You bought a game with developer support far beyond what most developers offer; people working for the company, including the owner and developer himself are active in the forums. There has been one excellent expansion pack, and there will be another.

The game that you bought additionally has no protection at except that you cannot update it without a serial number.

Why are you complaining? Would I like GalCivII to have multiplayer? Certainly -- I'm not sure I'd play it very often, but it would be nice.

But I see no reason to demand it and insult people with unpleasant remarks like a troll.

If the developers of the game have different priorities than you, too bad. If it bothers you so much that there is no multiplayer, then why on Earth did you buy the game?

If you bought the game and were aware that this feature was not present, you got your money's worth, and the developers owe nothing to you except technical support. If you didn't know that, I guess it's just too bad you didn't research the game before you bought it.

I don't mean to be defensive on someone else's behalf, but seriously, where do you get off giving Stardock advice on how to run their company and the costs of implementing a feature?

Really though, let's see your resume so that we can find what allows you to do this.

I remember playing multiplayer on MOO3. It was a nightmare. Its difficult to do multiplayer on a turn base game. A Galciv II multiplayer expansion may have to include some real time action.

I think it is because it is such a fun game that people want to take it futher with a multiplayer. We would not ask for expansions and multiplayer for a crap game now would we?

Stardock should feel some level of satisfaction that so many people love the game so much they are taking their time to come here calling fo a multiplayer!

I think an 'overwatch' mechanism would liven up a multiplayer and even non multiplayer games. Overwatch being a mechanism whereby off turn units are able to follow set orders and react to enemy ship movements using any unused movement points from their previous turn.

Ah, so these multiplayer threads are still active.

I think the main problem with multiplayer is that this is a TURN BASED STRATEGY GAME. It's easy to incorperate MP in an RTS game because each player's dicision is carried out immediatly after pushing the button. TBS carries out commands on a set time interval. in RTS, you can almost never issue a command at the exact same time as another player, and if you do, It normally wont matter because of how RTS works. In TBS, all the units move and carry out commands at the same time, and multiplayer would really screw things up...

I still want to have multiplayer, but I'm playing devil's advocate at the moment.

First of let me say I want Multiplayer. I'd like nothing more than to play this game with a bunch of friends, each playing out our empire and trying to one-up each other, or playing it on a tough difficulty level and try to survive.

However - OP, you come off like a real whiny brat.

At this point, we're exceedingly, exceedingly lucky Stardock hasn't caved in to whiny people like you and released a buggy, poorly-implemented multiplayer expansion for 20 bucks and said "THERE, IT'S OUT, SHUT UP." Because that's what it seems like you want when you say things like this.

Firstly - you're a spoiled insensitive jerk for saying that you "deserve" multiplayer because you bought the game. You bought the game that was in the box and nothing else. You didn't buy a support contract, you didn't buy stock in the company, you bought the game and the right to play it. The updates Stardock does release they do so because they are a good company, and because it's good business sense, but you are not in any way by your purchase of the game entitled to them - Stardock could have released the core game and no patches and you should count yourself lucky that they are a good company and not another EA Games out to suck your pocket dry for re-released iterations of old games every year.

Secondly - When GalCiv has multiplayer, I want it to be GOOD multiplayer, not a tacked on system to appease the loud whiny minority.

Lets take a look at three abilities and problems they have in mutliplayer -

Super Organzier - What does this do in games filled with players? Players aren't forced to go to war via SO. So we have a useless super ability. Or we make it work, and the players who don't want to fight simply make peace as soon as they can and there are no hostilities extra. This breaks in Multiplayer.

Super Diplomat - Again a totally useless super ability in multiplayer - how do you improve a human's want to trade with you? You don't.

Super Manipulator - Oh look, it's another disposition modifying ability, that doesn't work in multiplayer.

This is just a short look at three Super Abilities. There is so much more in this game that would need to be looked and to make a good, solid multiplayer experience - especially an experience that extends to more than just military dominance - where it's viable to go for tech and diplomacy and influence victories. That is something you can't just slap on and have it work in it's current form.

When multiplayer comes to GalCiv2, I want it to freaking work right and be as polished and good as their current game is - you're not going to get that by rushing them to it and acting like a jerk and like you have any clue how much work it would take.

PS: Regarding the Turn Based Strategy that is galciv, however - TBS games would work if you could load/save them. I've had some pretty epic, play on saturday for a few hours Civ IV games. You just have to get a group of people together, not some random guys off Gamespy. An application like Pitboss would be wonderful for GalCiv - it's sort of like a private server that allows everyone to log in and play thier turns, then wait for the next person - much like old PBEM chess games.

I'm glad somebody put things into the right terms.

Why should the year have anything to do with a game feature like multiplayer, some games just simply arent multiplayer i dont understand whats so hard to understand about that. This game would simply be nothing like it is if it was multi-player, its just the type of game it is. Its not a simple fps, damn.

see below post



I got that idea from a very old game called 'rifles'.
Also with the speed reductions of DA, this is laying some good ground work for helping a multiplay work better.

LOL! You are posting this on the forum of the game which has some of the best AI to date! Of course, AI can NEVER act truly to that of a human (at least not in this day and age), but to say that all AI in games sucks? That's completely wrong. The AI in this game is some of the best I've ever seen, and will probably see for some time! And they keep improving it! Heck, I've even seen it comment me on playing on an easier setting than the last game that certain civ was in! Put the game on Suicidal and watch as you get owned. I believe it's the same level as the AI on Tough but with a lot of bonuses. This AI thinks, plans, designs, trades, allies and kills all at the same time in ways I could personally not think of. So AI does not suck at all.

Back to the multiplayer argument. Why do a select few people ALWAYS say that multiplayer NEEDS to be in a game? Some games (like most FPS games and certain RPGs) work well with multiplayer in some form or other. That doesn't mean they have to include it in the game features though, whether it's the 21st century, 12th century or the 631st century. In some games (like this one) multiplayer just wouldn't work. The depth of the single player is extreme and it's the depth that makes this game so popular. Because its single-player is so popular and that multiplayer would not only be expensive to implement, but would require a redesign of the games core features and balance issues, which renders the multiplayer an unneccessary financial burden and a popularity fall as multiplayer would affect the singleplayer we all love too much.

Then instead they could release a 'no frills' multiplayer, and announce that they do not offer any support for it.... similar to the map editor they released for galciv1?

I think it is odd that so many think that multiplayer would hurt the game. First off Civ's multiplayer options are excellent and its a turn based game. Just look to that game for how to set it up.

As far as the game, I dont really see what is lost, infact they could be som many things gained. Would it not be neat to allow players to create custom factions and play together. Civ does not let you do that. All the customization that Galciv2 gives you, it would be the reward for playing the single player game. I have been hoping to play my friends who have this game for a long while now.

If you really hate multiplayer, hay dont use it. I understand there could be an additonal cost but its not as if we have not been willing to pay. Were on our second expansion and I am not complaining???

Hell I would love to see a tactical battle option where I could control the ships I created in battle like in Empire at war or the total war series but I am sure thats a pipe dream until Galciv 3 perhaps. Some people hate that and I can understand why but again it can be an option you could switch on or off.

I think theres pretty close to 0 people playing multi-player on that game. I couldnt imagine why.

My friends and I have a few slow motion hotseat multiplayer games going. Or did, before it became too much of a chore to continue them.

A multiplayer GalCiv 2 would become laborious, even with "simultaneous turns". Either you would be under a time limit or the game would devolve to the slowest player.

While a tiny map might work, other sizes of maps aren't going to be conducive, IMO, to a multiplayer experience.

It also is a matter of what you want out of the game. The majority of Gal Civ 2 players want a deep experience. They spend hours designing ships in the shipyard for the fun of it. Enjoying the flavor text. Those sorts of things get lost in a MP experience, which, tbs or rts, eventually becomes a slugfest.

The main effect that adding multiplayer to GalCiv2 would have is that the forums would be sullied by multiplayer munchkins bellowing at each other in leetspeak. No thanks.

Weren't there landslide polls on this already? The majority voted they don't care about multi-player.

I have been wondering why the people who scream for multiplayer haven t tried to come up with the buget for Stardock? If these people want it so badly why don't they pool their money to make their dream come true? lol

Well you bring up a good point.... Now anyone who knows the game 'Battlezone 2 combat commander' (my identity pic is from that game) will remember the big 'community project', which was a very large expansion for the game that was created by the players but conducted by the developers. Well the point is that as i am sure players will not be able to supply a budget to create a multiplayer, i am sure they could donate their time to create the multiplayer.

The only catch is that Stardock would need to release some of the source code as things move along and i do not think they would be willing to do that while the game series is still running strong commercially.

hmmmm.... the minorities yell the loudest.

Basic logic - People who want somthing usually ask, people who do not want somthing usually remain silent and then complain about the people who asked!

some more logic - when people want something, but know they might not get it... these are the people that scream.

Not really. The majority said that they wanted other issues addressed first, not that they didn't care about multiplayer.

That can be true! Or in relationships if the guy isn't getting somthing he want's... (if you know what i mean!) then he won't scream about it at all, he will quietly go and download porn!! lol

Oh-that's nice of you. In fact, the Gamespy is a good idea. But you are missing something. You're missing the fact that Stardock can't just open up a nice 'Galciv2editor.exe' and tick the multiplayer checkbox. And then spend 20 minutes resolving bugs. No. If multiplayer was introduced, that would take hours. Days-months! That time is currently being used to make individual tech trees. To fix this. To make that. To make Twilight of the Arnor! To make the AI the best little AI ever!! Unofficial poll: who wants multiplayer instead of that? -pause-

-pause-

Using my clairvoyant powers-and my knowledge of the people on this forum-I'd have to say: LANDSLIDE WIN-NO MULTIPLAYER!!

Not that I don't like multiplayer, but I'm not willing to sacrifice one-half again, a whole third, of the games budget for that.



Exactly. Speaking of which, here's my pet peeve: why don't they just put 100 processors in a computer! Gosh! If we can do 4, they must be able to do 1000! 100000! Millions! I mean, who cares about an extra $10! Sheesh!

Actually it is the fine tuning that takes all the time... so Stardock could release a 'no frills' multiplayer similarly to the map editor they released for Galciv1 without too much effort. And i know for a fact that cheat codes can be used to allow two or more human players in the 1 game, but only on the same computer. So a bare minimum would be to simply enable one or more of those already existing human players to connect from another machine. Any problems or bugs, who cares, its 'no frills'.

To All:

Before anyone says that the AI SUCKS lets see their high score in the Metaverse playing the Iconians on Suicidal as a Good(ethics) player.
.....Chirp....Chirp....

Next:
I HAVE been programming for 28 years. I worked on the SunOS 1.0 Version of TREK and Dungeon(sp?) as well as debugging the TCP/IP stack for BSD 4.2 and writing the first POSIX pThreads Net Daemon for OS/400 V3R1M0 using the CPA toolkit and the PRPQ C++ compiler in 1991. My code is used to distribute over 40K Class A Narcotics prescription orders a day, reconcile about 140 billion dollars a day in foreign wire transfers between the Federal Reserve and the national banks of China, Japan, India, Thailand, Taiwan and Singapore and maintain hourly weather statistics for over 100 million data points in the Pacific Northwest. I have also hand written Macro Assembler for VM and OS/390 to integrate CICS, MQ Series and Linux BSD Sockets Daemons.

IF you do not understand what I just wrote and can intelligently describe to me how Battle.Net works or who wrote it (I know the people personally), THEN you have absolutely no idea what is required to write such code well or the absolutely microscopic population of programmers on this earth that could write that code to Brad's standard of quality.

Finally:
Implementing Tactical Battles or Multiplayer would destroy the AI. The computational complexity of the nonlinear optimizations needed to make the AI the same level as it is now with those two ~(SIMPLE) additions is exponential. To put it in simple terms: you would need a two socket quad core system with 6-8 GB of memory running a 64 Bit FLAT (not segmented like Windows XP or Vista) address space just to get back to the SIMPLE AI level. To do Suicidal would require either massive AI cheats or a small (32-64 node)cluster of multiprocessor systems to satisfy the computational requirements the AI would have to not cheat.

Therefore:
I hope and pray to God that Brad continues to have the sense to NEVER EVER EVER implement these features into the only computer game that I now play. All of the rest, including CIV4, are bug infested piles of cow feces that got that way by poorly implementing multiplayer and/or tactical combat