Lets debate adding Multiplayer to GalCiv

from Stardock Forums
Glancing through the forum I could only find a few references to it. Most seem to treat the idea with disdain. Like allowing more players to play at once could be a bad/evil thing that could destroy the game. Ok so i exaggerate. But so do some of you.

I dont see how adding a multiplayer option to the game over online or hotseat style would have any negative repercussions to single player playing.

Anyone wish to debate this? I think it could add value to the game. Players could cooperate to try to vanquish a particularly tough AI opponent. Or they can play against each other manipulating the AI to attack there human opponents. Winning would be when you defeat the other player even if AI are still around and even more powerful then you.

Sure it would add nothing to single player games but its not like multiplayer is so incompatible with any game like this.

If you do make it multiplayer my idea is that when others are taking there turn in a online multiplayer you could be allowed to set paths production etc so you can be almost ready to go when there done with there moves. This would reduce the amount of time it takes for turns to go by.
2,408 views 78 replies
Reply #1 from Stardock Forums Top
There's no point to debate because it's been said there will NOT be multiplayer. It was designed from the start as a singleplayer only game.
Reply #2 from Stardock Forums Top
Well even if it was designed from the start as a single player game how does that preclude adding multiplayer features?

Civ 2 was single player till multiplayer was added in gold and that worked out fine.
Star Control: Origins
Reply #3 from Stardock Forums Top
I believe Multiplayer has its merits, but doesn't it usually take like 10 years to work the bugs out of multiplayer in games like this?

My friends/brother complain constantly that GalCiv, the game I've become obsessed with (due to the style but also the ease of adding content), isn't multiplayer and to that I shrug. Not that I wouldn't like to see it being multiplayer, but I'm perfectly contented with it in sole singleplayer. Usually when I play a multiplayer game I'm continiously bailing out my friends anyhow whether it be Tech, Cash or Militarily. So I'm sort of sitting on the fence

~SDC~
Reply #4 from Stardock Forums Top
The only multiplayer player I would go for as far as a TBS type game is concerned is hotseat or PBEM (play by email). Given the shear size of a game and the time it takes to do a game properly, I can't see doing online coding. They tried this for CIV3 and it has mostly turned a 4X game into a military conquest only wargame, which is not the original idea of the civ series.

I did have a couple of good PBEM games of CIV3 going until they hit a crash bug. So now my only PBEM game is computerised War in Europe.

~SDC~
Reply #5 from Stardock Forums Top
This game would be too slow to play with another person. And you would have to stick to small galaxies unless there's some sort of save function. I vote no on making a single player game multiplayer.
Reply #6 from Stardock Forums Top
I don't think there is anything wrong with wanting multiplayer - but the most important factor to take into account is limited developer resources. Stardock are a small company (I assume) and at the moment those resources are allocated to enhancing the single player game. I for one hope that is where the focus remains.
If they could clone Brad, Cari and co and send them off to work on a multiplayer version then that would be another matter.
But remember clones are almost always chaotically evil - so who knows what damage they could reap. The evil Brad could even replace the good Brad without our knowledge. He could then come on here and start abusing users and claiming he had a Ph.D. from a reputable distance learning college.
No - the path to multiplayer is fraught with danger and uncertainty. Best we stick to single player enhancements which are safe and full of toasty-goodness.
Reply #7 from Stardock Forums Top
whether it is good or bad (I say good) we will only have single player. Brad has said that there will never be multiplayer. This gives them more time to program other aspects of the game; give us a better AI, tweak diplomacy, etc.
Reply #8 from Stardock Forums Top
It seems that whenever a new game comes out, if it doesn't have multiplayer options, it gets dinged in its final score for that. And games that have limited multiplayer (like "only" deathmatch, or "only" co-op), gets negative marks for not being creative. Not every game on the market needs to be multiplayer.



~SDC~
Reply #9 from Stardock Forums Top
Leave it as single player. I've yet to ever finish a multiplayer TBS game, whether it's 4x like MOO2 or Stars! or purely war like Empire was.

I'd rather Frogboy take the time and effort it would take to make it multiplayer and apply it to fixing the bugs and stregthening the AI.
Reply #10 from Stardock Forums Top
i'd like to see at least a hotseat function myself. it wouldn't be that hard an that way you can play again with your friend or whoever
Reply #11 from Stardock Forums Top
Any programmer effort used to add multiplayer to the game will take away time that could be used to improve the single-player game.

So, I disagree with you. Adding multiplayer to the game will hurt single-player.

Reply #12 from Stardock Forums Top
A game that tries to be everything for everybody by incorporating every cool feature and idea ever dreamed up will fail. Focusing on the single-player experience was a very smart move.

There is of course nothing to say that Stardock shouldn't now move on to create a *separate* game with focus on multi-player. Personally I'd love to see what Brad could achieve with a PC version of Eldritch, a PBEM game inspired by Master of Magic.
Reply #13 from Stardock Forums Top
if they put in multiplayer, wouldn't that divide their time up with updates to the game/ai and patching the multiplayer function?

I think if they did put in multiplayer, ppl would then be complaining that Brad and Co. were not fixing/adding things to the game....

I would MUCH rather have great and consistent updates to a GREAT single player game, than to have multiplayer put in and cause more trouble/bugs...(AND to take up time fixing, than putting time into the single player game)
Reply #14 from Stardock Forums Top
It's like watching humans argue about what ducks should wear. No it's like watching gamers argue about whether GalCiv should be multiplayer or not. Oh it is that.

~SDC~
Reply #15 from Stardock Forums Top
What makes GalCiv stand out is the AI, which makes for a great SP experience. It's not as though the game design itself is so revolutionary as to make it any better or worse than the *many* 4X games that already have MP support and were generally designed to have such.

If you want to play a 4X game multiplayer it is unlikely that there is anything that is going to touch SMAC, which has been out for almost 5 years, since MP removes the need for AI, and that's SMAC's largest failing as a game.
Reply #16 from Stardock Forums Top
Only add multiplayer if it doesnt waste time which could be used to keep improving single player. Personally I never play multiplayer games :)
Reply #17 from Stardock Forums Top
Since they are doing an expansion pack (which I assume original GalCiv owners will be paying for)it should include multiplayer to make the additional purchase worthwhile. That's a different deal than altering the original GalCiv for multiplayer competition. With the games minimalist graphic approach most of the CPU load is AI, data transfer and load times would be low. Considering the game's simplistic combat model, emphasis on fun and quick turnrate, GalCiv cries out for a multiplayer mode with an online ladder. I haven't seen much in-game story geared to the Terrans that would prohibit making the games other races playable. On the other hand, if the expansion's free for GalCiv owners the large amount of work to code for multplay would then be asking a lot.
Reply #18 from Stardock Forums Top
Nope, Alltus, the expansion pack will be free. So stick to your last line. Galciv has the best AI ever, and that's what the devs wanted, resulting in NO MP. I think 99 % of the buyers are very happy with that.
Reply #19 from Stardock Forums Top
I am one of those buyers very happy that not even the barest *lipservice* is given to MP. I'm not against MP, but I think far too many games went into a downward spiral thanks to perfunctory SP to frame the real star (MP).

~SDC~
Reply #20 from Stardock Forums Top
That's terrific news, Freya! And I agree with your estimation of the quality of the AI - 100%. Thanks :D
Reply #21 from Stardock Forums Top
WHY have multi player? All you get is politics and egos and idiots who want to cheat. So WHY even do it? I've tried other multiplayer games and in the end, I always leave em cause I get upset/frustrated with the egos that turn up.
Reply #22 from Stardock Forums Top
It appears the flow is turning more towards individual competition rather then global success. That is all based on who you multi-play with. There is no reason a game like this couldn't go MP.

Would it take away from single player? Yes

Would it add a new dimension to the game? Yes

Will cheats be created? Yes (though i'm sure some already have been so ppl can score higher on MetaVerse)


The only thing bad about MP is mostly the fact that the game must declare a sole winner. This means military 90% of the time. The other 10% takes too long and rarely is accomplished. What's needed is a game where universal peace can be accomplished, or an allied win, or something.

Would I play Civ3, Moo2, or GalCiv in MP mode if I knew there was a joint win possibility? You're damn right I would. Human thought is unpredictable compared to computers, for better or worse. I would love to play a game with a co-op set to 1-2 levels of difficulty higher then I can handle in single player, just to see if WE can do it.

Maybe GalCiv will be that game, maybe the wait continues...but either way, Multi-player adds much more to any game. Besides, this isn't Counter-Strike or EverQuest, you can always simply play just the single player.

My stance: MP only if there's a co-op way to win.
Reply #23 from Stardock Forums Top
While I agree MP adds to games in general, I'm not sure that it adds to *all* games in general. From playing several games designed for SP only, MP-only, and MP/SP both, I tend to think that trying to do both tends to detract from one or the other.

~SDC~
Reply #24 from Stardock Forums Top
There won't be multiplayer in GalCiv.
Reply #25 from Stardock Forums Top
It shouldn't take away from single player enhancement if it was placed as a low priority. But it should at least be on the list.

Coop and peaceful ways to win could be combined with MP and should be combined with it.