OT, galactic civ II

[NTJedi]

Cainehill said:

Heh. Another reason for there not being MP in GalCiv2 : starting position luck. Mind you, Dominions2 sometimes gives an unreasonable advantage as well ( 1 nation starts with no others within 7 or 8 provinces; everyone else has someone within 2 or 3, or is trapped on a peninsula, etc ). But Dom3 could fix that with either better random placement routines, or, worst case, people could hand-set the starting provinces.

Since multiplayer would be within an expansion... no reason the expansion can't provide the features you mentioned or even better balance features.

Cainehill said:
But GC2 : normally you start on a size 10 planet ( for those who haven't played, that means there's 10 habitable areas on the planet where something can be built ). But I've started on a size _19_ planet : imagine how great a technological or manufacturing capitol there would be, multiplying 15 or so labs / factories. Similarly, having a 700% bonus site is amazing, or simply a couple of 300% ones.

The developers have made many multiplayer games in the past... I'm quite sure if multiplayer is added they will address balancing issues. It's not like this is there first game. SAME as what we see in AOW:SM... a starting town for all players is selected.

Cainehill said:
And, the placement of the stars and civilizations : because the stars are generated randomly, sometimes you have a great starting position, with 2 or 4 stars that you'll be able to grab the planets for quickly. Othertimes, you're on the lone planet in a corner - and someone else is between you and the other stars.

And sometimes in Dominions a player will find a magic site during turn_3 to recruit a free bane every turn or a magic site to recruit a free devil. The more complex a game the more difficult it will be to get balance.

Cainehill said: And toning down the random luck for MP, leaves more of a bland SP game.

Wrong... multiplayer and singleplayer games can have a completely different variable for random luck. No reason to change the whole game for one variable.

Cainehill said:
While GC2 wouldn't be as good for SP if it were changed for MP. Now all we need to do is wait for Brad Wardell to improve the AI a bit, improve the balancing.

I disagree... MP for GC2 is a feature which greatly increases replay value. Even those stone cold on singleplay only may one day have an opportunity to do multiplayer via Hotseat or PBEM.

Your biggest concern seems balance... considering BRAD has made mostly multiplayer games in the past I'm quite certain he'll be able to provide balance at least as equal as what we see in DOMINIONS.

[Gandalf Parker]

I disagree.
I think that solo play tends to be versus the computer. More random in maps, events, action results, etc. Multiplayers tend to prefer more fair maps and events etc etc. Developers tend to do a good job going one direction or the other but not both. A multiplayer game can have a decent soloplay attached to it. And a soloplay game could have a multiplayer element added to it. But in my opinion its not a minor thing to attempt. A game always ends up being one or the other decently.

For example, one of my favorite games is Master of Magic and I continually watch the efforts to create a new one but they always trash it by trying to make it multiplayer. On the other hand, VGA Planets is a great multiplayer game and Ive been faithfully watching for years while the developer tries to add soloplay to it.

Just my humble opinion
Gandalf Parker

[PrinzMegaherz]

Still, whats the point in creating such a godly ship designer while there is no way to show your custom ships to your friends?
I used it only for the first few games, and then I stopped because it's pointless. Now, if I could blast my roommates ships with my beautiful designed vessels, that would be a completely different story

[NTJedi]

Gandalf Parker said:
I disagree.
I think that solo play tends to be versus the computer. More random in maps, events, action results, etc. Multiplayers tend to prefer more fair maps and events etc etc. Developers tend to do a good job going one direction or the other but not both. A multiplayer game can have a decent soloplay attached to it. And a soloplay game could have a multiplayer element added to it. But in my opinion its not a minor thing to attempt. A game always ends up being one or the other decently.

........

Just my humble opinion
Gandalf Parker

Any great singleplayer game should always move towards adding multiplayer because that will increase gamers in the community, which increases word of mouth, which increases sales and this increases sequels. Not to mention the games increased replay value with multiplayer.
Considering the GAL_CIV_2 game already has a funky working hotseat it should be a minor thing to make hotseat and PBEM available.

[Endoperez]

NTJedi said:
Any great singleplayer game should always move towards adding multiplayer because that will increase gamers in the community, which increases word of mouth, which increases sales and this increases sequels. Not to mention the games increased replay value with multiplayer.
Considering the GAL_CIV_2 game already has a funky working hotseat it should be a minor thing to make hotseat and PBEM available.

Word of mouth can also be negative. A good SP game might be awful in MP, unless it was changed enough to become a totally different game. The original players will say it has changed too much and isn't fun any more, and new players will find it either bland (it does nothing new, because it copied other working MP games) or too wierd and strange (it is too different from other MP games and doesn't work, because it was originally meant for SP).

Some examples: Morrowind/Oblivion. They are SP games. The closest things in MP games are MMORPGs - very different. Then, there are the games like Solitaire, and e.g. roguelikes, where the player competes against himself, honing his skills in the game. Games in which one mistake can kill you COULD be made into MP games, in theory, but usually people prefer to die their own mistakes instead of higher-level players.
In some games, the ability to compare high scores is enough. What GalCiv might be able to do is to allow players to create race-templates. It won't be Spore-like dynamic and automatic, constant up/downloading, but it could give AI very weird and complicated ship designs.

[NTJedi]

Endoperez said:
Word of mouth can also be negative. A good SP game might be awful in MP, unless it was changed enough to become a totally different game.

Doesn't have to be totally different... take a look at CIV_4. Some changes yes, but definitely a much better game because of the multiplayer option. ( IMHO )

Endoperez said:
The original players will say it has changed too much and isn't fun any more, and new players will find it either bland (it does nothing new, because it copied other working MP games) or too wierd and strange (it is too different from other MP games and doesn't work, because it was originally meant for SP).

Any game which has a poorly designed multiplayer can ruin the multiplayer experience. The multiplayer game could be unbalanced, bugged, loss of features, etc., . Basically it comes down to if the developers are good enough to make the game good for multiplayer as well... I have faith Brad and his team can make it work.

Endoperez said:
Some examples: Morrowind/Oblivion. They are SP games. The closest things in MP games are MMORPGs - very different. Then, there are the games like Solitaire, and e.g. roguelikes, where the player competes against himself, honing his skills in the game. Games in which one mistake can kill you COULD be made into MP games, in theory, but usually people prefer to die their own mistakes instead of higher-level players.

Games such as Morrowind would be better if they had the 'option' for multiplayer. Much more interesting to work with a team of friends in completing a quest or test the builds of each character in a battle. No reason for the multiplayer to mean only PvP. Once the 'compete against myself' gets boring in singleplayer the multiplayer option opens the door for many new challenges such as:
Team doing a quest
Player vs. Player
Strong Player hunts weaker players
Team attacking a large group of enemies
Team hunting a computer monster
Team vs Team
Players able to trade items, money, services
the list goes on and on

Endoperez said:
In some games, the ability to compare high scores is enough. What GalCiv might be able to do is to allow players to create race-templates. It won't be Spore-like dynamic and automatic, constant up/downloading, but it could give AI very weird and complicated ship designs.

Ways of improving the AI are always great! Hopefully something will be introduced which will allow different AI personalities or designs which would also increase replay value.

[Endoperez]

NTJedi said:
Any game which has a poorly designed multiplayer can ruin the multiplayer experience. The multiplayer game could be unbalanced, bugged, loss of features, etc., . Basically it comes down to if the developers are good enough to make the game good for multiplayer as well... I have faith Brad and his team can make it work.

Thye could have done it, probably. But doing a good game takes more than just developers. It takes time. They don't have infinite time. I'm happy with their decision to make a great SP game. I'll probably buy it, and have a great time.

Games such as Morrowind would be better if they had the 'option' for multiplayer. Much more interesting to work with a team of friends in completing a quest or test the builds of each character in a battle. No reason for the multiplayer to mean only PvP. Once the 'compete against myself' gets boring in singleplayer the multiplayer option opens the door for many new challenges such as:
Team doing a quest
Player vs. Player
Strong Player hunts weaker players
Team attacking a large group of enemies
Team hunting a computer monster
Team vs Team
Players able to trade items, money, services
the list goes on and on

But also all the bad things that are seen in MMORPGs. Spamming, farming (not agriculture, but doing boring stuff to become a little more powerful), cheating, unfair trades, simpler quests, no really unique items, inability to solo the game, difficulties in finding people doing the same quest, quests becoming jokes because more experienced players of the team just run through the quest areas, do bare minimum needed, and come back with the reward (to become more powerful little faster), etc. This list also goes on and on. At beast, it could be like Diablo in hotseat. At worst, it would be like a MMORPG released 5 years ago, one that is barely played nowadays, and with servers only staying up for few years before the company puts them to better use.

I still say that it would have to be totally different game if it was developed for multiplayer. And being great might not be good enough. Take Allegiance as an example. 3d space flight battles, with fleets, with commanders, with AI miners players have to defend from opposing players, with big ships whose turrets have to be manned, etc. It flopped, servers went down, and only after lots of fan pleadnig Microsoft released the source for the game, or maybe just for the server program.

Ways of improving the AI are always great! Hopefully something will be introduced which will allow different AI personalities or designs which would also increase replay value.

I thought of the graphical designs in here. They make the game more interesting visually. Have you seen the Transformer-like robot ships? The various birds, dragons, scorpions, etc?

[Gandalf Parker]

Sorry. Im still not convinced of any of this. You kindof strike me as coming across like a lover of MP who looks at every SP game as though it would be better with MP attached to it. But you acknowledge that there are also some great only-MP games.

I on the other hand tend to look at only-MP games as being improved if they added SP. And I acknowledge some great SP games. But at least Im not so hooked that I would push adding SP too hard on some MP developer.

I think that the best in either grouping is written that way from the ground up and could only half-@$$ the other.

[NTJedi]

Endoperez said:
They could have done it, probably. But doing a good game takes more than just developers. It takes time. They don't have infinite time. I'm happy with their decision to make a great SP game. I'll probably buy it, and have a great time.

Only the developers know how much time is needed. Moving to a more balanced and stable multiplayer setup could be minor or major issue. Since a funky hotseat already works they mainly need to focus on balance and stability. Hopefully multiplayer is added so I can toss my money towards these developers.

Endoperez said:
But also all the bad things that are seen in MMORPGs. Spamming, farming (not agriculture, but doing boring stuff to become a little more powerful), cheating, unfair trades, simpler quests, no really unique items, inability to solo the game, difficulties in finding people doing the same quest, quests becoming jokes because more experienced players of the team just run through the quest areas, do bare minimum needed, and come back with the reward (to become more powerful little faster), etc. This list also goes on and on.

Seems like all the issues you listed are only problems for internet gamers.... so make the game LAN only and virtually all those problems vanish or become unimportant.

Endoperez said:
I still say that it would have to be totally different game if it was developed for multiplayer. And being great might not be good enough.

Gal_Civ_2 was at least moving towards multiplayer at one time since the game works a funky hotseat now. The multiplayer option is just another feature to add as part of an expansion. I'm completely confident Brad and his team can add a stable and balanced multiplayer for Gal_Civ_2. If your view is different that's fine.

Endoperez said:
Take Allegiance as an example. 3d space flight battles, with fleets, with commanders, with AI miners players have to defend from opposing players, with big ships whose turrets have to be manned, etc. It flopped, servers went down, and only after lots of fan pleadnig Microsoft released the source for the game, or maybe just for the server program.

Never played this game so I can't comment.

Endoperez said:
I thought of the graphical designs in here. They make the game more interesting visually. Have you seen the Transformer-like robot ships? The various birds, dragons, scorpions, etc?

I've seen a few... would be great to do a surprise attack with some of those designs against my relatives.

[Graeme Dice]

NTJedi said:
Your biggest concern seems balance... considering BRAD has made mostly multiplayer games in the past

I can't think of a single multiplayer game that Stardock has created. What are you talking about here?