Multiplayer

I guess this is what´s called a "troll". ^^

It's called "Sins of a Solar Empire". In beta now.



You could be right...

Why you call me a troll? I was just registering my interest in seeing a multiplayer add-on to GalCiv2. Are you saying that is somehow sinister?

Saying that you want it done by next week either constitutes an unsettling disconnect with reality or a very strong feel of "let´s see how many flames I can get, teehee".

Just to put it in perspective, I am all for multiplayer, too. I just think it´ll be included at the soonest with the next expansion.

There is a multiplayer thread already.

I too would support a multiplayer.

The problem is, being a turn based game, it is the fact that you would need to wait for others to have their turn. But even still, i think people would still enjoy it.

I said that because of the interview with Brad Wardell about GalCiv II where he touts the OS/2's 16.4 million color graphics and multihtreaded AI algorithms from 1994's version of the game. I still don't know why my statement makes me a troll. I think it's a valid characterization of the expectations of the consumer. Who would publish a game without multiplayer in 2007?

Give me a phone call. I'd love to discuss the merits of the statement sometime. It really is my own phone number, and no - I do not work for a competitor.

I'm a MQSeries admin for a financial services company.

Where is it or what is it called? I would like to state my opinions & ideas there, and support for it.

Lots of indie developers produce fantastic games but choose not to expend the resources and time to include MP because, frankly, it serves a minority of the user base.

it is in the stickies, but probably no one reads it anymore? so i guess this thread is justified.



I don't think that is a valid reason, i mean who would make an RTS game with no multiplayer?? no one!

it is because this is a turn based game that makes multiplayer less attractive.

I don't understand why you think that all games absolutely have to have multiplayer. For some games, I would agree that it is a good thing, and fortunately today's technology makes it viable. But not all games need it... certainly not this one. Besides, there is nothing inherently better about multiplayer; in fact, I tend to prefer games without it.

I think that multiplayer should work like this (if it were ever to be used).

It starts as more of a forum topic/chat room thing. Where everyone tries to agree on what settings to use. (i.e. size of galaxy, number of players) And they definetly have to find a certain hour of the day where they will all have time to particaipate, because if you don't show up, you're planets, ships, everything (no techs, or trade goods) will be auctioned off to the other players/races.

There is a set time that everyone (playing in this game) has to log on and be ready to play. You basicaly roll a dice to see who chooses their race when.

After all that's sorted out the game begins.

To keep the game from dragging on, each person's turn is limited to five minutes (or whatever time limit seems best), each person will be able to think about what they do while the others are taking there turns. (since the more people you have the more time you have to think, so the more people you have the more time you have for each turn... i.e. more people=less turn time)

And the trade screen should be done so you can either literally talk to them, or you can type you're words in.

I think everyone should also have high-speed internet too.
I don't know what to think about minor races, maybe ban them in everygame.
No cheat codes, or mods. Duh.

Nah, Multiplayer would be rubbish.

Well done to Stardock for not selling out and forgetting the large number of SP gamers out there.

I agree. I world love to have a multiplayer both to play friends who love the game and to play multiple empires when I'm soloing. Just add the multiplayer element but do not change anything to make it "faster' As some game companies do. Some companies seem to think that in order to make a multiplayer game you have to strip down the good elements of the game and make it similar to the RTS click fest games. But that is simply not true. And that is not what those of us that play GC2 and would like MP want.

No Sins of the Solar Empire is a damn RTS game which means that it will be garbage. Ther is no reason that GC2 can't be MP and still keep every thing that it has intact from ship design to story elements.
Let me ask you this. If they did make a multiplayer version of this game but they changed nothing of the existing game then what would be your objection? You don't have to play MP if you don't want to and they did not dumb down the game (RTSing the game as I like to say) to make it MP.

Actually all they would need to do is put a Simultaneous turn option in (similar to Age of Wonders Shadow Magic) and an option for a timer. If you had the simultaneous turn option then you can work on your empire and go into the ship design and create ships while others are doing the same. That way you don't have to wait. Also with a turn timer you can set the length that every player has to take a turn if you want.

Your right not all games have to have Multiplayer but the ones that do should be as follows:
Turn Based Strategy games
RTS
FPS
MMO's
Fantasy games such as Oblivion and Gothic 3 etc.
Simulator games.

The only type of game that should be strictly solo play are as follows:

Solitaire
Those mystery puzzle games like Myst

Now multiplay should not in any way take away from the solo element of the game in fact I'm of the strong belief that Multi-play should keep all the solo elements of the game and just add those multi-player elements that will make game play between multipule people as will as the AI work to enhance the game play experiance

From Brad himself:

Read the rest here.

THATS IT? thats funny.

I would never really play a multiplayer game. Mostly because my time to play is limited and my oponent would probably get a message every day that its not his/her turn yet. lol. But even with peopel who would play more often I think it would just take long and be frustrating, especially if one persons computes is slow or crashes.

i wouldnt mind if this game had it, i would just not use it.. However, I would be disapointed to learn that i lost single player aspects to fit the multiplayer in.


I see TBS multiplayer like playing a game of chess with someone through the mail.

I just like multiplayer because (sp?) the AI is always DUMB! Yes, stardock did good job with the AI in this game but they still don't have the qualities that make playing against an actual human fun. They can't decieve, lie, cheat, steal. They are predictable, thats the whole problem.

All of us consumers paid good money at Best Buy or Amazon for your game, Brad. Please reinvest some of that wonderful cash we gave you, several million dollars, and add multiplayer. We would appreciate it.

We like your game. But your in the big leagues now. Quit whining about 1994 1200 baud modems. This is the 21st century. We have high speed internet and Gamespy. Add multiplayer.

Thank you.

Hi!

Please speak for yourself. Me and obviously quite some posters here do not belong into your "we".

And from my POV and experience with TBS MP games, just adding MP to the GalCiv, without significantly changing the pace of the game, will not add much quality to the game:

1) Currently game progresses way to slowly to be playable by more than a few players. An usual Stars! game (where most my experience comes from) usually takes 60-100 turns to complete, but in that time each player colonizes several dozens of planets, researches up to 156 technologies, builds several hundreds of capital ships, several (tens of) thousands of support ships, and fights hundreds of battles. Now look at Galciv and tell me where the game with 100 available planets and 4 players is at the second year of the game?

2) the "timer" system where each player has only a few minutes avalable to do his turn would help a bit to speed-up the game, but would IMO completely negate the "sit and think" essence of the TBS strategy game, and would reduce it to RTS style click-fest. I don't play TBS games to have a click-fest. I play games when I have free time, and simply dislike to be dependant of the free time of the others to have fun. For me it was almost too much of a burden to coordinate our actions over IRC in one large Stars! game. The only limit I want to see it a TB strategy game is the date to which my turn has to be done. Yes, PBEM game.

3) each MP game needs to deal with the upleasant part of it: player drops, old grudges, flame wars, cheats. For that a developer needs LOTS of additional code. With lots I mean the amount that can be compared with the code of the game. And the development here NEVER ends, because if it would end, there will always be players that will exploit known bugs to win. And that simply kills the MP part of game for any larger community, because nobody will be ready to invest dozens of free hours into the game just to have his fun ruined by a dirty cheater. Stardock has some experience in that field, but I'm affraid we'll just need to wait for GalCiv-3 to see MP introduced into the game. If you don't have the needed patience for that, I'd say you're in te wrong game genre.

BR, Iztok

You already got what you paid for. They did the work, they got the reward. The don't owe you a damn thing.

MP would suck. SP gamers are a huge market. All online opinions are skewed towards MP because a lot of SP gamers don't get online. We're still here though, and we're not going anywhere. Don't ruin the game by adding MP now.

My friends and I have no problem playing Turnbased Multiplayer. First off it is more challanging than single play because lets face it the AI in all games to date suck. And personally I really only play with stangers online very rarly unless it is an MMO or FPS. Most of my multiplay will be with friends or Solo play with multipile empires which I love to do a lot in most of the TBS games I have.
And yes I do agree that they should not take out ANY single player aspects to fit MP. The only thing I ask of the gaming company is to put in a Simultaneous play option so that I can still work on my empire while everyone else is still working on there turn (similar to what Age of Wonders Shadow Magic had. If I wanted a fast stratagy game then I would play RTS.
Now I do not play nor will I ever play a Play by mail game (I don't see the point) but they should have that option for those who like it (AGE of Wonders had this option too.)
Now to make myself clear, what I DO NOT WANT is for a game to be stripped down to make room for Multiplayer. When this happens then for me the game is no longer the game I like to play. I think the reason that the gaming company has this flawed logic is because of the fast paced RTS people who I think ruin the who stratagy genra for the rest of us.

Why do you have to take away from the single player game to add multiplayer. I don't understand what all you people who prefer single player to multiplayer have against it. Why when the multiplayer option is selected won't the game just use the lowered game play options if that would have to be the case and when you don't choose multiplayer the game just opperates like it does now or maybe an expanded version of it that adds to the single player game a little but doesn't take anything away.

To me if I was making a game, mind you I'm not a programmer and don't know everything that has to go into it, and maybe that adds a lot of extra work, but anyways to continue. I would put in multiplayer if it could be done without takeing away from the single player expeirance so there for I'm not hurting the great game that it already is but, I would be adding an aspect to the game that some players long for with the multiplayer option. I think multiplayer could bring an aspect to the game that could be enjoyable if done correctly and with the depth of this game could make that difficult.

That is why I think we haven't seen it already.