How will GalCiv react to the Moo3 delays?

[Ghostbear]

Hmmm

Originally posted by Alexfrog

There have been incredibly few multiplayer 4x type games, and that the kind I am most interested in....

That could be because 4X games are not well suited to MP. They are complex, and usually take a long time to play. Hopefully, no one wants them to dumb down MOO3 to suit the "one evening" model of MP games.

The big reason MOO3 is taking so long is they refuse to release a bad game....they had something near the beginning of 2002, and decided it sucked, so they totally redid everything....thus it is now "vaporware" lol. It'll be out in a month or two (Maybe even a couple weeks, if Gonegold.com is right!!!)

They had crash bugs and problems in multiplayer, so they have delayed the release for months until they get them right. I think the quality of MOO3 will be wonderful.

Of course, this is what they said, but I really have trouble believing that. If the only problem was MP, then why not release SP before Christmas then patch in MP in a few months. You simply can't convince me that the loss of XMas sales is going to have a MAJOR impact on the end sales numbers.

I don't think anyone would have NOT bought it if the MP was promised as a free patch.

But of course, I loved MOO1 and MOO2 and I WANT to belive MOO3 will rule... we'll see

I too hope MOO 3 is great. I no longer believe anything they (IG) says though. Too many half-truths. Also, they run their boards like a bunch of Nazis.

Not to my liking.

[Edan]

I also want MOO3 to be a good game. While I'm skeptical of it being everything they claim to want it to be, given QuickSilvers track record, I think it will probably be an enjoyable game. (fingers crossed, anyway)

[Asmodean]

But Alexfrog...you are missing the point: Galciv will have an AI that is so good, that you feel like you are playing a human oponent. So if you choose multiplayer only because AI's normally suck, then you should give Galciv a try.

Then of course there is the social aspect of multiplayer, but that is an entirely different matter.

Asmodean

[moomin]

Originally posted by Asmodean
Galciv will have an AI that is so good, that you feel like you are playing a human oponent.

Much as I'm looking forward to GalCiv, I'll believe that when I see it.

[NeOmega]

regarding the multiplayer....

I have played civ II and 3 mP now.

RTS are cool for MP
and FPS are cool for MP

but TBS is just too long. I think your resources are much better spent making an AI that will hand you a couple of toe tags and say "you'll need these", than on making a MP game few people will play ( GalCiv will not be able to compete with MoO3 in number of players online).

AI is probably the most important thing in this game.

However, I thnk a hotseat option couldn't hurt.

In fact, IMO, very TBS should have a hotseat, so it can be played like a board game.

[Alexfrog]

Originally posted by Asmodean
But Alexfrog...you are missing the point: Galciv will have an AI that is so good, that you feel like you are playing a human oponent....

ROFL!!! OMFG!!! mwahahaha............oh thats the funnies thing I have heard in a long, long time.

wait a minute, let me reread that and make sure what it said....

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOL!!!! Yeah, you said what I think you said!!!!!!!!!!! AI so good you think its a human, ROFLMAO!!!!!!!

I suppose it would pass the Turing test then? LOL! omg thats funny! And it would be a match for me without any cheats even after I had mastered the game.....

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!

oh that was a good one. I laughing so hard I'm almost in tears.

Originally posted by Asmodean
Then of course there is the social aspect of multiplayer, but that is an entirely different matter.

Thats 50% of it, of course......the other 50% is playing a hard challenging game in which is hard due to great play by both sides and not because of cheating or advantages given to an AI due to difficuty level.

AI that plays a 4x game liek a human........ROFL!!!!!!!!!! omg thats rich! youre a natural commedian!!

[Alexfrog]

I have played the following 4x TBS type games multiplayer:

MOO2 (a whole bunch...and then some more)
HOMM2 (a fair amount)
HOMM3 (even more)
Lords of the realm 2,
Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri,
The old space exploration/conquest game Spaceward Ho (heck, thats all we did for a year back in junior high....)

and more. Had their been multiplayer capability, I would have player MOO1, Civ1 and Master of Magic a bunch in multiplayer too.

These games usually take some time, though many of the homm games and MOO2 games took merely a few hours...playable in an evening.

MOO3 will be simultaneous turns, with timed turn limits, and a time limit on battles, so it wont take forever. Furthermore it gives small rewards for finishing your turn early, to encourage players to not waste time once they know what they want to do.

It should work well for MP. I plan to play MOO3 MP games in an evening, and it will provide both good competition once the AI gets boring and you want to test your cool strategy against another humans cool straegy, and will be social as well.

I spent about 8 years of my life playing Single Player TBS 4x games and wishing I could play multiplayer. THen they finally started coming out with multiplayer capacity in those games....
Thank GOD for MOO3!

If Galciv had MP, I would probably buy it too....but it dont, and they have no plans to do it, so I'm a MOO guy, and thats what I will remain.

[Alexfrog]

Originally posted by NeOmega
regarding the multiplayer....

I have played civ II and 3 mP now.

RTS are cool for MP
and FPS are cool for MP
but TBS is just too long.

No.... CIV games dont work well in multiplayer....

there are 4x games that are not the micromanagement nightmares that Civ is. These games work fine in MP. They are longer, yes, but not unbearably long....
I tried multiplayer Civ and multiplayer SMAC and they were lame.
But MOO2 MP with its simultaneous turns and less micromanagement was good.

And MOO2 had a lot more micromanaging than MOO1 did! Moo1 MP wouldve been even shorter.

MOO3 should have less microing than MOO2, so it should be great for MP.

[NeOmega]

yah but I suppose the whole reason I really enjoy TBS is I like the enourmous empires, long drawn out wars... etc.

[Alexfrog]

I hate huge empires and long drawn out wars...

I wish they would eliminate almost all microanagement, shrink the tech tree by over 50%, use smaller maps, and take only 2-3 hours for a game, so I could play good multiplayer

And I am NOT being sarcastic!

I am bored to death of games that take 20 hours to finish. I want to try a strategy, play it, and then play again! I have other stuff to do besides spend 20 hours on one game. It also the reason I dont like console RPGs as much anymore. They used to take 20 hours, back in the old NES days....now its 50 or 100. And most of the increase isnt in extra plot.....they just make it take FREAKING forever to load each battle with the stupid battle animations, and just generally waste a lot of your time.

This is especially important in games like MOO where race customization is possible....since then a large part of the strategy is in your custom race, and you need to play a lot to see which customizations were well and what doesnt!

sigh....

[WarpStorm]

Wow, Alexfrog it sounds like you just want an RTS rather than a TBS game. I'm with NeOmega on this one. I love the long drawn out strategies that take hours to pull off.

[Alexfrog]

no, I actually dislike RTS games.

I like TBS, I want to be able to think, and play a game not based on clicking-speed....

RTS games dont deserve the title "strategy", they are all about telling your people to do stuff as fast as you can, building new buildings and pumping out units as fast as you can, and sending them out to attack and controlling the battles, all at the same time.....they are "tactical" games, I think, ther is often battle tactics, but I wouldnt call them 'strategy' games.

I want to be able to think about my turn for a reasonable amount of time, but not excessive, decide on a course of action and implement it....fight battles while not having to worry about developing too (like in RTS), etc....

I just think they could shorten up the game a bit.

I like MOO and MOO2 because my SP games now take only 2-3 hours or so to play, and thats on large galaxy, impossible, max# computer players. That because they dont have as much micromanagement, and I know what I am doing so I can go fast, and I know how to win without having to go through the entire tech tree

[Draginol]

This discussion really highlights why it would be a good idea to wait for MOO3 to ship before releasing GalCiv.

MOO 3 gets an immense benefit of the doubt.

I've yet to play a turn based strategy game multiplayer that I enjoyed. HOMM3, Civ multiplayer, Civ 3 multiplayer, etc.

Even games that I thought would be fun multiplayer (Neverwinter Nights, that super hero game, etc.) turned out not to be terribly fun when played on-line.

In an RTS game where I can expect to be finished in 30 minutes, an hour tops, I can deal with quitters, dropped connections, abusive players, etc.

But in an in depth strategy game, especially a turn based one, it might take 20 minutes just to figure out that the other guy has no idea what he's doing.

I will be curious to see how they handle that in MOO3. Many MP people take for granted that most good multiplayer games allow you to crush a totally clueless online opponent in minutes. I'm not just talking "rushing" but being able to mount a light attack 10 minutes into the game. I don't see this really possible in a Civ-style game (or MOO style). So how do you prevent people from wasting time in imbalanced games?

That's what's nice about single player games. IF the AI has been done right, you can set up your challenge level and get an enjoyable experience out of it.

The GalCiv AI won't play like a human. It doesn't disconnect because "my dad needs to use the computer". It doesn't use some wacky cheese tactic to ruin the game. It doesn't spew "N000B!!!" onto your screen because you're taking your time to set up your strategy. It doesn't swear at you.

But what it does try to do is play intelligently. It doesn't get a bunch of "magic money" thrown at it so that it can overwhelm you with crude brute force. It plays by the same rules as the human. You whack its best star base and it's going to hurt it. You destabilize its planets and it's people will rebel if it doesn't react. It will try to escort its troops. Protect its bases. Stalk your transports. Create trade centers along an intelligent path. In short, it plays the game like a reasonably good human player would do.

And it can do that because instead of spending months of time working out multiplayer code, fighting cheese tactic holes in gameplay, simplifying the messaging to keep network traffic down, that time instead has been put into writing the AI.

I've spent the past decade making multiplayer games. I like multiplayer games. But I think the time is ripe for a strategy game to succeed because of its focus on the single player experience. I could be wrong of course.

[Alexfrog]

well, in MOO3 you can set a max time per turn so that the other player cant waste TOO much time, if you are playing more than 2 players, and someone drops, the AI will take over for them, so the rest of you can go on.

I plan to play a lot with people from the MOO forums that I know (not all the complainers and trollers on there, but the regulars), and we will know the game before we do MP...


according to the MOO3 betatesters, the AI is very good.

[Draginol]

Hopefully MOO3 will be great but I don't think most people have the luxury of playing against people on the forum. And I'd tend to hold judgement until it's been released.