Camber, I have to agree with you there. Gaming manuals have gotten smaller and smaller which just barely gives enough information to play the game. It isn't like it would be hard for the gaming companies to get the manual written for them by some of their beta testers (public, not in-house) as most would do it just to have their name mentioned in it somewhere. I really think the manuals are now just a second thought that is scribbled down somewhere before release and just considered an added expence for the cost of printing.

Well, if you look how game mechanisms have changed in GC2 since the initial release (and I don't speak about he whole public beta period befroe the release), a comprehensive manual would have been out of date very soon. Just look about what have happened with social spending when there is nothing in the queue. Or the way production and associated bonus (free or not) is caculated.

Sadly, for something based on the business model of GC 2 (lots of gameplay update as reward for the customer), a comprehensive manual/ strategy guide can be obsolated really fast. For reminder, the initial realease was only 3 months ago

I have suggested this game to many friends and the response is generally the same: "I would get it if it had multi-player."

I must admit that I haven't played it myself in a few weeks. It's just more of the same.

The first expansion that does have multiplayer will be the first expansion that I buy. I'll pass until then.

Charging to add what is a standrard feature nowadays is an insult to customers

Nonsense. Calling feature X a "standard" feature suggests a complete lack of respect for game designers and the decisions that they make.

The moment designers no longer feel free to make a reasonable design decision because of player expectations, that's the moment when players no longer respect game designers. They just want their product.

Taking chances such as making a game in this genre to begin with.

I don't consider that taking a chance. The genre isn't dead; just neglected. Genres die when people are no longer interested in them.

Or all the MMORPGs where you never learn the actual effects of spells, just vague descriptions, unless you own the strategy guide.

Actually, that's by design. The more you know about the game's internals, the more likely you are to be able to find an exploit, and thus damage the game for others.

Well, if you look how game mechanisms have changed in GC2 since the initial release (and I don't speak about he whole public beta period befroe the release), a comprehensive manual would have been out of date very soon.

Perhaps, but it would be in-date for the released product. And, even though GC2 has had some significant modifications, the manual was not a useful guide towards being ready to play the game, even in the 1.0 incarnation. Even with modifications, the basic concepts still work. The economy never changed. And so forth.

If only PDF manuals where not just the "reprings" of paper manuals, but most recent update of the manual, including patches.

I voted for multiplayer.. or did I sign up on this web page after that poll closed, either way, I would have. I think depth of a game loses value after a point, without being able to play it with other people. I mean, its like a tree falling in the woods, if only one person is ever around to see it.

I mean, look at how I got into the game. My friend was hey, I got this game, its awesome, you should try it. So I picked it up, and its kickin, and I ended up playin it, so instead of the two of us rockin out Battlefield 2 on line, both of us ended up piddlin around in this game for a week or two, then I kind of burnt out and quit playin.

I'd be stoked to be able to hook it up with my friend, so we could work together and one of us cover weapon and defenses tech, and the other could cover improved structures and engines and the other random stuff.

Since Multiplayer seems unlikely, or at least very far off, I'd like to see some more specific alliance or treaties, or some such where if I put enough time into buttering up an npc, he might actually take better care of me. As in if I send him all of my techs to keep him up with me, when he gets somethin new he might actually return the favor instead of tryin to extort all my bc since I no longer have any techs to trade from bein so generous. Some kind of tech sharing treaty, even if its limited, to like social techs if they don't want to share weapons tech, just so I feel like they're workin with me.

After paying $40 for a game I'd expect it to have Multi, (awesome game btw, lost many hours of sleep due to it) however since I bought it without it if your going to add a multi you should add it for free, not another $20. BTW I missed the vote

Luger

lol Luger... $40 is hardly worth multiplayer. Stop being cheap. This game without multiplayer is worth more than $40.

But that aside, I would like multiplayer to be included in the first expansion simply because the AI isn't very smart and they always go for war and I always have bad relations with them. I always like to try improve my planets quality first thing but they always send troop transports and declare war just because they are "stronger" than me... and they do this whether I'm on their ethical side of the poll or not - even if they have weak military and high diplomacy skills. I'm sure not every race in the universe would pick on the smaller races with no military might... what's more annoying is they always know exactly where every habitable planet is so I have next to no chances to get to them first unless I save my game every turn and backtrack if I make one bad move.

I know I'd love to play this game MP with my friends sometime. I don't think people are asking for a lot of bells and whistles, just a bare-bones MP would suffice.

I really don't want the shiphulls pack though- that's a waste of money.

What I want out of future product:
more gameplay options
more length
more variety
more startup options
smarter AI
MP is a low priority, but it would be nice to have- at least a direct IP game.

I'm sure not every race in the universe would pick on the smaller races with no military might...

Well, what really prevent them to declare war on you if you have no military? Since evil races will attack you, I guess that good or neutral race have decided to "protect" your planets from evil races. After all, they don't really want to have the evil growing

So you should better to look again at your strategy. Building a some defensive ships (no speed, only weapon) orbiting your planets will surely help you by raising your military might

I didn't get to see the poll. However, I'm tired of talking with my friends, who also own the game, about MY game play. It would be really love to see a multiplayer expansion. Some of us DO have social lives with real friends that play. It'd be nice to be able to spend an afternoon or two in multiplayer heaven. It would add tremendous value playing against real humans.

Some of us DO have social lives with real friends that play.

See, I have a great social life and lots of friends. But most of them don't play games. I'm the computer "geek". Those that do play games don't have time (hmmmm...kids, job, yard work....oh...something called a....get this....a *life*). So quit calling people that don't play multiplayer as having no lives. People that don't play multiplayer probably have very busy lives. I don't think I've had an entire afternoon to myself to play a game since college...oh about a decade ago.

I'm soooo glad there are people out there that have tons of time to play games online with friends. Awesome. But you all seem to fail to realize that you are in the vast minority. So the arguement is that 1000's of people might play GC2 online. True. But that is still in the minority and a big one at that. Civ 4 has lot of people playing online. But that is such a tiny number compared to the millions of copies sold you gotta wonder why they spent so much time and money in multiplayer other then it's "expected".

I'm all for a multiplayer expansion that I have no interest in if:
1) Other features of the game remain uneffected or aren't dropped due to development of said multiplayer
2) Other Stardock games aren't delayed because of it (like Society which will be a massive multiplayer game by the way)
2) I don't have to buy a mostly multiplayer expansion just to get those 1-2 things of goodness that they were able to do besides multiplayer. I would refuse to buy such an expansion pak.

Rather than releasing a expansion pack with more ship hulls and ship jewelry for $8.95, I would rather you release it as part of a larger $20 expansion including expanded diplomacy, etc. I'm not interested in multi-player, just single player improvements.

In v1.11 on level Painfull, the AI is still building too many embassies and morale centers. I understand you want to avoid scripting the AI but adding the following rules would improve the planet build up:
(1) first two structures built on a planet should always be factories
(2) only factories may be built on manufacturing bonus titles
(3) only labs may be built on research bonus titles

I've no interest in multiplayer whatsoever. But I would be interested in an expansion with 3 more fully fledged story campaigns. I'd buy that

1/3rd isn't a small minority- especially given GC'2 base. Also, a high percentage of that base will purchase the expansion. The same can't be said for a non-MP expansion.

The poll tells me that MP should be the second expansion, and that it should be MP only.

The first expansion should deal with improving the gameplay, and adding options. The big option I want is political events.

1/3 (one-third) of the community has asked for multiplayer... this is a significant amount of gamers considering the game is currently SP_only. If Stardock wants to really consider how importantly significant MP would be then one only has to imagine the flood of complaints Civilization_4 would recieve if their next CIV patch broke multiplayer. If 1/3(one-third) of the USA wanted to start a revolution I guarantee it would get noticed not only by the US government but globally.

It also should be considered that many multiplayer gamers were not here to vote for multiplayer because this currently is a singleplayer game.... thus it's like walking into a sophisticated symphony and asking each of the people seated if they'd be interested in buying tickets to a baseball game. Ideally if Stardock wanted to get an accurate poll on total potential customers interested in multiplayer the poll should have been hosted by gamespot or another popular game website then from this website provide links to the poll.

Ok, well I am too lazy (and don't have the time) to read all 160 some posts so if I repeat something here that someon else has suggested then I apologize in advance

Well here are some recomondations that I think can improve this already awesome game!!!

1) Have the AI work with the player more. I don't often have the AI trade with me, offer to ally with me, or ofer to work against other players often. I think that if those types of things happened it would make it a much more enjoyable game, instead of playing all by yourself. Have the AI team up with each other more often and have the option ot start AI players out allied with each other.

2) In the game you have certain planets that have Tradeable goods and you would want to deffend those planets more to keep those goods. So have a symbol by the planet that shows you that there are things worth deffending on that planet so you know what planets you want to deffend faster then looking through every planet to see if it is worth keeping.

3) Have the ability to make huge fleets. Yeah they can get pretty big but it would be awesome to be able to create a lmited amount of really huge ones, like say 100+ logisitcs points worth. And have the AI build these, it would be awesome to watch those battles that could decide the fate of your war.

4) Have more planetary deffense. Ships in orbit alone don't make much sense:) Have orbital guns or in later techs the ability to cloak your planet, and of course someway that you could detect other cloaked planets.

5) Have the ability to make starbases that serve as small planets. This would be a great thing to have, you think you finally capture all an opponets systems but they are still not deffeated! They are out there somewhere... These starbases should be really expenseive.

6) Have a LAN ability. I don't think that Multiplayer would be the best thing for this game but LAN would be a great addition and alot more probable, plus the ability to save LANed games to continue them later.

That's it for now, maybe more to come later!

Oh I remebered one

7) Have the ability to "run away/retreat" from a battle, this happens in real life and could save you some baluable time and money to live to fight another day...

A Few options to add would be
a) Colonisable Moons, or at least a population bonus after the Terraforming tech
the ability to terraform Zero worth planets after the terraforming tech, even if it is relatively expensive

and please please bring back the cheat options.... i rather enjoying turning off the tech and influence victory options, and play massive games with all the techs...

Charging to add what is a standrard feature nowadays is an insult to customers

I take it all back,

I have read further on this point and I admit I was wrong.
It was a Knee jerk reaction without thinking.
All I can say is " I've been well and truely told".

Can I come out of the Dog House yet?

MD

Personally i don't play gc2 from months on the long run i have found CIV4 a lot more longeve.Personally i will not buy a multiplayer pack because i don't think his game is fit for multiplayer.Civ4 another TBS was also proggrammed to be multiplayer bt definitively this is a single player game.For GC2 which wasn't programmed for multiplayer i imagine what crap expansion we will get.
About single player i hope in the expansion there is more differentiation for races, in this game they seem always the same, and there is a lot of work to do to improve SP experience.Like other people said after some months i have found the game really boring.

I missed the poll too, and I would have voted "HELL NO!"

Heck, I'm debating whether I would buy the ships pack. I might, I might not. I don't know. It would depend upon what exactly was there. For something I know is of no interest to me? No chance.

I think it worth noting - in response to the rabid MP at the expense of SP crowd - that while 1/3 may be significant, it is not significant enough. Also the notion that hordes of people will come rushing to buy it just because MP was added is pure fantasy.

First, assuming such people exist, how will they know about it? The crowd that is here is here because they have the game. Without shelf space and/ or expensive advertising, the vast majority of this 'horde' of gamers just waiting for a MP GC2 won't know there is a such an expansion. And thus won't buy it.

This is a reality. Expansions are sold to existing customers, it is VERY rare for an expansion to bring in a significant number of new players. Stardock knows this, and said as much, and this is why they are aiming at digital purchase so they can do it for as low cost as possible.

If they did try to push the MP expansion they would have to put it on shelves, and/ or sell advertising to get decent sales. And they would have to increase the cost of the product to offset those increased costs. And would they still get enough sales to make it worthwhile?

Doubtful.

Which brings me to the second point: I seriously doubt those hordes just dying to play GC2 in MP simply don't exist. Oh sure, some people might be interested, but I doubt they are a crushingly significant number. A turn based strategy game like Civ 4 is an exception to the rule these days, and Stardock is not Firaxis. MP on such a thing is a subset of a niche. This is reality.

Actually its a subset of a niche of a fraction.

So with that already small customer base, what is Stardock's better strategy? Cater to the large section of its customer base that they know will buy their expansion, or ignore the majority in favour of the minority so that they MIGHT attract more customers.

Quite frankly their better tactic is to milk the existing customer base for all its worth. That makes it sound rather bad, but they are a business, so the basic concept is valid.

Once the existing customers are mostly stated with every bell and whistle Stardock can think of selling them, then they can try riskier moves of going after a different customer base that may not even exist. If they take a lot of time out to go after that mythical group without first sating the group they have, they may find that a lot of that group moved on by the time they get back to them.

Its a question of risk.

The low risk option is to sell expansions to the larger existing group.

The high risk option is to reach out to another group that may not exist. The main risk being losing the majority of the first group in the process. If the MP horde turns out to be a myth, then they lose a lot (potential sales of expansions to existing customers, time, and effort) and gain little.

Quite frankly a game like GC2 is a big risk to begin with. But they did good development at low cost, and it paid off big. They can now continue to reap the rewards of that big risk, or take another one and potentially shoot themselves in the foot.

<<<<>>>>>

BTW: I told my computer gaming friends about this game when it came out. You know how many were concerned about a lack of MP?

Zero.

Out of them, most of them picked it up and have been enjoying it. Those that didn't simply weren't interested in this type of game. They're playing World of Warcraft. THAT is the future of modern multi-player gaming, not adding MP to TBS games.

Oh, and I would like to be able to retreat from a losing battle as well. Although it should by no means be certain.

And I know its a small thing, but I'd rather the ships flew like great behemoths in Space Combat, not like WW2 fighters in a snaking dogfight.

What about a play-by-email, multiplayer? I have played strategy games like that before. From there, it should be easy to set up a MP LIVE mode, where you can play a game live against opponents.

I think the users who are here voting on the polls are more likely to be playing GC2 when the packs come out. The users who don't visit the site and take part in the polls are more likely to have found another game to play by then, so I think for the purposes of expansions an online poll isn't too bad. (With new products it would be a different story).

So far about 55% of us (give or take) would buy the ship pack, while only 33% would buy a multiplayer-only pack. That gives Stardock a good hint at which direction to move in, and where to spend resources.

Yes, this doesn't include a multiplayer+"other features" pack. If such a pack were produced , then it wouldn't be fair to non-MP players who have to pay for MP just to get other features that they want. I would probably vote with my wallet and not buy it.