No offense but...

from GalCiv2 Forums
Multiplayer is sort of a necessity. The ai is brilliant, but can only keep one occupied for a certain amount of time. Multiplayer guarantees that GalCiv2 will have unlimited replay value, much like games such as Counter-Strike, Ut2004, or a more relative example, Civ4. Multiplayer shouldn't be an expansion, it should be a patch. I think that one of the admins mentioned it wouldn't be that big of a deal to code it in, and it would only add to the experience. GalCiv 2 is an awesome game, and all multiplayer would do would make it more awesome.
ideas
16,077 views 27 replies
Reply #1 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
errr... completely wrong. Firstly, 67% of people voted that they didn't want multiplayer, and secondly the Dev's have said the plumbing is laid. It could be done, but would take an entire expansion pack of work to do. In fact, Brad said in the Journals yesterday, (as well as saying people don't want it) that if an expansion has 5 slots, multiplayer is 4.

It's not necessary, and most people don't want it. Galciv is a good enough game without it, and msot just want better AI, mroe features etc.
Reply #2 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
But it shure would be nice though, to commit some unadulterated xenocide on my friends every ones in a while. Sometimes I feel that the true meaning of the design-tool is to blow up your friends designs, even though this potential remains tragically untapped.

Oh well, in the meantime, die Altarian fracktards!
Offworld Trading Company
Reply #3 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Multiplayer is sort of a necessity.


Like, seriously, can people stop making threads about this?

No? Well, can they at least stop pretending to speak for everyone?
Reply #4 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Don't forget more hulls and jewelry.
Reply #5 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Im not sure that 67% dont want multiplayer.
The question was would you pay 20 bucks for amultiplayer only expansion.
I for example would like multiplayer but I would not pay 20 bucks for a multiplayer only expansion because I would not play it often/ long enough multiplayer to make 20 bucks reasonable.
5 to 10 bucks maybe but surely not 20.
why?
because i would not play it online against random people (that would simply take forever), only in lan against/ with friends that isnt possible very often
Reply #6 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Yeah, I suppose I should have phrased that better. But it won't come in a patch, and most people don't want to spend $20 just getting multiplayer for what is, essentially, designed as a single player game. Yes, I know there are ways around everything, but I LIKE spending an hour designing my ships. Most of my converts... I mean friends.... have shipped from MMO or FPS games, so they either have twitchy fingers or want a new power NOW. Taking your own leasurely pace is one thing, taking someone else's leasurely pace is something else entirely, that I wouldn't spend $20 on.
Reply #7 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
if you wont play 20 dollars worth of multiplayer then the galciv team needs to focus on more important items
Reply #8 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I, too, voted against multi-player, for exactly the same reason as Chip56. I would only play multi against my son on our lan system. I find turn based games can take an extremely long time when playing against folks that you don't know and it can be difficult to schedule times to complete the game, because playing one game in a sitting is probably not possible.
Reply #9 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Speaking as one of the 67%, I can say that I couldn't care less about multiplayer capability. I've just never gotten into that part of gaming, and have no desire to do so. I prefer to play with myself.
Reply #10 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
No way. If it was cheaper and didn't interfere with the development of other things then I would say yes. As it is multiplayer in a turn based game is the most borring useless peice there is.
Reply #11 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
It seems to me that if GalCiv2 is this succesful, and a single player only expansion pack is also succesful other game companies might sit up and take notice, pulling the gaming world back from the brink of its multiplayer ghetto. Stardock did not just make an amazing game, they struck a major blow for the side of right and goodness in a war which seemed all but lost.

Reply #12 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
AND all the telling SF where they can shove their evil haxx0r copy protection (which I recently got infected with, from a demo of the Politcal Machine! )
Reply #13 from Stardock Forums Top
Personally I'm in that Solo-Player camp myself. The AI is challenging enough and I like the convience of always having opponments to play no matter the time of day/night. So I am also in that no catagory. Personally I am turned off by most multi-player games.
Reply #14 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Speaking as one of the 67%, I can say that I couldn't care less about multiplayer capability. I've just never gotten into that part of gaming, and have no desire to do so. I prefer to play with myself.


We all love to play with our selves...no matter how much some deny in public.
Reply #15 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I'm curious - when they talk about multiplayer taking 4 of 5 slots, are they talking about LAN only multiplayer or a battle.net style multiplayer? I have no interest in a battle.net scenario, but LAN only would be a nice addition.
Reply #16 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I just want tactical combat added. I think that and Bug fixes is the only thing I want added to the game. I support multiplayer but not if thats all the expansion is going to be.
Reply #17 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I think that multiplayer, in the form of LAN\hot seat would be the only way I would go with a game like this. I take my time in games, so on a huge map I will be playing the game for a solid week, depending on how it goes.

However, I think that more attention should be paid polishing the last bits of the game and then adding new features etc so that we have a great game to play. Besides, there IS going to be a sequel so they can add multiplayer into that from the start, and I will be happy.
Reply #18 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Okay, everybody says that adding multiplayer is a big project, would take a lot of code and time, etc etc, but after all this debate now I want to know is why is that the case? I mean, the entire game is already there. All multiplayer seems to me is having another person instead of a computer player, and sending each other the information of each other's moves and whatnot. You're not programming new ships or new graphics or ANYTHING. Just do a small adjustment to the game setup. WHY IS IT SO HARD?

(for the record, i am illiterate when it comes to programming, so i actually do believe Mr. Wardell and company about all the complications, but i just want an explanation because to a layperson it seems so conceptually straightforward.)
Reply #19 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
for the record, i am illiterate when it comes to programming


You didn't need to say that; you proved it in what you said. Only a non-programmer can consider such a monumental task to be trivial.
Reply #20 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
multi player works great in the first person shot games, but not in turn based games. A trun based game is not about speed, it is about the choices you make now, that affect what you do later. And having an AI attack you when you least expect it is a great thing. The AI is good in GC2. I do not want multiplayer, I will not pay for multiplayer, and I do not want stardock to develop multiplayer. I would rather they spend their limited resources on improving the AI and the UI.
Reply #21 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
What about play by e-mail multiplayer option? I admit it could take a while to play a game but you could at least take your time with ship design etc.
Reply #22 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I'm not interested in online multiplayer, and I understand that it would be quite complicated to make it work properly with a turn based game, but I don't see why you can't play hotseat games.
Reply #23 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Okay, so I'm understanding that the reason multiplayer is hard to program is because GC2 is a turn based game, but I still don't get it. The players take their turns one at a time, then when they are done the information needs to be sent to the other players' cpus. I still don't see how that is much different than the game keeping track of what the AIs are doing each turn. There obviously is some large difficulty that I am not seeing. Alfonse seems to know, if anyone else does feel free to offer some sort of explanation.
Reply #25 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
There should be a poll on what, of the features on the "long list", people want the most. It would certainly settle once and for all what the devs should be concentrating on.

Edit: P.S.: Programming multiplayer is not really all that hard, the hard part is in maintaining the connections, preventing cheating and so on. The reason why GC2 is not suited to multiplayer is that it is turn-based, and each player can take as long as they want to make their moves, so there is no "simultaneous action", you have to each make your moves one at a time and then deal with the changes each player has made. It would take forever to get through each turn. If you've ever played a Civ IV multiplayer game, it is bloody BORING waiting for everyone to figure out what the heck they want to do. Turn-based games simply do not make good multiplayer games, whereas FPS and RTS games do, because you don't sit around waiitng for each person to make their decisions and move, according to the "you snooze, you lose" rule.