Suggestions for Distant Worlds 2...

[Bingeling]

As far as I have experienced Eve (which is not at a very deep level), you control a single entity that may operate alone or alongside others. Others may decide to mess with you as you fool around alone, though. That is, the world moves forward and stuff happens that you are not directly involved in, but you control your ship alone, although you can coordinate it with friends and have multiplayer fun in lots of ways (including political). If you sit around and queue your training or whatever they called it, you may get shot down by npcs or other players, but you are still your own entity in a large galaxy. Just like in any other traditional real-time mmo.

I fail to see the comparable to a complex strategy game that require overview of many things at once. I do not control one ship, I control many fleets at once, while keeping an eye out for pirates popping into view, and sending the intelligence agent out on his next mission. All the while pondering whether I should build another fleet, and organize the 10 newly built ships into the fleets that needed reinforcements.

Star citizen will be a very straight forward multiplayer game when it comes to what kind of multiplayer it is, apart from being heavily instanced in a clever way and having skill based controls. I will play my guy walking around, getting into my ship, controlling the ship. Parking next to an asteroid and getting out for some eva fun to find the hidden whatever. I control myself, the ship is waiting for me (hopefully), and the world is moving along whatever I do. I go afk for 5 minutes, and it hurts noone but myself and possibly any player that I cooperate tightly with at the time. Because I will be a tiny entity in a large galaxy.

What should happen in a DW multiplayer while I afk 5 minutes? Should the game be dumbed down to make it controllable without pause? Would a 2 player multiplayer really be fun? How to scale the time spent waiting if there are 5 guys needing their small breaks? In DW you are not a ship captain that cruise around and sometimes hang around in a bar. You run one of a handful of empires that dominate the galaxy. If it is not to be a "who can click the fastest" game, how do you keep the game moving forward when there are multiple players, 3 front wars, war declarations, peace offers...?

As said above, I lack the imagination to see a way that the game could have a good multiplayer mode that does not require the game to change in ways that would make it less enjoyable or me.

Let the mmos be mmos, let star craft be multiplayer, and let distant worlds be a deep, single player galaxy simulation.

[Bingeling]

ORIGINAL: Retreat1970

There are lots of things that can be done within modest distances of the current product that would modernize and improve the game quite a lot.

That's what patches are for. I don't want to pay 50 bucks for a big patch disguised as DW2. Dw2 has to be more than tweaks and AI improvement. They can do that now.

As far as multiplayer goes, you're all just scared to play me lol. Actually I'd be scared to play you too lol. Games would be intense. You have to admit that.

You don't release patches that reimplement the game from scratch on a new engine. I do not know what DW2 will be, but if it at first glance looks like a slightly patched up version of DWU I will be very disappointed. But I will hopefully recognize a lot of the game content and ideas behind.

As for intense multiplayer, I dislike intense games. That is why I enjoy a nice, slow single player game like distant worlds. Drag the speed down with expensive research and avoid the too easy options, and have a long, slow game.

Do not for a moment believe that all here play the game the same way. I have played the game since vanilla, loved it since Return Of The Shakturi. And I have never, ever, fought the Shakturi.

[Retreat1970]

As I said before the point is moot anyways. This is all pure speculation. I enjoy the game as is. If it never changes I will be ok with that.

As for intense multiplayer, I dislike intense games. That is why I enjoy a nice, slow single player game like distant worlds.

No one is trying to take your game away. Just trying to add another way to play that's all.

[Raap]

The problem with multiplayer, for those of us who don't want/need it, is the spreading of development focus. Implementing multiplayer properly takes a lot of effort, effort that could otherwise be spent on improving other parts of the game. There's also the danger of neglecting to improve the AI challenge because of the "you can just play humans if you find it too easy" argument.

For me, the ideal and realistic sequel would just be the same essential game we have now, with slight improvements here and there, but built on top of a new future-safe game engine that runs better. I'd add more to the list, but in my experience sequels made on new engines rarely manage to add back all the features of the previous games, let alone add lots of new stuff.

[Retreat1970]

For me, the ideal and realistic sequel would just be the same essential game we have now, with slight improvements here and there, but built on top of a new future-safe game engine that runs better.

You don't ask for much, do you?

Again, I love the single player game. Wouldn't it be great, though, to play co-op with a friend against the AI? That would be awesome.

[Blabsawaw22]

Holy Moly.. why is everybody so scared that Multiplayer will somehow completely ruin this game!#??@

Looordy Lord people..

If you had played Beyond Sol, you can see Multiplayer can work very well with a space empire type of game. (granted Beyond Sol is nowhere near the scope of Distant Worlds, but you can see how multiplayer can be incorporated..)

Bingeling, great long description of games and the gameplay but one thing sticks out pretty big, - you seem to want to control everything manually and that's fine, but I thought one of the biggest things about Distant Worlds was it's "automation" and totally neglecting the fact that You simply can not watch over 10 fleets and Pirates and all the zillion things that happens in Distant Worlds.. The AI automation is a huge part of why this game is so great and that would be NO Different in Multiplayer setting.. the automation would be doing the same thing it does in a SinglePlayer game! no?

This next one is great,

those of us who don't want/need it, is the spreading of development focus. Implementing multiplayer properly takes a lot of effort, effort that could otherwise be spent on improving other parts of the game. There's also the danger of neglecting to improve the AI challenge because of the "you can just play humans if you find it too easy" argument.

hilarious man.. as if you've somehow forgot how right now Distant Worlds 1 doesn't have multiplayer and look at how much they still haven't improved the AI the way it should be (you can find posts here with very good explanations of how messed up the AI is now even latest patch.. and I'm playing now still experiencing major flaws..)

So in other words, that's on the programmers and yes of course it takes time and more effort, but it's certainly not the multiplayer Aspect right now causing distant worlds 1 to be flawed.. so... that's just on the developers saving money or just ... you call it..

[Osito]

ORIGINAL: Blabsawaw22

Holy Moly.. why is everybody so scared that Multiplayer will somehow completely ruin this game!#??@

Looordy Lord people..

If you had played Beyond Sol, you can see Multiplayer can work very well with a space empire type of game. (granted Beyond Sol is nowhere near the scope of Distant Worlds, but you can see how multiplayer can be incorporated..)

Bingeling, great long description of games and the gameplay but one thing sticks out pretty big, - you seem to want to control everything manually and that's fine, but I thought one of the biggest things about Distant Worlds was it's "automation" and totally neglecting the fact that You simply can not watch over 10 fleets and Pirates and all the zillion things that happens in Distant Worlds.. The AI automation is a huge part of why this game is so great and that would be NO Different in Multiplayer setting.. the automation would be doing the same thing it does in a SinglePlayer game! no?

This next one is great,

those of us who don't want/need it, is the spreading of development focus. Implementing multiplayer properly takes a lot of effort, effort that could otherwise be spent on improving other parts of the game. There's also the danger of neglecting to improve the AI challenge because of the "you can just play humans if you find it too easy" argument.

hilarious man.. as if you've somehow forgot how right now Distant Worlds 1 doesn't have multiplayer and look at how much they still haven't improved the AI the way it should be (you can find posts here with very good explanations of how messed up the AI is now even latest patch.. and I'm playing now still experiencing major flaws..)

So in other words, that's on the programmers and yes of course it takes time and more effort, but it's certainly not the multiplayer Aspect right now causing distant worlds 1 to be flawed.. so... that's just on the developers saving money or just ... you call it..

I doubt whether any of us is scared of multiplayer, in itself. What we fear is that the effort required to implement multiplayer would mean there are fewer resources devoted to the single player game (which for many of us, including me, is our primary interest in DW2). If it's really the case that MP can be implemented with little or no effect on SP (because Matrix have adequate resources to devote to each), then that's absolutely fine with me.

But if there's a choice, if they have to say do we devote these resources to improving SP, or instead do we devote them to MP, then, in my opinion, the choice is clear: single player all the way.

Osito

[Blabsawaw22]

Ok well Look, I want the SinglePlayer game to be good too remember! I'm playing it now!

I'm pretty sure Matrix will do whatever it takes for them to be profitable..(as does any company) and to be honest, adding a multiplayer aspect to this game will bring in a few more players and "cashflow" unless however it costs Matrix double to provide this "effort to implement" Multiplayer haha.

But whatever DW2 is I'm gonna play it.. whether singleplayer or Multiplayer..

[Chris21wen]

More race specific technology.   The empire policy screen for each race list preferred research and design that the AI uses.  I know some think AI design ships are rubbish but using the list in you own designs leads to a much more interesting game.  Hiding research and/or making it harder to research stuff that isn't on the list would stop the 'one suits all design' that currently exists.   This should not stop getting the tech through spying, nor acquiring it from space debris.

[aaatoysandmore]

ORIGINAL: Ranbir

Most things casualised rise up, yeah. But a lot of depth will be lost if it has to be balanced for multiplayer, a lot of the little parts that form a greater sum. I like that this is more of a galactic simulator and not a galactic strategy game. I'm sure Stellaris will fix that mp itch, but I really want DW to stay as the king of deep living galaxy simu-feels.

Sorry, but, Galactive Civilization II takes that honor. DW is a cute little 4x but it's hardly King material with all it's flaws.

[aaatoysandmore]

ORIGINAL: Chris H

More race specific technology.   The empire policy screen for each race list preferred research and design that the AI uses.  I know some think AI design ships are rubbish but using the list in you own designs leads to a much more interesting game.  Hiding research and/or making it harder to research stuff that isn't on the list would stop the 'one suits all design' that currently exists.   This should not stop getting the tech through spying, nor acquiring it from space debris.

The AI ship design is horrible. It makes "weak" combat strength ships that I can take over an redesign and make twice the power and more defense as well. It just uses the very basics and doesn't use the full amount of potential that is out there. If I relied on AI designed ships the hard difficulty would stomp my ass.

[Icemania]

Hey All:

Since these multiplayer debates often end up messy, just a friendly reminder to all to stay cool (not directed at anyone specifically).

Cheers,
Icemania

[Icemania]

ORIGINAL: aaatoysandmore
Sorry, but, Galactive Civilization II takes that honor. DW is a cute little 4x but it's hardly King material with all it's flaws.

The AI in Gal Civ II gave me nightmares. That said, the gameplay always felt a little bland.

Have you played Gal Civ III? It's improving but in some ways it's taken a big backwards step from Gal Civ 2. For example I just beat Godlike difficulty on a Huge map with 8 opponents in 53 turns (Alliance victory). Diplomacy needed work in DW1 (Hint Hint devs for DW2) but Gal Civ 3 diplomacy is the most easy to exploit system I can remember in a 4X game.

As for AI ship designs in DW, yeah I agree they are pretty ordinary, which is why I spent so much time modding them.

[btd64]

ORIGINAL: Icemania

Hey All:

Since these multiplayer debates often end up messy, just a friendly reminder to all to stay cool (not directed at anyone specifically).

Cheers,
Icemania

Thanks Ice. My blood Pressure was beginning to rise. "Cute little game". I'm not even going to say anymore....GP

[aaatoysandmore]

ORIGINAL: General Patton

ORIGINAL: Icemania

Hey All:

Since these multiplayer debates often end up messy, just a friendly reminder to all to stay cool (not directed at anyone specifically).

Cheers,
Icemania

Thanks Ice. My blood Pressure was beginning to rise. "Cute little game". I'm not even going to say anymore....GP

Yeah, about the same as this game being KING of the 4x's. I'm not even going to say anymore either.....[:'(]

[ASHBERY76]

ORIGINAL: aaatoysandmore



Sorry, but, Galactive Civilization II takes that honor. DW is a cute little 4x but it's hardly King material with all it's flaws.

Errr no.GC2 was never even better than Moo2.DW is a next generation 4X with Stellaris taking that model further.GC is a bland game with bland ideas.

[ASHBERY76]

ORIGINAL: Retreat1970

Multiplayer

/endthread

Fuck multiplayer.Listen to Brad Wardell's explorminate interview.Stardock spent a third of the games resources on MP and only one man and his dog played it.It is a massive resource hog that is better spent on the SP game.

[Retreat1970]

I was a big SE4 and SE5 player back in the day. There where quite a few cool ideas, but I suppose all 4x games have their bright spots. Lol I still have MoO on floppy somewhere. Anyways it's pointless to argue which game is best. I wouldn't mind seeing DW2 go into 3d. I don't know how it would work, but it would look good. Some sort of stellar manipulation would be interesting. Late game worm hole generators, star destruction, star creation (?), black hole generator. Just ideas.

I miss mines (explosive), and mine layers. Not sure how it would work in DW though. Shield depleters (only shields affected), terraforming, etc...

I haven't played GalCiv. Is it good? I don't mind trying it if it's worth it.

.Stardock spent a third of the games resources on MP and only one man and his dog played it.It is a massive resource hog that is better spent on the SP game.

Said by someone who won't multiplayer. I don't know why people are so against this. Look at the game right now. 100% dev time to single player and look at all the problems it still has.
This topic brings out something in people, like I somehow want to ruin your precious single player. Far from it.

[Blabsawaw22]

Said by someone who won't multiplayer. I don't know why people are so against this. Look at the game right now. 100% dev time to single player and look at all the problems it still has.

I'm so right with you.. this is what I'm saying all the time..

adding multiplayer would increase fan base and not change the "singleplayer" game..

If you are worried about effort put into multiplayer, that's sad, cause you would hope they strive to do their best anyway.. and as long as they make it modd-able.. wouldn't the fans just create things anyway?

I would hope adding resources to make a good game multiplayer wouldn't really affect the developers from making a great singleplayer game.. that's all we can hope..



I

[Kayoz]

ORIGINAL: Blabsawaw22
adding multiplayer would increase fan base and not change the "singleplayer" game..

Wrong.

An immense amount of time testing and balancing would be required. Matrix doesn't have an unlimited budget to make DW2. Other things would inevitably have to be sacrificed to include multiplayer.

ORIGINAL: Blabsawaw22
If you are worried about effort put into multiplayer, that's sad, cause you would hope they strive to do their best anyway.. and as long as they make it modd-able.. wouldn't the fans just create things anyway?

Modders can't fix a broken, crappy game. For example, look at NWN2 - despite the amount of modding one can do, it was still an abject failure. The game sucked, and never achieved the player base to make modding popular enough to address the game's problems.

Relying on modders to fill in for the shortcomings of the game's development is like relying on bankers to regulate themselves.

ORIGINAL: Blabsawaw22
I would hope adding resources to make a good game multiplayer wouldn't really affect the developers from making a great singleplayer game.. that's all we can hope..

I would hope that humanity comes together in a unified confederation, free of borders, hate and prejudice. I think I'm more likely to see what I want than you.

Developing a game to a budget is a zero-sum game. If you want to add somewhere, the resources ($$$) have to come from somewhere else. Add multiplayer, so the dev time, QA, game balance, etc - all has to come from somewhere. In the end, it's a business decision. Allocation of resources to maximize the return on investment. But the risk here is - release a rubbish game that even your most fanatical fan base hates, and you have a Daikatana on your hands.