Frogboy Frogboy

So what features in sequels?

▼

So what features in sequels?

Poll results..

from GalCiv2 Forums

We won't be doing any sequels to Galactic Civilizations II for a long time still.  But we were interested in getting an idea of what people would want us to focus on in a sequel. Some features that have been requested weren't listed because we plan to add them into the expansion pack instead.

Based on the thousands of players who responded, tactical battles are something people want.  This is something we would definitely look at seriously in a sequel (not an expansion).  The problem with tactical battles in a game that would be played mostly single player (assuming we put multiplayer into a sequel) is that you don't want to force players (like me) who would rarely if ever fight out a tactical battle to have to use it. When people like me play HOMM or MOO or RTW we largely hit auto and let the battles just go.  So you want to create a mechanism in which players can play out the tactical battles if they choose to but that the AI is good enough that the results would be very similar to if you had hit the auto on it.  That means a lot of computer AI work.  And Galactic Civilizations has always taken computer AI very seriously.

Another feature that was surprising to see so high was more diplomacy. The expansion pack will have more diplomacy but clearly future versions of the game should take a fresh approach to it so that you can do a lot more in that realm.  Similarly, politics scored very well and by that we meant domestic politics.  We've always wanted players to have to deal with a cabinet and have more political party elements to deal with.  In "real life" leaders of civilizations don't get to act in a vacuum. They have to deal with domestic pressures as well.  You may want to conquer those Torians but your ability to do so might be hindered by domestic issues (or intergalactic ones as well).  So that is an area I could see us greatly expand on in the future.

Another feature that some people wanted (that I want too) is the concept of heroes.  I have a pretty good outline of the features I'd like to see in the game. The leader of a civilization should have generals who give bonuses to planets and fleets and such and that's an area we'd like to see expanded.

One feature that didn't get as much support as anticipated was multiplayer.  Only 8.6% of players listed multiplayer as the feature they'd like to see the most.  Some people have argued that we're "against multiplayer. That's not the case.  Galactic Civilizations is the only game series we've made that isn't multiplayer.  One of our upcoming game projects, The Political Machine 2008, will be multiplayer.  We've just (correctly I think) viewed that the cost to implement multiplayer versus how many people really want it don't match up.  The main benefit to multiplayer is purely for game reviews. That's pretty much the only justification we have for it -- to bump up our review scores in a sequel (don't get me wrong, we're happy with the 4.5 out of  5 average we have with Galactic Civilizations II!).

Another feature is more complex ship design which was only 7 votes behind multiplayer. Right now, players put engines and weapons and defenses on their ships along with some modules. But you can imagine other kinds of things a ship might have -- targeting computers, target disrupting devices, maneuvering thrusters, mines, breech pods, cloaking, etc.  Not to mention the cosmetic aspects.  When we did the ship design features in Galactic Civilizations II, we had no idea how popular they'd become. I don't think anybody did.  I suspect looking space-strategy games in the future will have the kind of LEGO-like ship design features we have in GalCiv II where ship design involves what the ship looks like at a fundamental level.

So some good feedback there.  No sequels any time soon, but we do have some expansion packs that have some features that I think you'll be excited about.  My favorite feature in the expansion pack hasn't been announced yet but the idea came from Lockdown from CivFanatics.com.  I'll be talking about it over on the GalCiv II forum over there first.

Now back to working on the next version of the game. ;)

44,759 views 74 replies
Reply #51 from GalCiv2 Forums Top

I'm sorry to see you don't love the game enough to not want to play Gal_Civ_2 with family and friends. Hopefully one of your next projects you'll love enough to want to play with family and friends. I'm not saying every game should have multiplayer, but if you really love a successful game then there would be a growing desire to play the game with friends and family.

I would love to play other people at GalCiv. I like multiplayer. This isn't about liking a feature. It's about cost vs. benefit. Multiplayer would require more resources to do decently than all the other featuers we listed combined. Hence, it needs to be very popular to justify.

The issue isn't about whether mulitplayer is a fun feature. Who am I to define that? The issue is how many sales it would generate versus the cost it would take and our consensus is that OTHER features should be implemented before we implement multiplayer.

Reply #52 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
EA has been making games since the 80s should we accept their word?

What about Atari/Infogrames/Microprose, they see fit to put multiplayer into ALL of their strategy games and even make highly popular expansions based solely on the fact it adds multiplayer, even release a new version of Civ2 based on multiplayer.
Its the greed of the corporate giants! If it will make them one more $ they will do it. Those of us that will not use MP have to pay for it even if we never use it. I've had Civ4 for months now and not once played a MP game. A SP game takes enough time. What you failed to mention about the above giants is that they rush to put out a product that is poorly coded, full of bugs in the name of making another dollar. These bad titles will only be patched after many people complain and most of the time their answer to a game not running for a customer is that it is not their software but the PC the customer is using. Just because they are the big guys does not make them right. If it takes the SD crew to buck the system and not follow their lead then more power to them.
Object Desktop - Get all of our enhancement utilities in one suite
Reply #53 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Well then, why not have multiple expansions, and include everything down the road. We're willing to scarf up everything for GC2 at this time. I'll be honest- no matter what the features, I'd probably pick up the expansion, as GC2 is the only pay game I have on my hard drive (I've bought other stuff since then, but it's been taken off- and quite honestly, I don't buy most games because they're flat out not good enough- the next thing I can see myself getting is EU3 later on this year, and I doubt even that) I do understand that Stardock is in the business of making money. I just think a MP expansion would be profitable, perhaps less profitable then the other ideas though- but still worth doing at some point. At the very least- I think a PBEM feature shouldn't be too difficult to implement- even if it's just a "beta" part of the software (in other words- just slap something together)
Reply #56 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
It's weird, I just don't have this problem on other forums.
Reply #57 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I love RTS games multiplayer.
I know I may be taking this a little bit out of context, but... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------hard line return------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It sounds like you "may" be leaning to RT combat instead of some type of turn based. I'm sure your enjoyment of RT combat is not the main reason you will put RT combat in GCIII, but I would reason it's high on the charts. I know I'm just one of many and my opinions don't mean much, and going by the multiplayer supporters in here you like to methodically undermine your consumers, but I'm not really in favor of RT combat. Maybe we should have a poll and see how many want RT, turn based, a mix of turn base and RT or other. And if it goes badly I'll quietly lick me wounds. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------hard line return-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I realize we don't have to have the poll for some time.------------hard line return----------- Just jk about that undermining stuff.
Reply #58 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
according to gamespot there will be an expansion its called dark avatar a new race or 2 and other things www.gamespot.com
Reply #59 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Frogboy, how well do you feel your time is utilized by the comments that follow these news postings? Imagining myself in your place, the strongest evidence I would percieve against including MP would be the online manners and behavior of the individuals who wish you to include said feature.
Reply #60 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I agree with IkimashoZ! Frogboy, I appreciate you keeping us informed. Keep up the good work. It would take days to finish a multiplayer game and that is if you don't win by default because all the other players had dropped out. Btw the expansion pack looks great! 
Reply #61 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I'm sorry to see you don't love the game enough to not want to play Gal_Civ_2 with family and friends. Hopefully one of your next projects you'll love enough to want to play with family and friends. I'm not saying every game should have multiplayer, but if you really love a successful game then there would be a growing desire to play the game with friends and family.


That's just a matter of personal preference. I've been a gamer since I was 5 or 6 (20 years ago), and I have loved many games. Although I encourage friends to play them, I wouldn't want to bog myself down with boring multiplayer. I play in my own time, my own way, and at my own pace. That's what's so relaxing about gaming. If I want to interact with friends, we can share mods/maps etc, or (and this may seem crazy to some of you) socialise in other ways, outside of our games.
Reply #62 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
PS. My most wanted feature right now, is the ability to prevent ship designs from carrying over from one game to the next. It would be best if the custom ships folder contained sub-folders for each saved game, and the user could drag ship designs into the main folder to allow them to carry over as normal. That way you can save your favourite ship designs, but all the intermediate "quick" designs that you make will be cleared out.
Reply #63 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
We all know that StarDock is a gaming company, and they make games for clients. Most of us here happen to be clientswhic gives us some right to ask for new products/features.

That said, I'm kind of astonished at how bitter some of you guys are getting on this multiplayer thing. The Internet is a crappy medium for these kind of discussions, but at this point you guys are arguing w/Frogboy like this were a football message board and we were all 17-year olds.

Can't we all just get along?

Brad, you didn't ask for any input on the polls, but I'll offer some any way on the offhand chance you're offering. Next time you do a poll on features like this, rather than asking folks to pick a single favorite, see if you can do a "100 Pennies" exercise.

"If you had 100 Pennies to allocate across building new features/functionality in an expansion pack, how would you allocate them?" That'll give you better marketing info, I think. As was mentioned above, if 80% of your respondents had the same #2 choice, that'd be very useful to know!

If you really want to use this stuff as significant polling data to drive business decisions, I'd encourage you to leave the polls up a little longer and/or feature them on the front page. This will not only grow your sample size, but may also help eliminate a response bias.

Just my own $0.02, you seem to have done just fine running StarDock without my input in the past...
Reply #64 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Actually I am not sure I want tactical battles as in MOO2, because it is way to easy to exploit, but we definitely need tactical options. If nothing else, to be able to sit through the battle and decide when to retreat. These all or nothing battles seems silly in a game this advanced.

Given that the engine already have auto-play games, I think the option of seeing them live and deciding some things during the battle could be very possible in an expansion.
Reply #65 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
The only thing I dislike is that type of MP that SP players favor the most Hotseat (and possibly PBEM) is not in the game.

I can't remeber how many hours I've wasted playing great MOO2 in hotseat mode. Same for Civ2.

Also, it seems PBEM is very popular with strategy games.

What I want to say is that considering that GalCiv2 has no simultaneous turns (like Moo3), it's very easy and cost effective to add simple Hotseat MP.

I would be very greatful if that happens.
Reply #66 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
As for new game (not expansion), having MP from start can give great benefits.

Do you know that Civ4 team built MP frame first and AI later?

That helped them build best AI in TBS genre, since they looked how MP players play the game, and then used that knowledge to make AI.
Reply #67 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I hope that it stays a turn based game. There are so few new turn based games out there. Real time games make me hyper and I cannot play them for long. With turn based games the only thing that stops me from playing is time..
Reply #68 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
First off let me say,Ive been playing video games since Space Invaders and have been playing all sorts since then from console to computer.
I myself don't care for multiplayer in TBS games either.When I play multiplayer I prefer FPS cause nothing compares to that in a multiplayer domain.Although a good RTS can be good too like AOK or Warhammer.
I also don't want to see tactial battles either because I'm good at them and I don't like having that advantage. Instead of tactical battles perhaps a partial turn based system of giving orders to ships and having them carried out until next "order phase" might work.But I have another thought that I will list below.
First and foremost,the best thing that can be done in my opinion is make a fully 3d space universe.It was my favorite aspect of Ascendency even though the "starlanes" were annoying I truly felt like I was playing a space based game.Yes I've played Homeworld too but it was a very linear game.
I prefer a much more advanced diplomacy system,perhaps a better/more detailed empire like MOO2 with captured planets race staying the same until they "domesticate".A truer senate with members(names and maybe pics) and policies like wanting to trade with another race or help another race or go to war against so and so or maybe just outright xenophile.Many more options for espionage perhaps like MOO2 with individual agents with specialized training."
I would like a much more detailed combat system more in tune with physics than the GC2 rock/paper/scissors approach.I like the idea of having to accuratly target the enemy ship,damage shields,then damage armor(if any),then damage structure/hull until critical damage is done.Missiles due to fast but slower than mass driver speed should get thru shields and make "to hit" roll percentage based on potential defense(ECM) and then strike armor for damage,ect.Having different fire rates for different weapon systems is another good feature.Also have ships with 6 sides where weapon placement and shield facing would come into play like in MOO2 but better(all 6 sides not just 4)Might be more difficult on the AI but if you consider the fact that if actual space combat were to occur it would be a matter of flying about making passes at other ships and moving on to "turn about" and do the same almost like old wooden warships at sea except in a 3d environment.Having "boarding actions" and many of the other cool and fun features of sci fi would be cool too.
Another cool and interesting feature would be seperate drive types for interstellar and intersystem.the interstellar drives for small and larger ships capable of travelling from star to star and intersystem drives for combat/local planet cruising.Keeping the tiny hull design for fighters around systems and from carriers.
Lastly,I think the best combat model would be to keep it roughly the same space opera style of watching the battle take place but have commanders for every ship and each commander or fleet admiral could have his own ways/strategies that he would prefer and use and his skill levels at those strategies.That way the battles would be far more interesting and would influence which commanders you would use for which fleets and so on.It seems like a huge amount of micromanaging but using a fleet system you wouldn't worry too much about the sub commanders and focus more on the admiral of each fleet.The commanders as well as the crews would get experience and commanders would gain/raise skills and crews could get increases of accuracy and fire rate maybe.
All in all I guess what I'm saying is that you should steal many of the best ideas from the best 4x space TBS games.After all they didn't invent the ideas of these things,the sci fi community did.All they did was implement them in varying degrees.
I think if you could actually produce a game with this kind of depth and a good AI you would have a true instant classic.It is why the civ series has always done well...........depth of gameplay.
Reply #69 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
OH yeah,I almost forgot.It would also be nice to have a more realistic land battle.I don't need to see a little picture of my units duking it out but I would like to see unit compositions on planet.Then attack areas and enemy armies until I have truly conquered the planet.Land battles should take more time and not be cut and dried in a week.Generals could be implemented too.
Reply #70 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I missed the polls. I would vote on tatical battles. I also like MOO2's music over GalCiv's. Doo what MOO3 did without the mistakes (MOO2 best base for intangible feels). Best of Space Empires V (all the details and modding), MOO2 (base for user experience), and MOO3 (the astronomical realism and social and economic changes without the UI/user experience botch-ups). I like MOO2's ship combat system better than GalCiv2. SpaceEmpires makes it better but wihtout the cool graphics and sound. SEIV's special stuff (organic weapons, crystal weapons) are unrealistic though.
Reply #71 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Frogboy, your patience is admirable.

I would enjoy multiplayer but not at the expense of other game features. I remember a game I used to play with my grandfather called VGA planets. Each 'race' was given a turn file and could use it to play their turn and give orders (unlike the current incarnation where you can see your ships move) and those turn files were returned to the host to be processed. I would like to see a similar feature but I don't believe it would be GalCiv in such a format. I have seen GalCiv as a one-player game from the beginning as much as I would like to have it be multi-player, I believe the option of adding it would diminish it. GalCiv is a marvelous single-player game that allows you to post on the Internet your scores to indirectly compete with other players and that works very well. Perhaps doing a spin-off of GalCiv for multiplayer but calling it something else?

You could also try a modular programming design. You currently have a decent system to push modular updates out to users through Stardock. Simply program GC3 to have a core system and allow multiplayer, tactical battles, ground battles, etc to be downloadable modular components. Some (like tactical and multiplayer) would be contraindicated as it would be unfair to only allow the attacker to have tactical battles.

As a suggestion for upcoming updates/sequels:
1) I, for one, would like to have speed and size take greater effects in battle. Using a Doom Ray against a Tiny fighter shouldn't hit as often as using that same Doom Ray against a battleship. Once new hull designs come into play the smaller, older versions become relatively useless even if you upgrade them.

2) The ground battles idea was also an excellent one to allow to get a foothold on a planet and contest its ownership, if not take it over completely. Sometimes you don't want the planet yourself (think class 4 planet somewhere between you and your opponent), but you don't want to let anyone else have it either. Only allow the side that controls the spaceport/colony tile to use it for expanding range and such.
Reply #72 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Im curious. What are the possibilities that Stardock would release enough source code, or make a small patch to make.. almost like a mod that the users could make to sort of.. jimmyrig a multiplayer system in? Galciv2 is an -awesome- game, I just really, really wish I could play it with my friends.
Reply #73 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I would like to see more complex ship design, more advanced diplomacy and tactical land and space battels. I don't really care if there is MP or not I don't use it.
Reply #74 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Oh yes. Tac com lobby for teh win.

Here's a suggestion, why not develop the tac combat subgame as a sort of stand-alone - When it's fun enough you're willing to kill 5 mins on it on your coffee break at work, it's probably good enough to go into the game.