Vote option for multiplayer

[NTJedi]

Dominions_2 and Dominions_3 has a much greater replay value for many of us because of the multiplayer option.
Currently rumors exist that Stardock will be developing the sequel for Masters of Magic. Their website has a Poll of whether or not Multiplayer should be added for their current game Galactic Civilizations 2. The importance here is that if enough people vote for a multiplayer expansion on Galactic Civilizations 2 it might give them enough incentive to actually make multiplayer available upon release when they develop Master of Magic 2.

So I encourage anyone interested in fantasy TBS games with multiplayer to vote.

[b] http://www.galciv2.com/

[Wish]

looks like the no's are way outweighing the yes's on that poll

They would be foolish to make a MoM 2 without multiplayer. Man I can't wait for MoM 2. Am I the only one that played the heck out of MoM to the oint where you had the spellbooks decoded so you could translate and know what spells you where getting from turn 1?

Was I the only one who designed mages specifically to teraform the north and south pole into livable terrain?

Or did everyone just make an unstoppable hero and finish up?

[Ironhawk]

Just put my vote in for MP!!

[Cainehill]

NTJedi said:
Dominions_2 and Dominions_3 has a much greater replay value for many of us because of the multiplayer option.
Currently rumors exist that Stardock will be developing the sequel for Masters of Magic. Their website has a Poll of whether or not Multiplayer should be added for their current game Galactic Civilizations 2. The importance here is that if enough people vote for a multiplayer expansion on Galactic Civilizations 2 it might give them enough incentive to actually make multiplayer available upon release when they develop Master of Magic 2.

So I encourage anyone interested in fantasy TBS games with multiplayer to vote.

First : The "rumor" about Stardock and Masters of Magic is several years old.

Second : Essentially every game Brad and Stardock has done, aside from the GalCiv games, _has_ been multiplayer. GalCiv is not because the level of ... detail expected from a MP game renders it too complicated for current technology to implement a decent (ie, non-cheating) AI.

Third : MoM and GalCiv2 are in ... completely different realms of gaming (one, you're managing a global empire and economy - the other, you were managing individual cities, troops, etc) -- what possible connection is there between the two?

Dalmation, I hope people voting for MP there have at _LEAST_ played galciv2 before voting, because otherwise it's uninformed blind people voting on the nature of the elephant. Sheesh!

It's extremely difficult to design a strategy game for good MP _and_ good SP gaming, unless you're talking something like ... checkers or chess, and as limited in scope and complexity as chess is, it took decades of communal effort before a computer could play chess decently.

Trying to do both usually results in at least one of the two modes having major suckage, and often _both_ modes do. Happily Illwinter has focused on MP - but that leaves a game that is profoundly unsatisfying for many people as a SP game.

Considering that Stardock probably _isnt_ doing MoM2, and that a vote for something in GalCiv2 probably _wouldn't_ influence their hypothetical plans for a MoM2, why not just bloody wait for a vote on MoM2 instead of screwing up a vote for Galciv2 itself?

[NTJedi]

Cainehill said:
First : The "rumor" about Stardock and Masters of Magic is several years old.

I recall reading one of their recent interviews which stated that after two expansions of Gal_Civ_2 they have plans to develop a fantasy title. Now even if they decide not to do Masters of Magic it's still a fantasy title.

Cainehill said:
Second : Essentially every game Brad and Stardock has done, aside from the GalCiv games, _has_ been multiplayer. GalCiv is not because the level of ... detail expected from a MP game renders it too complicated for current technology to implement a decent (ie, non-cheating) AI.

Wrong... the multiplayer option was pulled based on gamers which voted for ship customization over the multiplayer option. Multiplayer was considered for the game so much that the developers have posted an unofficial way to get a funky hotseat working.

Cainehill said:
Third : MoM and GalCiv2 are in ... completely different realms of gaming (one, you're managing a global empire and economy - the other, you were managing individual cities, troops, etc) -- what possible connection is there between the two?

The point here is that the original GalCiv had no multiplayer which developed the majority of its fans for the sequel to be singleplayer gamers. If Stardock examines the original MoM they will see no multiplayer existed and may decide it's best to take the same path.

Cainehill said:
It's extremely difficult to design a strategy game for good MP _and_ good SP gaming, ...

As I mentioned earlier the game ALREADY has a funky unofficial hotseat method working. I'm only saying it should be made available as an option for the gamers so they don't have to follow all the quirky steps to get it working.

Cainehill said:
Trying to do both usually results in at least one of the two modes having major suckage, and often _both_ modes do.

I can list many games which are great both SP and MP... Heroes_3 for starters. Just because a task is more difficult doesn't mean it shouldn't be done.

Cainehill said:
... why not just bloody wait for a vote on MoM2 instead of screwing up a vote for Galciv2 itself?

Everyone has their own opinion... mine and many others which have posted on the GalCiv2 forum have requested MP for the game. In my opinion and that of many others which posted on GalCiv2... MP would be a great feature.

[Cainehill]

NTJedi said:

I can list many games which are great both SP and MP... Heroes_3 for starters. Just because a task is more difficult doesn't mean it shouldn't be done.

Eh - since when did the HoMM series have _any_ effective AI? Simple player mode is campaigns, in which the only difficulty is caused by the computer having huge advantages over the human player, to the point that many scenarios essentially can't be beaten unless the human player follows one _exact_ path of buying city improvements, troops, grabbing resources, etc. Conversely, the "AI" has little or no AI : simply scripts for what it is going to do each turn, made possible by the fact that there's no randomness in the initial setup.

Similarly, after the original Warlords, despite much vaunted AI routines in the games, the AI really rotted - the only challenge was in fighting superior numbers every time, winning because the computer AI didn't know how to put together effective stacks.

And with RTS games, the computer AI tends to #1, cheat, #2, be much more capable of giving orders to every unit regardless of location on the map - it's a situation where computing brute force, rather than good AI, provides a challenge.

I'm waiting to hear a TBS that was good both in SP and MP, that didn't rely on scripted scenarios for the SP game (ie, Disciples, Age of Wizards(Wonders?), etc.

[NTJedi]

Cainehill said:

Eh - since when did the HoMM series have _any_ effective AI?

List any complex game and I can guarantee topics exist complaining about the AI. Even in the GalCiv_2 the weaker AI would trade money for less money... LOL
The AI in Gal Civ 2 has so many flaws that the gamers have even requested an option to turn off Tech Trading.

Cainehill said:
Simple player mode is campaigns, in which the only difficulty is caused by the computer having huge advantages over the human player, to the point that many scenarios essentially can't be beaten unless the human player follows one _exact_ path of buying city improvements, troops, grabbing resources, etc.

Now you're missing a big part of the SP mode in Heroes_3. The campaign editor... which allowed many unique campaigns to be made. These campaigns can be setup to be more challenging then just brute force... I can post a topic on the Heroes forums which will have many gamers listing campaigns which provide more than what you've listed. Heroes_3 is a successful SP and MP game.

Cainehill said:
Similarly, after the original Warlords, despite much vaunted AI routines in the games, the AI really rotted - the only challenge was in fighting superior numbers every time, winning because the computer AI didn't know how to put together effective stacks.

And with RTS games, the computer AI tends to #1, cheat, #2, be much more capable of giving orders to every unit regardless of location on the map - it's a situation where computing brute force, rather than good AI, provides a challenge.

Even games that focused on just SP have poor AI... as seen even with Gal Civ 2. One of the most advanced games with AI opponents is Civ_4... and even this has AI weaknesses.

Cainehill said:
I'm waiting to hear a TBS that was good both in SP and MP, that didn't rely on scripted scenarios for the SP game (ie, Disciples, Age of Wizards(Wonders?), etc.

Unfortunately no complex games provide a good AI... name a game and guaranteed topics on a forum exist listing AI weaknesses such as the AI trading money for less money. Currently the best AI opponents are even below average... some may seem smart at first but once the players discover their patterns the weaknesses soon appear as well. My theory is the next great AI will actually have to record the actions done by the human player and then merge the data with its own strategy or examine the data and develop a counter strategy... unfortunately I doubt we'll see this within our lifetime.

In any case since a funky workaround hotseat currently exists within Gal Civ 2... I don't see any reason the developers don't make this feature available.

** EDIT
complex games mean more complex than Chess or Chinese Checkers... basically games along the same design as Heroes 3 and beyond.