Well,  don't forget that adding MP to GC2 after DA will be possible thanks to MP library code developped for Society. That why it will cost less to Stardock to implement MP in a second expansion

I would be bold to say making this is more a patch material then expansion feature.

ANd you would be flat out wrong because you have no clue what you're talking about.

Hotseat is tradition of TBS genre.
That's what made Heroes of Migh of Magic famous (in pre-internet time).

And Master of Orion 2 too (MOO3 was BIG minus for missing this).

Same for Civ2-4 hotseat play. Beautiful.

And it's actually a social activity at a level of pen&paper FRP.

And is least time consuming MP mode to make.
A real pity it didn't make it into "expanded" dark avatar feature list.

I mean, you can already through cheat swap the active players, only thing missing is diplo interface and a few tweaks.

Am I wrong?

I would be bold to say making this is more a patch material then expansion feature.

P.S.
I always wanted this feature to sneak in patches or normal expansion, and not be par of some "MP expansion", since I would never try playing game as this in Internet enviroment (not enough dedicated players for long games).

Am I wrong?

Yes

So, please endulge me, what feature I missied, exempt extended diplo inferface to make hotseat work?
And maybe main menu...

I'm really curious (not only for this game, but for similar possibility for MTW2, and few other games that could be hotseat capable with a bit of work).

p22, we'd have to make several changes to the interface in order to handle true hotseat mode including changes to the main menu, options screen, setup screens, diplomacy screens, end game screens, etc.  We'd have to re-write the turn handling code.  We'd have to re-write the ship moving code.  We've have to re-write the message handling code.  There would be several hundred (if not thousands of places) where we would have to change the code to account for the fact that there are multiple human (non-AI) players instead of just one.  And that's just the stuff that I can think of off the top of my head. 

It's not just a patch's worth of work. 

Ok, I understand.
I didn't knew there was so much hardcoded logic that depended on having only one player designated as human.

I though it would be mostly interface tweaking...

P.S.
You are right about message code.
I remember that Civ3 Hotseat was disaster since only 1st player was getting important messages, while other got skipped.

Hehe, I bet the developers will do it just to stop seeing threads about it the forum. They're pretty sick of reading about it, obviously. It doesn't really matter *what* the poles indicate. It simply boils down to whether Stardock feels the investment is worthwhile. They may do it, they may not. We'll just have to wait and see. In the meantime, we should probably quit making posts about. Don't want to piss off the cook you know. Of course, making this post isn't helping

Since this point seems mostly ignored:

EVERY SINGLE STARDOCK WINDOWS GAME that I've worked on other than GalCiv has multiplayer.

We have a pretty good idea of the impact of multiplayer (or lack there of).

Multiplayer is a feature that attracts user base X but costs amount Y. Right now, cost Y exceeds the value of user base X. When Y is less than X, then we can consider it.

Having been making multiplayer games for over a decade, my main complaint comes from people who don't make games, have never made games, nor will likely ever make games speaking as if they are authorities on the subject or implying (our often outright saying) that we simply don't know what we're talking about.

In addition, people regularly forget that there are plenty of games -today- that have multiplayer and whose multiplayer numbers are known to us (even if they're not publicly known) and therefore a great deal of data available to game developers to know what % of the market actually uses multiplayer.

If anything, the polls OVER represented people who want multiplayer.

If anything, the polls OVER represented people who want multiplayer.

So true, so incredibly inelibly true.

You go Brad, keep on fighting the good fight, don't let these pests slow you down

There are seemingly scads of new space4x games coming out with MP, if not focused on MP.

I don't really understand the issues people have with it and GalCiv since the point about focusing on SP has been crystal clear since before day 1.

inelibly

I don't usually mind bad spelling, but usually I have some vague idea of what was meant. In this case did you mean "indelibly" or "inedibly"? In either case I still have no clue as to what you meant.

BTW wasn't this thread locked with the arrival of the multiplayer dead horse thread?

Kryo locked it, Brad evidently deleted Kryo's post and reopened it.

Kryo locked it, Brad evidently deleted Kryo's post and reopened it.

Obviously, Brad may do whatever he likes (it's good to be the king), but regardless of the "dead horse" aspect, I think it's a good idea to have a common thread about topics that just seem to come up over and over again. In fact, I think someone, in one of the innumerable posts on one of these subjects or other, suggested that these be made sticky and I agree with that sentiment.

I like the free form style of this forum that allows for the flow of ideas from new posters to forum vets. As a poster on many sites, I find the attitude of "search the forum and read the stickey" is sometimes too limiting. Many thanks to Brad and Cari for thier attention to ALL the players who post here.

I really don't understand stardock's attitude... I mean ok I can understand what you people say about the fact that the players (including me) want more other upgrades like better espionage, better negotiations... but, I can tell you this: why do you think chess is still being played ? Do you know many people who enjoy playing with a computer chess ? I don't. Multi player mode makes a game diachronic, and I think that your game deserves to become alike. You must not be so negative about this. I propose this: do what you have to do, but then make a multi mode. This way you'll have thousands of players playing GalCiv for many many years. (if of course this is something that you want...)

GalCiv2 is NOT chess.

GalCiv2 is NOT chess.

That's probably the most apt thing I've ever read on this forum, bravo.

I did unlock the post. I feel pretty strongly that as long as people aren't actually personally attacking other people that we should try to be hands off and encourage people to talk about what they want to talk about.

If we (Stardock) can't adequately defend a position we've taken then we should review that position. I think in the case of multiplayer, our position is pretty solid.

IMO, Space Empires V, which is now available, is the ultimate multiplayer 4X strategy game. It has everything a multiplayer user would want. So I heartily recommend that to people who are really interested in such a game and can't wait for us to add it to some future version of GalCiv.

Well, I wholeheartedly agree with Frogboy on the concepts of multiplayer. You cater to a very different audience when you develop a game with multiplayer in mind. Just look at the differences between Unreal Tournament and F.E.A.R. Pretty big, eh?

I've never developped a full-on game such as GalCiv II or anything remotely similar in size or effort. I do, whoever, work in instances where multiplayer is needed, such as forum games; I've also worked on the design phase of many multiplayer games (though, as I said, nothing as big). So I've found out firsthand what the difference in approach is, and it is huge!

Singleplayer is about depth. It needs to have an atmosphere, a feel. Final Fantasy always had a feel: it had a background, it had a world, it had characters. Balance issues are very different; you need to make the game challenging and 'fair', but the important thing is to have that single player enjoy him-/herself. They won't care that their character is stronger than your average John Doe out there, and that you have special characteristics you can exploit (Max Payne's bullet time, for instance).

Multiplayer is about balance and fairness. Depth takes a backseat, as does atmosphere. It's all about replayability on a multiplayer level. Exploits and cheese ruin the game. You can't make the game challenging simply by cranking a few levers. It's a whole different approach. You can't add special singleplayer effects anymore, and you rely on the players themselves to keep the game flowing.

Like I said, I have only an inkling of the "costs" (not only monetary) incurred by adding multiplayer options. It's not just flipping a switch; it's rewriting your game. Better to make a good game with good singleplayer options than try to balance out over both single- and multiplayer and end up with a project that's wanting in both approaches, thus appealing to noone.

It's not wrong to want multiplayer. But it's also not wrong for a game not to have it.

Keep in mind, that different type of peaple prefer different type of multiplayer (this thread is about Hotseat, not generally MP).

Usually TBS games are not too much suited for internet play, since one game takes too long, so it's difficult to find dedicated players did will continue the game after one session. This often leads to 1vs1 or 2vs2 derivated and quickend gameplay (fast build/research), so it could be finished in one session.

On the other hand, hotseat or PBEM playing are for more dedicated players, usually for same those that enjoy SP the most.

It's either a social event (hotseat) when playing with frieds several times a week, or it daily routing like in case of PBEM.

I, as I said, would never be interested in internet MP too much, since it's just too quick for my taste. But I would gladly want to play Hotseat MP with my frieds a few times in a week. It's closer to cooperative SP then a MP.

I, as I said, would never be interested in internet MP too much, since it's just too quick for my taste

How do you know? You've never played GC2 MP. And all MP games are different, I personally see a GC2 game lasting up to 2 days in MP, if it ever gets made.

By quick I mean, either people will quit early during the game, or there would a be some acclerated game mode so it could be finished in singe session.

It's just hard to find dedicated players.

I'm just basing it on experience from other TBS games that have multiplayer, like Civ.

I did unlock the post. I feel pretty strongly that as long as people aren't actually personally attacking other people that we should try to be hands off and encourage people to talk about what they want to talk about.

I commend you for keeping the discussion open and democratic for all, something on other forums that has not happend, i.e. mods don't like discussion that they have already read bits and parts of elsewhere. LOL.

If we (Stardock) can't adequately defend a position we've taken then we should review that position. I think in the case of multiplayer, our position is pretty solid.

Also good.

IMO, Space Empires V, which is now available, is the ultimate multiplayer 4X strategy game. It has everything a multiplayer user would want. So I heartily recommend that to people who are really interested in such a game and can't wait for us to add it to some future version of GalCiv.

I was unaware that Empires V was MP, not aware of any other space strategy games for that matter, of recent release, thanks for the heads up.

You can't deny that Hotseat is a form of multiplayer. And the points I'm trying to make are for multiplayer in general, not just networking. There will be differences between different kinds of multiplayer, but simply introducing the concept to a game can require mindbogging amounts of work.

I agree that Hotseat can be a very enjoyable experience. I've played HOMM 3 many times with my brother, laughing ourselves through and past 2am; but you're probably aware of the problems Hotseating had even there. "Teal sends you resources..." who did it send them to? Still, it greatly extended the game's lifetime, and I'm confident it would do exactly the same with GalCiv II.

But this is for people who would otherwise play on a LAN. This is still a significant amount of the multiplayer population, but it's also considerably less than the full population.

We're already aware of a minimum of code changes involved. They will be much less than when true networking is supported, granted, but they will still be considerable. Diplomacy is the most straightforward concept that will need changing, but also the concept of stances in general. Are you friendly towards someone or not? The computer cannot determine this for you anymore. The Diplomacy bonus for your race may effectively become completely useless! The Galactic Bazaar (Project) can be thrown in the dumpster as well.

Stardock worked very hard to give AI the feel of being as lifelike as possible. Their implementation makes it easier to believe that the AI are "full-fledged" players; although they follow the same rules as any other player, they are not truly human players in those respects. I don't know if I'm prepared to lose some of these pretty unique features in exchange for multiplayer support.

Dan you can quote stuff from other people's replies by highlighting it and hitting the quote button.  It's less confusing.

Yeah but it's also helpul if they reread it. LOL. I seperate what I write from their's but thanks for the heads up. Also whoever referred me to the Space Empires V, oh that was you frogboy, well thank you ever so much. The demo is not even playable, lol. At least on WIN XP, I haven't considered reverting to WIN 98 to see, but maybe some day I will lol. Until then I'll just beat the dead horse that is MP galciv 2 feel free to ignore me.