it??
It just beggars belief why Brad and the crew are even contemplating a MP add-on in the first place. If people like the SP version they purchased and think it would be good for a MP version too, then add it to the wish list for GCIII surely! Dont jump around stomping your feet for it to be added to GCII

Oh and yes i do feel strongly about this topic!!!!!

I will surely buy an expansion if it was just features for SP games.

I will not buy either a multiplayer esp or multiplayer+some SP features esp.

BTW am i the ONLY member here to feel a bit annoyed about the entire topic of multiplayer and GCII? I know i may get 'flamed' for saying this but for those of you who are whining about a MP add-on i have a question... Did you buy this Single Player game (knowing it was this before you purchased it) just to sit up and start moaning that it did not have a MP part to it?? It just beggars belief why Brad and the crew are even contemplating a MP add-on in the first place. If people like the SP version they purchased and think it would be good for a MP version too, then add it to the wish list for GCIII surely! Dont jump around stomping your feet for it to be added to GCII Oh and yes i do feel strongly about this topic!!!!!

Well, you did succed in annoying me. Luckily, Brad and the crew aren't solely focused on what you want and also listen to the rest of their community.

I haven't once felt challenged by the AI. There have been moments when I have felt threatened but after a few turns I have usually beaten up the AI in question. I haven't got the patience to post game after game on the metaverse or play a game where there is absolutly no question whether I will win or not. So yes, I would want MP since I know that my brothers will put up a heck of a more difficult fight than the AI currently does.
Ideally, I wouldn't need MP because the AI was good enough.

I've been playing SP and MP strategy games for years. I loved BOTF (and still though its oldddd). I love playing a game with friends. It's just fun to see combined fleets from different players teaming up to destroy the enemy. Form Alliances, and trade tech. When playing with friends u know where the line is, u know the score. So for me, I voted YES. Because I loved the SP game, i would love to see it taking it a step further

I already recommended this great game to several people. A friend of mine just bought the collector's edition copy at best buy last week. He really likes this game!

I voted no but in actuallity that no is really a *maybe*. I seem to remember a post about one possible MP expansion to be some sort of persistent universe type thing. Now that I think would be fun to play around with. But straight multiplayer in terms of actually having to find random people to play I'd pass.

I'd definitely be all for more content though honestly not in the form of campaigns unless the campaigns were changed so that what you do in the first mission affects things throughtout the rest of the campaign. I've already said that $10 bucks for a ship pack would be bought ASAP. Beyond that the espionage expansion that has been hinted at would be fun I think. It really would be nice to have a few more automations like some form of the AI to tell *hey produce ships at this planet* and have it build up the planet to accomplish that.

Beyond that I'm sure no matter what you guys decide some will be happy and some will be mad but hopefully everyone understands that at the end of the day it is a business decision really. And I'm definitely all for anything that keeps you guys employed and improving this game . At least that is until it's time to talk about GC3 .

I think they should add multiplayer connectivity only as a part of an expansion pack, and let the community mod the game to play MP the way they want to. That way most of Stardock's time is spent improving the SP game that we all paid for, and those that want MP would have it too.

From an economic standpoint, I've already paid $45+ dollars for a game that lacks multiplayer, while I have bought games for less that do include multiplayer. I think $20 is a little bit on the pricey side for adding something that most people would consider standard.

Maybe if it were priced around $12 - $15 I'd consider it, but the chief idea behind multiplayer is the fact that I'd want to play my friends, and if I explain to them "Yeah, buy the game and the $20 expansion" they'd tell me straight up that I was crazy.

Perhaps include the capabilities/licensing/whatever to legally "spawn" copies a la Diablo? I remember that game you could spawn a copy to a friend but it had limited play capabilities (I think he could only play MP or something like that). That would certainly increase the appeal.

Multiplayer is a great idea, but i'm not overjoyed at the thought of spending 20 bucks on an expansion pack which doesnt really expand. Multiplayer is not much of an expansion.........make the name "Play the Universe", and i'll buy it.

I could care less about the price of any potential expansion because that all comes down to priorities really. If you want an expansion badly enough you'll save up the money, it's only $20 measly bucks after all! I think it's lame that people aren't voting for Multiplayer. All it can do is make the game even more challenging and fun. I think that the majority of people voting no probably fall into one of two or three categories:

1. Those who are worried about the potential cost as they're not in a position to afford a $20 expansion (i.e. our younger Galactic Civ 2 players or those with more important priorities)

OR

2. Those who fear playing real people due to the difficulty and/or challenge that they would represent compared to the game's AI which is still pretty decent.

OR

3. Those who would just rather see an expansion pack released BUT with other features or options added instead of multiplayer.

All are mostly valid points but I think it's weird and disheartening to see multiplayer getting voted down. Then again, not a lot my fellow gamers have done or thought in the past few years has made a lot of sense to me, LOL, so I shouldn't be surprised (i.e...The GTA series = popular?? Ugh.)

Sorry about the yelling. I must have 'roided the font.