OT, galactic civ II

[OG_Gleep]

A couple questions for GC2 owners.

I have been playing around with the ship builder, and am having problems trying to figure out ways to hide the "Engine" part of the different extras. The aqua blue area on the rear of the component.

I was working on the Terran cargo ship, the long one, and was trying to fill the middle area to make it look like a regular ship and due to the amount of "dots" was having a hellof a time.

Anyhow, normally with the large components that have "engine" graphics at the end don't have "dots" in those areas.

Any techniques you guys have picked up for solving this?

[Cainehill]

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.

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.

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.

For a SP game, this doesn't matter - players can attempt to win from a near-untenable situation, or they can start another game. Similarly, they can restart if their starting position is too advantageous. But the luck factor that is fine for a SP game, is horrible for an MP game where you want things balanced between the players. And toning down the random luck for MP, leaves more of a bland SP game.

IMO, better to do one or the other really really well. Dom2 (and presumably Dom3) does MP awesomely, even if there's perhaps a little too much luck involved, so I can understand if SP is ... a little lacking for many of us.

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. Just a shame I don't think he can improve the rock/paper/scissors simplicity of the tech trees and combat.

[alexti]

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. Just a shame I don't think he can improve the rock/paper/scissors simplicity of the tech trees and combat.

I think those are the things which prevent GC2 from being a great game But then, if more complex tech tree and combat orders were in the game, AI would probably have a lot of trouble dealing with it...

[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

[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?

[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.

[NTJedi]

Graeme Dice said:

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

I didn't say Stardock... I said BRAD who was one of the developers of Gal_Civ_2. Within his topic "Galactic Civilizations: The case for no multiplayer" he explains he has worked on "a lot of multiplayer games" and even lists some of them.

[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.