Catering to Stats and Why This Can Be Flawed...

from GalCiv3 Forums

My argument against the whole more people play SP or more players play smaller maps or even most larger game maps never come to completion are the following...

  • More players play SP vs MP by 95% or more...
    • First off MP was very unstable at launch which turned people away from MP, it has gotten better but, haven't tried more than 2 player MP in a long time, that is were most of the stability issues were with 3 or 4 players.
    • Turn Times - At first the game hums along but, after the human players get going turn times start expanding quite rapidly causing one or more players sitting around doing nothing.
      • Fix add Turn timer - that way each player knows it will be their turn in no more than x minutes.
      • Fix add a sub game in the game that can keep the waiting player occupied while waiting such as
        • test battles against designed ships.
        • test layouts on a planet such as show me my planet and avail buildings let me see what it will be producing if all buildings were built in this layout or this layout ect...
        • Other mini games... (suggestions)
      • Fix add turn notification to all screens ect... (Diplomacy, Ship Designer, Planet, Star Base) Screens.
    • Add chat to diplomacy screen for two human players to chat in game vs having to go to Steam Chat.
  • More players play on smaller maps...
    • Smaller maps take far less time to complete, so I can play a tiny map 20 times in the time it takes me to play one gigantic map it doesn't mean that I'm playing the game less, in fact I could be spending more time in the game.
    • I only have an hour or two and I want to try a new strategy I'll fire up a quick game quick and test one and then go back to my larger game later.
  • Many players that start large map games don't complete them.
    • Bring back Ctrl+N
      • Bad starting location I'm going to be investing a month into this game I want to make sure it's going to play out okay, no Ctrl+N have to exit and restart.
      • Don't like my home world layout/bonus's need to restart no Ctrl+N
      • Bad Mercenary Selection no Ctrl+N
    • After Release Bugs caused many Large map/AI count games to go unfinished as they had stuck turn bug couldn't complete.
    • Mid-Late Game mop up.
      • The game can be challenging for most at various difficulty levels prior to turn 100, however, increasing this to the next difficulty level may prevent the player from even hitting turn 100.
      • After turn 100 the human player usually knows if they are going to win the game or loose.
      • After turn 200 many games that were challenging at start now is just me cleaning up the galaxy which is boring as nothing new when all AI are 1/10 of your power.
    • Updates...  
      • Updates are good, don't get me wrong but, if I want support I have to start over in the new version or support won't even look at my ticket.
      • If I want the new feature, I need to restart my game didn't finish.

Anyways these are my thoughts on these key points that seem to be catered to and why everyone should look at the whole picture not just a small portion of what the stats may indicate.  Additional thoughts, suggestions welcome...

68,429 views 11 replies
Reply #1 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

Well to be honest my main reason I play single player is because I can play the game when I want. I don't always have the internet, and most of my friends don't play games, or they play consoles. This is my logic for single player

Reply #2 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

Quoting admiralWillyWilber, reply 1

Well to be honest my main reason I play single player is because I can play the game when I want.

You can play MP and still play SP when you want, for instance, erischild and I have a set time each week to continue our game, so we meet up then, otherwise any other time I just play my SP game.

ObjectDock - Access shortcuts and frequently used applications from an animated dock.
Reply #3 from GalCiv3 Forums Top
  • First off MP was very unstable at launch which turned people away from MP, it has gotten better but, haven't tried more than 2 player MP in a long time, that is were most of the stability issues were with 3 or 4 players.

This is pretty much exactly what happened to my group. Three of us bought the game with the intention of playing MP but it didn't work and we couldn't use mods (which at the time were typically better than the base gameplay). We sort of moved on to other games and one friend has yet to come back at all while the other plays intermittently, but not enough to want to try a MP game.

So yes, I'd agree that in this case, it sort of created a self-fulfilling problem...no one played MP because the MP is substandard, not because they don't want to play MP. :)

Reply #4 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

I don't understand the point of this post.  What do you want us (players) or them (devs) to do with this information?  It's long and detailed, nicely organized too!  But what do we take away from this?

Reply #5 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

Quoting Badbonez, reply 4

I don't understand the point of this post.  What do you want us (players) or them (devs) to do with this information?  It's long and detailed, nicely organized too!  But what do we take away from this?

Adding to the points of why players don't play MP games and, why it's not necessarily an issue with want to play but, reasons of why this hasn't taken off and why players don't play this option and maybe suggestions on what would bring more players back into that option.

Looking at catering to small map sizes or quick games, when players do play long insane games but, not as many because those games take forever, doesn't mean that people don't play them just as much if not more total game time than people who play small, tiny games.  Trying to bring attention that these stats don't always paint a full picture and they need to look at everything that's going on with all players and not just a general look.

 

Reply #6 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

Quoting Seilore, reply 5


Looking at catering to small map sizes or quick games, when players do play long insane games but, not as many because those games take forever, doesn't mean that people don't play them just as much if not more total game time than people who play small, tiny games.  Trying to bring attention that these stats don't always paint a full picture and they need to look at everything that's going on with all players and not just a general look.

 

 

1.9 changed the map sizes, made them smaller with more stuff in them.  Is that what you have in mind?

Reply #7 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

Quoting Badbonez, reply 6

1.9 changed the map sizes, made them smaller with more stuff in them.  Is that what you have in mind?

Not specifically, Just a general post to bring attention that a lot of people may play those other ways and complete games or multiplayer games but, something is holding them back and that's why the stats don't show the whole picture.

Reply #8 from AshesoftheSingularity Forums Top

I made the maps smaller but with more stuff because I preferred it that way. 

But I am okay making the larger maps back to the way they were.  But medium and lower are going to go with the way I like it.

+1 Loading…
Reply #9 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

Quoting Frogboy, reply 8

I made the maps smaller but with more stuff because I preferred it that way. 

But I am okay making the larger maps back to the way they were.  But medium and lower are going to go with the way I like it.

Perfect, you're the boss.

Main point to the post was just to draw attention to the points of posts in the past that stated that most players don't play MP by a huge margin, play smaller maps, and don't complete large maps and, why players aren't playing with these options such as why players have tuned out MP because it can continue to be improved to better the play experience or, why players don't start as many Insane maps as Tiny maps and, last why Insane map games aren't being completed.  Sometimes it feels that these issues are being overlooked and, instead just looking at the overall stats and generalizing game play.

Reply #10 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

Quoting Frogboy, reply 8

I made the maps smaller but with more stuff because I preferred it that way. 

But I am okay making the larger maps back to the way they were.  But medium and lower are going to go with the way I like it.

I posted something similar in one of the many 1.9 threads but it just doesn't seem like there is 'more stuff' on the 1.9 maps (medium). The number of habitable planets you can get seems significantly lower.

I've started a handful of the 1.9 mediums and all followed the same path...a mad dash (using whatever exploits you can) to get a few colonies before all the real estate is taken and then it's pretty much the end of the 'eXplore and eXpand' phases (and this is VERY early in the game...before you can realistically even have viable warships, let alone the ability to invade). So the game feels very cramped and much like a 'deathmatch' rather than '4x'.

I personally like the idea of having more stuff in less area (cuts down on tedious movement and 'lawn-mowing' with explorers) but the current execution just doesn't seem to give that result. It just feels like short mad rush for very limited planets.

Reply #11 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

To answer what I believe the meaning of this post was that the numbers might be off on how many people would play insane if it were more stable, and multiplayer if it was more stable. With a better interface for managing an empire.

+1 Loading…