OMG No multiplayer...

Ever notice that when somebody says IMHO they're not being humble...

Ever notice that when somebody says IMHO they're not being humble...

That's so true, people should stick to IMO...

BTW Rogerano, I assume you have access to the latest gmma build, with the latest AI, do you think GC2 suffers from not having a MP option? From the beta's I've played I don't think it does, although in the beta's there's still a case for it...

p.s I thought this whole Multiplayer thing was long gone from here...

p.s I thought this whole Multiplayer thing was long gone from here...

Well, so are probably the people who like to play multiplayer. In that, I may be a relic. Just because I came a bit later and the MP discussion was long gone by then...

Sorry about that, I usually don't whine but I and many of my friends and acquaintances wait for a game we can compete in and with just this exact setting. So now we have to wait another time span, if ever such a game will come out and be decent. I even took holidays already early march to have lan-parties with my friends.

Playing a game can take quite a while to finish aswell and with multi player games i normally like some 2 hour bashing and thats it, i don'y really like the idea of playing Galciv2 with someone else over the internet waiting for their moves to be completed etc etc and doing this for a couple of weeks to finish 1 game.

What you can do is to start a new game, save it andsend this to all your friends (so each will be playing the same game),
its up to the individual player to dominate the AI and see who of this group can get the highest score or finish the game the quickest.

You are still competing with your friends while player against the AI (and this can be really fun, especially when the final release has comeout with the final AI)

Just my 2 cents

"I have been following GalCiv 2 for quite a while but it *never* even occured to me that a game nowadays, especially a TBSG turn based strategy game would not have a MP option"


TBS multiplayers are usually never used or take way too long to complete plus most of the people who were polled by stardock would rather have a game with customizable ships than a multiplayer, plus the ai is good enough to give even fanatics a run for there money at higher difficulty levels (and be a real annoyance at lower difficulty levels) plus when you add the fact that stardock constantly updates there games forever after there released with new game options and enhancements galciv2 becomes a very good deal

also plenty of games are being released without multiplayer in this "day and age" and are still going to be amazing, first and foremost is Elder scrolls VI oblivion, with 400 hours of gameplay who needs multiplayer? and Spore, whihc will have an indirect multiplayer were you play against computer controlled player made characters

multiplayer adds long lifeblood into games that would otherwise become boring after you have taken out the single player campaign (starcraft being a prime example, i still play that game online) however, certain games like TBS and RPGs that only focus on the single player and several other genres just dont need multiplayer, adding on multiplayre would just be a waste of time to developers that could make these games more fun in the way that there supposed to be fun, ie in there ai expirence and overall game lenght

Civ3Fanatic, I see your points. However, I have to say that in my opinion, what made e.g. MoO 2 great in its time was not only its single player gameplay (at least not for me) but also the ability to play MP against friends. I still remember the numerous lan-parties we had fondly. I have rarely played a TBSG online, though. If that, only with ppl I got to know in forums.

Moreover, I am a person who dislikes preset campaings - more of a random game type.

I just want to say, there are lots of different tastes out there, and I would not say more ppl are SP oriented in TBSG than MP oriented.

As I wrote in another post, the polls taken here do not tell us that much as they were done on a SP fan base. Thus the vote for SP is not that surprising for me. Had you asked a more open, broader audience, then maybe (and I am the last who would state that I know that for sure) results would have been different. At least I would have voted for MP, but as I did not play GalCiv I (for lack of MP) I did not even know of the existence of GalCiv II at that stage. Same holds true for all my friends and acquaintances, who are a very MP-oriented lot.

So its not only a question of long lifeblood, but also a question of broadening your business base, doing incremental business. The larger the fan community, the more fun a game usually is, is my experience. Just my 2 cents...

I thought the H in IMHO was "honest" . oh well.

Not to belabor the point , I like single player games and campaigns a lot. However, I believe it should have it. Maybe not the goal for launch.. but at some point. MP adds a lot of replay value to a game.

It may not be fair to compare GC2 against Civ IV, but I'll say it anyway. Civ IV is a TBS with good AI (its not just chumps with some extra cash ) . Civ IV has MP and its a good feature. GC2 is a TBS with good AI ... so why not have a MP eventually ? since its late in the design phase..

Hehe, thanks Shogun, now I understand what he meant with humble... could not quite get a handle on that. For sure, it is IMHO in my honest opinion, at least as I know it.

I do not think that my *humble* opinion will change anything, however I hope that not all the MP fans are gone. I also hope that this topic is present enough at Stardock that they will at least think about adding MP. I have not heared a comment on that in a long while (in fact, as I wrote, only today I stumbled across a line that enlightened me that there will be no MP, so I guess this topic has not been raised in a while...).

Another thought, I am from Germany, and over here I know many ppl who are MP fans. Maybe its also a geographic issue...

I must have missed all these good turn-based multiplayer games that have huge followings.

IMO, the only good multiplayer TBS game I've played is Civ IV and even that's only fun if you have a dedicated group of friends to play with.  Playing a TBS that can take MANY hours with a total stranger doesn't make any sense to me. Even with 300,000 copies out there, the # of people available to play Civ IV is also very small on a given day.

If there's a demand for multiplayer, it'll be in an expansion pack.  Civ IV has multiplayer. It's also $50.  GalCiv II is $40. My view is that why should people who would never play it multiplayer (the vast VAST majority) subsidize the handful who do?

 

TBH I doubt MP would be used too much within GC2, even a small game would last hours, and with a decent sized game with a few human players, it would take weeks. let alone a massive game, which would take months.

it just doesnt make much sense to have it, and I agree that it would have been a waste of stardocks resources to put funds into something which would probably ruin peoples opinion of the game.

Yes, reviewers might complain about the lack of multiplayer, but they would complain more if there was a pointless multiplayer.

I can imagine playing a game with 12 people on a gigantic galaxy........ it'd take forever and get so tedious

completely agree with you and i hope that galciv2 dosnt make a tak on multiplaer in an expansion because i just dont see galciv becoming a multliplayer game that would play good

There are tons of games out there that have multiplayer and I don't think ALL games need to have it. In particular it seems that turn-based strategy games don't lend themselves well to multiplayer, particularly games like Civ or GalCiv where even smallish or standard games can take 4-8 hours to complete.

I would think that RTS where a "map" can be won in 1-2 hours would be much more ideal, and there's no lack of that type of gameplay at all. (if anything, there's FAR too much of it and not enough TBS and CRPG )

I'm not even sure why Civ ever delved into multiplayer. I love Civ IV but it's not much of a wargame, it's a game of larger scope that includes war. And it'd also seem like play MP Civ without a lot of war would be nearly pointless. It's basically a move to try to please everyone instead of focusing on the best parts of the game.

I know it's not mainstream, but a friend and I play extremely long play-by-email games of Civ III: Conquests. The only downside to it is the goofy implementation of multiplayer (most of the pop ups aren't there, and there are some strange bugs) but it is extremely playable. The advantage is you have more time to think about what you want to do and you don't get stuck playing until 5am because you have to wait for the other player. The key for this to work is to allow "live" turn based multiplayer games to start while the turns are short, then to allow that game mode to be changed to a play-by-email game when the turns start getting too long. Civ III allows these game modes to be interchanged, so it works.

That's the only way to do it really, and any other goofery to try to make the games shorter or real time is just going to make the game not play as well. I don't mind multiplayer being left out while the game is polished, so long as a solid expansion includes the ability to switch between live & PBEM comes out down the road. I've been trying to get my friend into Galciv 2, but he's only really interested in doing turn based multiplayer. It takes patience and dedication to get through a game, but if you really are into it, it's a great way to keep in touch with someone and get a fresh challenge and a unique opponent in a game you love.

It also requires you to swallow your pride -- there's no reloading or quiting just because you are getting your ass handed to you

Every multiplayer TBS game I've ever played on-line versus strangers goes goes something like this:

1) I play for an hour and the other guy quits.

2) I play for an hour and the game starts to turn in my favor slightly. Guy quits.

Whether this be CIV IV or HOMM3 or MOO2.

I love multiplayer RTS games btw.  It's the time issue really.

I myself am quite happy with the metaverse option as a way to compare ones skills agains others. I just hope my name sits somewhere near the top.

dunno maybe it was my wasting time with the civ 3 multiplayer but i have just never liked the idea of a tbs multiplayer i would rather have the developers spend more time on improved and more complex diplomacy, harder ai, more ship components, new gameplay features, ui improvements, and overall streamlineing than work on a multiplayer that will only appeal to a limited number of ppl

but of course this that is much better thanis just me and i understand that ppl do use and play tbs multiplayer but the angle that im getting at is why make a tbs multiplayer that appeals to limited ppl and might get a couple of ppl to play the game when you can improve the single player expirence for everyone its not that im fully against a multiplayer its just that with other things that could be worked on besides the multiplayer i would rather c them get higher priority

GC2 is in no way, shape, or form worse off for not having a multiplayer component. If you're worried about that, don't be. Trust me, there are some yummy things happening. IMHO (the H in this case is for Heffalump, so ner) the cool factor is up there in the high 90's, with a high pressure front moving up from the south. Coastal wind warnings, waves at 1.5m.

I am worried

All that you have said makes perfect sense. However, this is just your preference and taste. Other people have other preferences.

I am fairly certain that here in GalCiv 2 we have a SP preference oriented community. Thus I would expect all those replies. However, as GC2 does not have MP, its no wonder there are not so many MP fans here.

I completely agree that playing MP games on the internet with strangers is often a bother and not very much fun. To make that viable, you would need something flashy and new. Civ4 did that to some extent, but not that well either.

For me, the MP option is more for LAN-parties or online games with friends, where you spend some hours (or even nights or days) but always have the option to save the game and come back at a later time and resume at the milestone you saved. That really is extreme fun and very challenging.

And I have yet to find a game where the AI is flawless. All the TBSGs I have seen, especially the space based ones, have major AI issues such as attacking planets, defending systems, evaluating threat and so on. Sometimes it is better to cut your losses, sometimes it is better to stay and fight even if you know you will lose. With the AI its just bits and bytes, 0 and 1. And I will be very surprised if the AI will be as challenging and devious as another player...

Many games just give the AI races a resource bonus at the beginning to head them off. That is lame. Then in many games the AI will not even colonize correctly.

I am not in beta so I do not know if those issues are true, but I wager some of them are, if not most. Especially in the endgame, when you have big fleets running around, the AI always seems to be overwhelmed, overworked and acts erratically. A decision to lose a planet to a big fleet while sneaking up on some important system in turn I have yet to see in a game. Even if the AI by chance would do that, if a system is threatened it usually breaks off what would be a perfect move to protect the system.

You can only do so much with an AI. You can experience infinite scenarios with a player.

And that is really my grudge. Having played a couple of games, you will know how the AI reacts to certain situations and begin using them (the diplomacy and demand tribute is just one example). With another human player you can never be sure.

Now, to have a solid AI *AND* an human player would just be heaven IMHO.

(follow up on the post above)

I myself am quite happy with the metaverse option as a way to compare ones skills agains others. I just hope my name sits somewhere near the top.

And that is really another thing I guess turns me off. My time is limited and thus I will not play hundreds of games, so many others will be much better at the game as they will learn how the AI plays. So what is the Metaverse to me if I am place 45,769? Nothing, no satisfaction whatsoever!

Every multiplayer TBS game I've ever played on-line versus strangers goes goes something like this: 1) I play for an hour and the other guy quits. 2) I play for an hour and the game starts to turn in my favor slightly. Guy quits. Whether this be CIV IV or HOMM3 or MOO2. I love multiplayer RTS games btw. It's the time issue really.

That will probably not happen if you play with friends. And surely the MP option has to have a safe function so that you can quit and come back at a later time. And with a friend you can (and that is what we do) exchange if the starting conditions are similar or totally warped. Usually you see that by turn 10 to 20, if not sooner. So if a game should really be imbalance, just start over.

Moreover, Stardock could provide some flashy MP maps to play on where you know from the beginning you are on a somewhat equal footing. Then it comes down to skill really.

I also forgot, one grudge I almost always have with TBSG where military units are customizable is that the human configurations *always* beat the AI ones. So where is the challenge in that?

Have you ever played GalCiv?  AI is what they're best known for.

The original Galactic Civilizations on OS/2 was the first multithreaded computer AI for instance.  A great deal of work is put into making sure the AI is very challenging.  Each computer opponent has its own AI module (i.e. its own C++ file with its own unique functions and strategies).

(last post for today, then I go to bed . this follows the previous 2 posts)

I must have missed all these good turn-based multiplayer games that have huge followings. IMO, the only good multiplayer TBS game I've played is Civ IV and even that's only fun if you have a dedicated group of friends to play with. Playing a TBS that can take MANY hours with a total stranger doesn't make any sense to me. Even with 300,000 copies out there, the # of people available to play Civ IV is also very small on a given day. If there's a demand for multiplayer, it'll be in an expansion pack. Civ IV has multiplayer. It's also $50. GalCiv II is $40. My view is that why should people who would never play it multiplayer (the vast VAST majority) subsidize the handful who do?

Well, I guess you do not see that many civ4 games out there because most that are played MP are lan games and not on the Inet. At least that is my experience. Or they are private games with friends.

Also, Civ4 is still quite new. I would wager many players will first test the SP experience to learn the game and then delve into MP (I think this point has been raised before in a different post).

Civ4 online solution does not appeal to me all that much. And moreover, as the 4th game in a row, there is not awfully much new in the game. I myself have played it a few times and then set it aside. I guess many others have done so too. However, and that I also said before, I remember that at one time Civ did not have a MP option and suffered for it.

And your argument with the game price... well, some will probalby not use the metaverse and still pay for it in the game price. Some will never use prefabricated maps and still pay for them. I realize you cannot make it right for all. Some will always be disappointed. However, imho with a MP option you would or could have tapped a whole new market as there is really no other decent game out there with this setting, the promises of this game and a solid MP option.

Last not least, the playing online with a total stranger I gave my opinion on above, so I won't repeat myself. But really if you play with friends you can logistically arrange it that you will take the same turns to upgrade your ships or manage your planets. With teamspeak that should not be a problem. So time is really not much more an issue than in a SP game.

Look at MoO3 (a disaster I know), but many ppl, especially in the beta phase, used the MP option. And also after that (for the short time it was alive anyways. Before release, many people were excited about the MP option and what it promised. Just sad the game turned out to be a total disaster.

Just my 2 cents...

Have you ever played GalCiv? AI is what they're best known for. The original Galactic Civilizations on OS/2 was the first multithreaded computer AI for instance. A great deal of work is put into making sure the AI is very challenging. Each computer opponent has its own AI module (i.e. its own C++ file with its own unique functions and strategies).

No, I have not, precicely because it had no MP option available. Just one in my gaming group did and soon quit as we moved on to other games that promised a joint experience.

GalCiv2 could be what I (and most of my gaming group) have ever dreamed of (a bit melodramatic, I know). So all the more disappointing that MP is missing, for us anyways.

I don't think I ever successfully completed a MP game of MOO2.

I don't really like the Metaverse either. I want to download a profile of someone on the Metaverse and play against the profile .

That's understandable that a multiplayer group would be disappointed.  No game can be all things to all people.

If you think of multiplayer TBS games as giant computerized board games, I think it's easier to swallow. It's true that you probably need a group of friends to play with, but even 1 person can count as a group, especially when the AI is decent. I've been playing the same game of Civ4 with the same buddy for about 2 weeks now and it's been an absolute blast. I'm obviously in the minority here, but I think that one of the main reasons you see so much anti-MP in this particular crowd is that it's fairly self-selecting. People "know" that GalCiv is not MP, thus you have predominately an anti-MP or pro-SP group in the forums. It may truly not be worth it from a business perspective, which is fine, but I think if MP could implemented well, you may begin to attract people who used to never give GalCiv games the time of day. And like I said, while there may be 300,000 copies of Civ4 out there, I think the number of MP games is pretty healthy considering the genre. No TBS is going to put up numbers like an FPS or RTS, but it doesn't need to really. You'll still sell all the copies you would to the SP crowd AND you'll sell even more bonus copies to those who want the MP.

Like I said, only time will tell the value of MP in a 4X game.