An optional expansion is all I can hope for.

Untill you can make an AI act irrationally then dealing with others in some form of MP is the final frontier.

We do plan to make an RTS space strategy game in 2008.

... Galactic Federations?

If you're really feeling like making it a challenge, program hooks into GC2, so you can play the galactic strategy game (GC2), then go down and manage the individual battles (GF). I think that would be the ultimate Strat Gamer wetdream

As a long time member of GC1 it was noted that GC2 would have MP in it. But as I return to see the GC2 product ,I see that this was nixxed. Most of the games I played for months on end had MP in it to keep it fresh and more interesting. I got tired once I figured out how to beat GC1 on maso. You could apply the same principals and 95% of time win it. BORING!!! No matter how much content was added it was still apply same things and hit turn button. In the end I knew I would win so I left for a MMORPG that I still play everyday over a year later. Because friends and enemies add something a computer cant....randomness.

Interaction of all types for all reasons is what I look for.

That is why I am hooked on the SMAX Diplomacy game ACDG3.

Most of the games I played for months on end had MP in it to keep it fresh and more interesting. I got tired once I figured out how to beat GC1 on maso. You could apply the same principals and 95% of time win it. BORING!!! No matter how much content was added it was still apply same things and hit turn button. In the end I knew I would win so I left for a MMORPG that I still play everyday over a year later. Because friends and enemies add something a computer cant....randomness.

Okay, I'm usually a member of the silent majority on this topic, but I feel compelled to say something about it this time:

Eradicus, you do make some very valid points. More often than not, multiplayer does add a tremendous amount of replayability to games. And were this just about any other game, I would agree with what you're saying.

However, GC2 is one of the exceptions to the rule. You and a (relatively) few others may get bored playing against the AI after a while in GalCiv, but the majority of us do not. Most of the people I know (including myself) who play 4x space strategy games play singlerplayer almost exclusively; we rarely--if ever--play against each other online.

It's not that I don't want multiplayer--far from it. I very much enjoy like idea of duking it out with my friends for total supremacy. But if MP would eat up 20-25% of the budget for this game, and only 5% of the players would actually use MP on a regular basis (and I honestly doubt the percentage of people who'd play GC2 online would even be that high), then it's not a worthwhile investment of Stardock's resources at this time. If Frogboy & Co. decide to include multiplayer in an expansion, I guarantee I'd welcome it almost as much you would. But for now, I'd rather they focus on AI, game mechanics, and in general making sure GalCiv2 is as polished as possible when it's released.

I would settle for a constantly evolving (via updates) AI over a multiplayer option. This way constantly using the same tactics would not work. I thought that GC1 was going to use Human Player Tactics uploaded from submitted games to improve the AI, maybe this could be looked at.

Most people, if not you then dont get upset, that were able to beat the game constantly used the same formula over and over (diplomacy weighted mod packs helped in this endeavour).

Some else pointed out what I see the main problem with multiplayer is; drop outs. Once the game appears lost humans opponents are likely to quit rather then avoid the slow decent into oblivion.

... Galactic Federations? If you're really feeling like making it a challenge, program hooks into GC2, so you can play the galactic strategy game (GC2), then go down and manage the individual battles (GF). I think that would be the ultimate Strat Gamer wetdream

so something like total war then (that is a great game and i dont care wat the rest of u say)
playing a game like this against a human player is only really good if you know the person before hand (and then u will probably just play with a copyed version of the game which means less profit for Stardock)
also as what has been said many times in the forums, multiplayer option can sometimes make or break a game (but are normally fast paced games such as Half life and other FPS games)

When someone leaves a PBEM I am in we post in Apolyton.net for a replacement; and get one.

I do agree with the the cost idea of MP that is why I think of it as an optional patch that you have to buy.

@Senkill:
I agree with you, 100%!I!!!
@all:
I cannot accept nor understand the developper´s decision. The multiplayer community is really big and always growing. In addition, there are many players which were disappointed by MoO3 and are eagerly waiting for something like GalCiv2, but including multiplayer.
AND:
"Civilization 4" is especially designed for multiplayer due to the requests and the fact that add-ons never have worked the way they should. So Stardock can do what Firaxis' experienced team can't???
"Heroes of Might and Magic 5" will also be released in February 2006, including multiplayer. It is already ranking high in pre-sales. Why do they all have multiplayer??? Just to please the minority?
I can't believe that Stardock can ignore these turn-based competing games being released in the next months!
... and I'm still hoping

as Frogboy has said before, they have tried and it blew up in there face. also the people which are goin to play multiplayer have a higher chance of copying the game and finding ways to get round prevention methods, this also means more of a loss for stardock (remember kids, dont get pirate games)

One of my problems in teh past with urn based multiplayer was : I had to pay the time I spend online.

But today flat rates or volume based internet connetions permit players to stay 24 h online. Look at "World of warcraft" 3 years ago such a game would have been impossible.

I like to play slow games online aka "strategic command", even Civ2 still. I only need a a windowed mode where I can do something while I wait for my opponent to move. A nice chat is although very welcome. I am still from the old boardgamer generation . I am not follower of RTS. The good old Warlord 2 which I played with my friends a lot died for me the moment it went RTS.

Right now I think GalCiv2 looks very nice but in GalCiv 1 I missed the multiplayer. I won´t get GalCiv2 untl the expansion with multiplayer is out.

As ggod as teh AI has been in GalCiv (one if not the best I have seen in such games) still the challenge playing against humans is what matters for me.

Regarding drop outs => simply let the compouter take over besides dedicated playwers who know each other usally stay in the game.

But today flat rates or volume based internet connetions permit players to stay 24 h online. Look at "World of warcraft" 3 years ago such a game would have been impossible.

Sorry, but 3 years ago EverQuest, Ultima Online, Asheron's Call and several other MMORPGs were enjoying enormous success. Unless you were on some weird grandfathered AOL account or live in some far flung nation which is just now catching up in terms of net connections, flat-rate net connections have been around for many, many years now. The days of the hourly paid MUD have gone the way of the dinosaur.

To those of you going "How can Stardock be so STUPID!? EVERYONE wants multiplayer!" stop for a second and ask yourself if everyone truely wants it, or you just think they do because YOU want it. Next, look at strategy games that have included MP as a core aspect of the game... they tend to sacrifice a good deal in the singleplayer area, or maybe they have fewer overall features. I would rather they get a solid complete game put together first, one with a compelling and fun singleplayer experience... THEN work on MP as an expansion.

If the core game is completely solid, has great features and has been tested and had the bugs ironed out, then adding in multiplayer will be much easier and be a better experience overall.

If multiplayer is shoehorned into the Feb publish deadline, then stuff gets cut. Sure you have your MP, but it's an MP mode of an incomplete or more bug-ridden game.

Too many games make the jump straight to multiplayer, and the rest of the game suffers for it. I'm a singleplayer gamer myself. Sure I enjoy MP sometimes, but for the most part I want to play through a campaign with a story. Games aren't a competiton to me so much as they're a new storytelling medium in which I get to participate. Going wholly MP ruins that for me. SO I'm cool with them building the game first and adding MP later... that way everyone gets what they want.

I'm antisocial - I don't want to play with you lot - please invest your effort in the AI

Thanks for your responses guys and gals. I understand the arguements for multiplayer and against multiplayer. It is my belief that there are enough people out there who would use the multiplayer feature to make it worth it.

You believe this, but you have no data to back this belief up.  That is why, if we do multiplayer, it will be in an expansion.  We'll know from the number of pre-orders if we will make enough money off of it to be worth the production time and resources.

 

I'm antisocial - I don't want to play with you lot - please invest your effort in the AI

Couldn't have put it better myself! Okay, I don't know if I'm actually anti-social. As a general rule, however, I do prefer to play strategy games by myself, as do most of my friends.

As a general rule, however, I do prefer to play strategy games by myself, as do most of my friends.

Well, I consider the AI usally a first step in my preparation to fight against real opponents. => humans.

I'm reffering to Stardock people:

I agree with your fears about multiplayer mode in a turn based game and with your idea of adding this mode in an expansion.
Though, I would suggest you to make a survey. Add a questionnaire in your home page and see how many people are interested. I would definitely be. I believe that it is nice to win AI, but it is always much better when you beat a human.

But I repeat, DO NOT DELAY this game for MP nor invest in something that will bring you no money. Just be sure.

Stardock have already comitted to holding such things once GC2 is out or close to it, if the pre-orders indicate a decent sized market it should happen.

Though, I would suggest you to make a survey. Add a questionnaire in your home page and see how many people are interested. I would definitely be. I believe that it is nice to win AI, but it is always much better when you beat a human.

[\quote]

We did do a survey with over 2000 GalCIv I players, it wasn't even close. +90% said it wasn't important to them that GalCiv II have multiplayer.

We also had a survey on "which of the following features would you like to see most in GalCiv II" in which 1866 users responded.

11% answered Multiplayer

40% said Ship Design

21% said fleet battles

23% said More advanced colony management

(other options got the rest).

We picked the top 3 as things we could budget. Multiplayer, even AFTER GalCiv I, was simply not a major factor.

 

I would like to thank the people associated with the project for their feedback, and everyone else as well. It is true that I conducted no polls when I said that I believe there are enough people to make multiplayer worth it. It was simply my presonal belief, which of course is now in question. There is a distinction to be noted, that are we talking about buying the game because of multiplayer or buying the game whether it has multiplayer or not. I do think that there are very few people who would refuse to buy the game because it lacks multiplayer.

On the other hand I wonder how many people would use the multiplayer if it were offered. I think there are a number of people who would use the multiplayer, if it were made available, but who would buy the game whether it came with it or not.

I guess I am in the out of luck percent of people who are dying for a decent TBS 4X space game, and who think multiplayer is a key, cannot be left out, feature. I suppose I will bide my time and wait and see if a mulitplayer expansion comes out.

Senkill

P.S. I gotta give props (is that word still hip?) to the devs for explaining there reasoning and sticking to their guns to make an awesome TBS game, at least the genre is alive, kicking and evolving.

P.P.S. I think it is telling that 11% (205.26 people) chose multiplayer above the others listed, it's hard to chose anything over the option to design your own ships (that is way to cool a feature). I see the 11% as significantly high.

Frogboy, I don´t remember but as Senkill isays if it was a poll to choose the most significant improvement then I think 11% for multiplayer was quite high.

Imagine a poll: What is more important

1. To simply live
2. Love
3. Money

I think you will get low numbers for money still I think money is quite important

We did do a survey with over 2000 GalCIv I players, it wasn't even close. +90% said it wasn't important to them that GalCiv II have multiplayer.

I have one major thing to add to this discussion, which hasn't been said yet (for as far as I can tell). Namely that the poll was done with GalCiv I players.

As 'GalCiv I' itself is purely singleplayer, this automatically becomes a biased survey. Single player fans will tend to still visit the site regularly, while multi player fans will stop coming once they have finished the games a few times (or won't even have bothered buying the game).

Consequences:
- It would be interesting to see the results of a survey held on a more generic site. That would be, in my opinion, a better less biased basis for such decisions.
- Making it multiplayer will open up a new, possibly largely untapped, market. (which doesn't say anything ofcourse about how big that market may be)

Some less important notes:
- What about the Civ series? Even though it's a different genre, the complexity and length of those games tend to be similar to 4x4 games. Wouldn't it be able to inquire there what their experience with multiplayer is? That Civ IV is centered on multiplayer may be indication enough though .
- If something is less important than something else, it doesn't automatically mean it's not important to the respondent. A survey like: "Would you be willing to pay extra for multiplayer?" might be a better question for determining the importance of multiplayer.
- I'll personally wait with buying Gal Civ II until the multiplayer expansion mode comes out (assuming it's good). If alot of people do that, you may be shooting yourself in your feet .

Civ 4 will have multi.

Imagine a poll: What is more important 1. To simply live 2. Love 3. Money

- It would be interesting to see the results of a survey held on a more generic site. That would be, in my opinion, a better less biased basis for such decisions. - Making it multiplayer will open up a new, possibly largely untapped, market. (which doesn't say anything ofcourse about how big that market may be)

You have said really everything!!!
yours, 0.0000000000000000001% out of luck