Hi, Big time Fan of Gal Civ 1 and 2! I never bought the expansions though, because there is no multiplayer component. I've always thought your polls are skewed because your polls are based off of people who play your game (people who are okay with only playing singleplayer), and not the audience you're missing out on because of not having multiplayer. People like me, who like your game, but just aren't that into it enough to visit your website and vote on your polls. Long story short, its like going to a republican rally, and taking a poll to see how many republicans are for the government taking more control over the citizen's private lives.
Anyways, because I'm a big fan of these games, I've thought a lot about how to implement multiplayer. The absolute BEST way, and the most streamlined way, would be to play turns without the entire 'party' being connected.
The reason why is because the hardest part about finishing these games, is its literally impossible to finish an entire game in one sitting (which im sure you are aware of). When you have more than 2 players in game, it becomes hard to sync 4 peoples schedule together, and you end up only being able to take less than a dozen turns a week. So to make it more practical, you need to reduce these barriers of multiplayer. And like I said before, the best way to do this, is to be able to take your turns without the entire 'party' connected to the game.
I played this Online Risk game, (its called Warfish, if you want an invite let me know) where you were able to take your turn, and it would pass on to the next player, and the next player and so forth. in a 4 player game, I was generally able to take 2 turns a day (Super casual). Once in the morning, and Once in the evening. Most of the time, more, and sometimes less. But generally it emails you when its your turn in a game, and it depends on how often you check your email. I would play 2 or 3 games simultaneously, and had a lot of fun.
So there is one other solution in practice, which is, everybody takes their turn at the same time. Which ends up being pretty fast, but you still end up having to wait one someone, feeling rushed. And in a 2 hour game timespan, you only ended up spending 40 of those minutes, actually taking your own turn, and 'having fun'. This solution offers the player to take his turn, and move on with his life. And comfortably wait for his friends to take their turn.
Hopefully I wasn't not obtuse in anyways, and my post was simple and clear. If you have any questions, please let me clarify. Either way, I'm really excited to play this game. I played BOTF with my friends a lot, so any multiplayer is a good multiplayer. But there ARE ways to improve on the time span it takes to play a multiplayer game for 4x's
EDIT: I do want to add that, this style of game will work if Stardock hosts the servers, Or if you give the ability for users to host their servers. Also, if you use HOTSEATS, with the advent of cloud drives, it would be cool of the gamedata was concise enough, you could play off of your clouddrive, and you could have 5 players using the same game data if they all had access to the same cloud drive.
Also, hotseat multiplayer would be great.
Asynchronous play is pretty much a no-brainer, isn't it?
You definitely won't have to finish a game in one sitting.
You say no brainer, but I haven't seen it done before in this type of game, where it would be ideal.
I don't particularly care HOW it is implemented... I just want it to be there!
It's already been announced that GalCiv 3 will have multiplayer. From the Feature List:
MultiplayerFor the first time, players can compete against each other in person and over the Internet in Galactic Civilizations III.
I'd be happy if it was as simple as Civilizations simultaneous turns (Humans take turns at the same time, then AI go sequentially).Of course a slight improvement to that is Civ 5's 'Hybrid turn mode' that was introduced in the Brave New World expansion.
Multiplayer simply has to be in there. I think the game is very similar to CIV5 and that implementation would work. Forgetting about the debacle that was SOTS2, the general concept of online multiplay in SOTS wasn't bad either and you would not necessarily have those lengthy real time space battles ... or maybe you would .....real time space combat anyone?
However, there are likely some aspects of the game that may not lend themselves to full online asynchonous multiplay ... like I am not going to sit around waiting for BOB to design his space ship that looks like a Cabbage Patch kid.... But perhaps aspects like Star Ship design, certainly a core aspect of the game, could be done using an offline application and than import designs into the active multiplayer game if they met all the research and any other requirements that get established for ship design.
Anyway, all I am looking for at this point prior to pulling out my wallet is Stardock to say ... "Of course it will be multiplayer!"
Look at my post above. They already confirmed multiplayer.
https://www.galciv3.com/game/gameplay/features
Hey it's just day one in the forum. I haven't even looked at anything yet ... Just saw Gal Civ III and got all giddy! Yep, multiplayer is in! Yea!
What you are describing resemble the 'play by e-mail' feature a lot of 4X TBS have. Is this what you were thinking of?
implement guilds/clans!
please define 'a lot' with sources
There is still going to be a 'single-player' option, right?
What it does not say is whether there is going to be co-op multiplayer. Looking through my Steam stats, I see Civ V on top of everything (with more than 3x the number of hours spend than any other game). And most of that time was spent in co-op play.
make stardock servers, but enable players to host their own with mods.
coop MP would be fantastic : can you imagine GHuman empire with admirals, ground generals, scientists etc....governors for parts fo galaxy?
Honestly, the barrier to multiplayer is the game completion time these turn based strategy games like to shoot for. WHY can't you design a game that's estimated to finish within 2 hours? Not every turn based strategy game has to be an epic.
My friends and I play a regular game of Civ V online. I really hope multiplayer works similar to that so we can easily transition. I think online multiplayer need to be optimized to minimize the amount of time I sit there waiting to take my turn. Civ V does this great with simultaneous turns.Also, a save feature is a must for multiplayer. It is unreasonable to expect marathon play sessions all the time.
I don't agree that asynchronous multi-month games are "the best way to implement multiplayer"
it's just not feasible for most people. it's good for those iPhone games which finish in a few days (e.g. chess with friends), but unless Stardock is making a mobile app for Gal Civ 3 with push notifications, I don't see many people actually finishing games like this. it would just take too long for a single game (many months or even years)
I agree with this
even civ 4 on quick (the only example of successful multiplayer in the turn-based 4X genre) took a bit too long at it's 3-4 hours per game and people ended up making silly rules to speed things up
I think it would be ideal to have your game last 1 - 2 months. Depending on how much you play. When your empire is going for 1 month, you become REALLY attached to your empire. Its yours, you dont make decisions lightly. I dont think you understand the feelings I'm talking about playing chess with friends, when I talk about how epic empire management will become over the course of a month long game.
I dont really want to argue the merits of playing a 4x game that lasts 2 hours. Gal Civ 3, is literally. The first game I've ever preordered.. EVER I'm really excited about Star Citizen, they had some great values on there, but I still didn't pre order the game. I really hope I'm not disappointed by buying a 4x game where the average game lasts 2 hours....
I think you could finish a game in less than a month on average, if you had asynchronous multiplayer, with synchronous turns as well. 4 or 5 turns a day, with 30 turns on a weekend? that would be, around 200 turns. Nothing wrong with those numbers.
With the exception of close friends, no one is going to play this game with you for 2 months. And even at that, how many games do you think you'll play? Probably 2 or 3 MAX. Most likely you'll just do it once and spend the rest of the time trying to plan a second game.
Multiplayer just isn't very practical over 2 hours. And honestly, if you need more time than that to figure out who is the better player, you're doing something wrong. Sure, if you want to just enjoy the experience and play your strategy game like you'd play an RPG, I get why'd you want a really long game. But that's what single player is for. Multiplayer is to test your ability. You're playing to win. I just hope they have two game modes: epic single player and then reasonable multiplayer.
I only ever see multiplayer 4X games as an option with friends. Random pick up games are never a thought that crosses my mind as they just don't suit.
I am so incredibly happy to hear that GalCiv3 will have multiplayer though, just for the option to play it with close friends.
The only way I'd want MP implemented is play by email. One turn every day or so works for me.
why not add all these ways of multiplayer? TO each his own...
Yes, I belive, lowering all the barriers to multiplayer, the better! Playing a game with friends is like 100x better, and anything to get friends to play with eachother is awesome
They have little choice now frankly, multi-player is an "expected" option in *most* of todays "epic" type games. The particular issue with GalCiv is its a Strategy Game that takes a good while to complete. For sure, turn down the size of the Universe, and that shortens game time - it also shortens enjoyment.
Its one of those topics that easy to wax eloquent about, but is a dog when deciding how to actually do it, and still keep faith with the Core Game.
The Classic multi-player issue is one where an individual sees there is likelihood they will lose, and does a runner. Ego - the scourge of the Universe.
I'm not into multi-player gaming with long-play Strategy Games, so its mere curiosity for me. I've no deep Philosophical reasons - its only a game after all. However, it will be interesting to see how Brad gets over the obvious issues with was is at its Core, a Long-Play Strategy Game.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
