Frogboy Frogboy

Galactic Civilizations II: Would you purchase a multiplayer expansion?

▼

Galactic Civilizations II: Would you purchase a multiplayer expansion?

Poll results

from GalCiv2 Forums

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.

262,507 views 249 replies
Reply #176 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I for one would like to see a hotseat option. And that certainly wouldn't need an expansion on it's own, just rig it to let the player control more than one of the races.

As for an expansion that only added multiplayer... nah.
Reply #177 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Yet another opinion in favor of MP.

I would not have bought the game knowing it was SP. It's currently on the shelf and probably won't be coming off anytime soon. (Great graphics, good play, tedious and boring replayability. IMHO) I hate paying an additional $20 (not being cheap, still ticked at myself for not researching better), but I'd do it and start playing again. Do what you will, just my 2 cents.
Galactic Civilizations IV
Reply #178 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I'm sorry, but I really think polls like this are not really in the best interests of the company. The reason I say this is because it will only be answered by those who are visiting and playing the game right now... and they have (logically) a very biased view of this point.

Perfect example, when the game first came out there were a HUGE amount of people who posted on the forums with a subject or topic of the following: "Hey! I bought this game, it looked cool, but no multiplayer?? Its 2006 for
Reply #179 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Those people that did NOT buy the game due to no multiplayer outnumber those that bought the game by a HUGE margin


Really? How many exactly?
Reply #180 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
A poll conducted on an online gaming fansite sugested that:

Multiplayer fanboys that did NOT buy the game due to no multiplayer outnumber those fanboys that bought the game by a HUGE margin


More like.

MD

Reply #181 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
A poll conducted on an online gaming fansite sugested that:

Multiplayer fanboys that did NOT buy the game due to no multiplayer outnumber those fanboys that bought the game by a HUGE margin

More like.

MD


Which site?


I don't personally wouldn't want to play GC2 as multiplayer. When I want multiple player, I play Halo.
I would however enjoy hotseat. I just wouldn't pay for it.

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.


I completely agree.
Espoinage victory. Seriously, that would be very cool! "...Givin you a number, and takin way your name... Unless you're a Yor, in which case they take away your number and give you a name."
Perhaps if you steal all of your enemies' Terror Star launch codes, you win out of the ability to blackmail the UP with the Interstellar equivalent of thermonuclear annihilation. Unless they give you "One Hundred Mellioon BC."
Or to bribe your way into control of the UP.

Planet Defense: How about a "Satellite" Hull with no move points?

Genesis Device: Interesting

Galaxy Generation: I would like to see some control of player placement. Put all the players in circle facing each other, put everybody in a corner, or just make sure all players get an equal staring position.

Orbital Bombardment: Definitely. If they go after you and you don't have Planetary Invasion yet- put a cruise missile through their window. Or nuke the planet into a lifeless hellscape.

I have zero interest in multiplayer. Take the number of hours required to play a game of GalCiv2. Multiply that by three or more. Then try and coordinate that much time with other people. Um, no.

What I WOULD like to see (very very much and in this order) :

1. A map editor, for those of us who have zero coding ability. A comprehensive editor even, one that allows the non-coding public the ability to edit the tech tree, the races, the planet tile bonuses, the rules of engagement, and all of that.

2. More racial distinction. Race-only techs. Perhaps a race ability that makes uninhabitable planet habitable, but makes habitable planets uninhabitable. You trade racial bonuses for less competition. It could have a 10pt brother that makes all planets on the map habitable. Things that break symmetry. MOO II had dozens of these, that you could look at for ideas. And while I'm on the subject of symmetry breakers, expand the ethical alignment bonuses and maybe add penalties for being good or evil or neutral. I love the ethical alignment thing. It adds a lot to the game.

3. Diversity of Government Types. Let me have Technocracy, with a research bonus. Let me have Fundamentalism, with a military and morale bonus. Let me have Star Fascism, with production bonuses. Let me have a government which bonuses something besides my Economy. Let me have appropriately evil governments, like Fascism.

4. How about certain weapon/defensive systems requiring certain resources before they can be built (somewhat like Civ 3.) You can then trade for these resources or find them...possibly on those useless uninhabitable planets. You could then establish outposts or mining colonies to secure those resources etc. This would provide another level of strategy.

5. More Diplomacy and Espionage. Specific Alliance types (research or economic alliances, for instance), and reasonable trading. When I have a 160% diplomacy advantage, I don't think the AI should demand all 20 techs I have that he doesn't in exchange for Enhanced Logistics. Presently it will on intelligent. Espionage with more options, like sabotage etc. Espionage tech. Espionage victories, even.

6. More jewelry and more portraits. Much more. Jewelry and ship sets for each individual race would be ideal.

7. AI improvements. Anything that makes the AI more "human" would rock. Like... taking advantage of bonus tiles.


Total agreement here. Except for #4. It made some civilizations entirely to vulnerable in Civ3. It's also another layer of micromanagement.

As for #2. As long as it doesn't totally unbalance in favor of the gasbags ala Moo3. I also don't want to have to terraform conquered worlds to be inhabitable by my citizens.
But more race picks would be excellent. Maybe 1 pick for an extra 1000 BC, miniaturization and logistics definitely, maybe something more intangible or with multiple bonuses like "Psionics" or "Shapeshifting", or more points to buy starting techs.
Reply #182 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Seriously, wtf. You don't have to take out features in order to add multiplayer, you might have to wait longer for the expansion or perhaps pay more, but the game is not limited in its abilities, unless you coded it that way, which would be a huge "way to go" for Stardock. I dont see why more expansions couldnt be released at a later date anyways, the only thing that should be holding you back from having another expansion is that people will eventually get fed up of paying for each damn feature.



Aside from that, I would be lead to believe that adding multiplayer as early as possible will rope more people into the game's following, the more people you have following the game, the more potential customers; and the more potential customers you have, the more potential buyers you'll get when you release an expansion.


Reply #184 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I think for a multiplayer expansion only 20 is a bit too high. How about 10-15 tops.... I think that is more reasonable as the basics are there for this option already. Otherwise we do want more content for the cost....
Reply #185 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Better late than never.. I change my response to "OH HELL NO" (after reading the designing a ship/using all the slots analogy)

Secondly. I think the poll is bogus since one can vote multiple times.
Reply #186 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
The multiplayer poll on this SinglePlayer game website would be the same as Blizzard setting up a WorldofWarcraft poll on the official WoW website asking if gamers would be interested in a SP_ONLY expansion for $20.oo... you can be certain the results would be the same as what was experienced here.
Stardock setup a poll which is outside of this singleplayer fishbowl !
Reply #187 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I have no interest in a MP version. But here's my suggestion for an expansion, though it's nothing Earth-shattering (heh heh): A series of campaigns. Each campaign differs in the starting conditions, and the goals vary. This avoids the problem of always starting over from scratch each time. Easy scenarios would start players out on equal footing (galaxy evenly divided), and difficult ones would be of the Rebel Alliance vs. Evil Empire type, where a ragtag fleet take on the massively superior yadda yadda.

Thanks for all of the obvious hard work and passion you folks bring to this game! Bravo!
Reply #188 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
NTJedi - get over it, okay?

Oh, and your analogy to WoW is flawed, a good number of people solo all the time in WoW, its actually one of the things that has made it so popular, and also made Guild Wars popular, that you could play the rich content of those games without having to necessarily deal with MP. And the lack of Solo play is in fact listed as a FAILING in the D&D Online game.

I've said it before, there are plenty of MP games put there. Not everything has to be all things for all people. This one is - for the foreseeable future - SP only. Deal with it.
Reply #189 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I'm really dissapointed that the polls turned out this way. I'm positive that my personal enjoyment of GalCiv2 would be multiplied by a hundred if I could play multiplayer. Personally, I'm of the strong oppinion that if something can be modded easily, then the dev team shouldn't really focus on it, since players can make their own content for it easily. I've already created several of my own types of governments, research options, planetary improvments, etc...
Reply #191 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Arg... I always miss these polls. Well, add two yesses to it, me and my buddy would get this. We do ongoing play-by-email games of Civ 3.
Reply #192 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Before Multiplayer I would really like to see an easy to use mod construction set. so the modder community can start to do their wonders. look at space empires IV. these mods creates more replayability than anything I ever seen plus lets players to put in the game the most beloved races from known sci-fi series like borg, federation and so on.
also a mod-friendly game has a continually growing community. take oblivion or neverwinter nights for example. games that are and will be played for long long times still.
for mod I speak about being able to modify the tech tree and even make new components for ships, and facilities on planets with different things. like a science ship full of labs who could produce research points, plus bonus research points each time looks an anomaly. or better increase anomaly bonuses given. or all of it, at the same time.
finally, after a good modding program a strong and solid multiplayer would be the key of complete success as people could play the beloved original game or the most exciting common mods that are found in the internet.
Reply #193 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Dread Lords came out and I wanted badly to buy it. But have not because of the lack of multiplayer. I had posted on a friends site all the good reviews of GalCiv2 and a bunch of people were excited. Especially concidering that the price of a game with so many good reviews was so reasonable. (40$ CDN)

Then I mentioned the no multiplayer and all interest evaporated. I'm still hoping it (multi) comes out. I can see from these posts that many that have bought the game would rather have other features. I hope the dev's can see that new customers would also appear if they did produce such a thing.

Why am I not interested in it's single player? Well I am to a small degree, however a big part (read guiding influence) for myself and most of the gamers I know for 4X strategy games is multiplayer. I now find myself waiting until Space Empires V comes out.

Anyway. Happy gaming to all you GalCiv2'ers out there. Maybe with luck someday I can join ya!

Joe.
Reply #194 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
If not a multiplayer can we atleast get hotseat?


Hotseat is multiplayer. If we got hotseat, it could very easily be play by email (just save at the end of the turn and send it off to the next player).
Reply #195 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I would vote yes on a multi player expansion but only after a number of features were added first to appease the the pro features people. i think multi would be the second to last or last feature added to the game. it would open galciv 2 to a wider audience and different strategies would come as a result. you would play dofferently if you knew there were other human players that could come up with unexpected strategies. and i would pay for it. i think the multiplayer should be added in the second expansion pack. that way the first can be solely dedicated to features for you features people. then the multi nuts get their cookie in the second pack. it only seems fair. i have been dying to take this online and kick some of my friend's butts at it. with online multiplayer you can make the online metaverse empire system mean so much more.

just my two cents
AgentExeider Æ
Reply #196 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Here lies GC2 Multiplayer.

R.I.P.

Overrated until the end. Few loved thee.

lol

Reply #197 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I just purchased the game a few days ago & my vote would have been "I'd consider it" for purchasing a MP expansion. I almost didn't buy this game at all because there was no MP component, but after reading up on it & considering my schedule - having something I could do in pieces offline was enticing. I would still like to see it become a reality for people who wish to compete or work together in an alliance of sorts.

However, the expansion would also need to add to the game as well.

As another note, I wouldn't want it to force a Metaverse connection or anything .. strictly IP and LAN based type MP.
Reply #198 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I actually bought this game thinking it was multiplayer I guess i got the wrong idea when i read "online campaigns" on the box. I love the game so far, but it will get old playing against the computer! It just boggles my mind that this wasn't multiplayer in the first place. I mean, how old is BOTF?... and that has multiplayer.

Even if it was only lan, direct connect, or whatever.. as long as you could save games and set clock times

ugh.. sorry to say I won't be buying future releases or expansions, unless they include multiplayer.
Reply #200 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
SP was fun, but now its done ...

would love for MP for when I got friends over for gaming night and we could Hotseat / Lan it ..

and the poll only showed that 33 % of the people who were able to vote .. voted for MP.

that is in no way an indicator the majority of people who bought and play this game feel that way ... I didnt get a chance to cast a vote, as by the time I hit the website again, the poll was closed. Same thing for my 5 other friends who I LAN with regularly and who also all bought this game.....