Do you want hotseat mode for multiplayer

I don't even want multiplayer, let alone hotseat. 

What I WOULD like to see are lots of customization options so that our civilizations will be as unique as we want to make them.  Tons of XML will help in this regard I think, but more "in game" options would be nice.

I'm not multiplayer person (even PBEM) - you can't go through more than a decade of dialup without any collateral.

In this aspect hotseat was funny substitute to play with friends, at least I have good memories of hotseat in Heroes of Might and Magic 3, for example.

Do I want it? As long as other elements won't suffer from efforts spent on multiplayer, any form of. I do not despise multiplayer, but to spare feeling of one particular member of these boards, I just say I would prefer full ignorance of multiplayer in favour of deeper development of core features and polishing of singleplayer.

"Lots" of civilizations represent double-edged sword. Yes, I support "the more the merrier" approach, but I would prefer smaller, yet better developed content. Besides, how many difference those new many civilizations would have? Akin to SoaSE's loyalists/rebels? Each party went separated? IMHO it's hard to make truly unique ones, so I'd say we should have fewer well-designed civilizations with fine tuning.

Don't mind multiple leaders, with same notes I made above.

I support Wetballs on his statement over customizations.

No need to tell me, we are PC Master Race, not some filthy rebels from console outworlds.

I really don't care about hotseat, as it's a mode I would never use. Only being able to continue the game when someone can come over and trading places with the way turns tend to work in Galciv? Pass. PBEM or some other type of async play would get a lot more use from me.

I'd like a hotseat mode, a lot. I could play it with some friends of mine. Or I could use it to play a game where I controlled an alliance of several civilizations, or if I got really bored I could play one where I controlled all the civilizations all vying to conquer the galaxy.

Hotseat is a sure sale for me and a very probable sale for at least three of my friends, who would otherwise pass on this title on general principle. Call us old fogeys, but we like to get together, sit at the same computer and shoot the shit about stuff while people take their turns. It's not even that we get to do that as often as we'd like, but it's having the option that counts.

I would love hot seat personally I like to make a bunch of custom races from different Shows and movies and put their ships against each other. OR me and a bunch of friends get together and play the game instead of everyone having to lug a computer with them or have to have a separate lap top or internet we can just have a hotseat party.

I would use multiplayer but not hotseat.

I actually would support Tridus on PBEM, would be nice when job will scatter us around the globe again.

I have never used "hotseat" or any other form of multiplayer. The game descriptions of the MP for GC3 under the "games" tab above describes the MP for GC3 as being "asynchronous". So the question is: does hotseat allow asynchronous MP? A corollary question, if the answer to the first question is no, is: Isn't asynchronous MP better?

I don't care for hotseat mode, but I'd probably play a few asynchronous multiplayer games before reverting to single player mode.  To me, the multiplayer part is just a side item that won't have staying power.  

Single player mode should be good for a long time though.

Hotseat is a local form of multiplayer, where each player takes their turn playing the game on the same device. I don't know what StarDock means by asynchronous so I can't answer that.

Since the entire point of hotseat is that you only need one copy of the game to play it with several people (as they're all on the same system), why would three other people pass on it on "general principle"? I mean if it did have hotseat there's no reason for them to buy it anyway to play with you.

I don't know what Stardock has in mind specifically, but asynchronous multiplayer is any method where players don't have to be playing at the same time. Play By E-Mail (PBEM, mentioned earlier in the thread) is probably the oldest method for video games, with chess games by mail being older than that.

That works by me taking my turn whenever I want, then the game sending you an email saying it's your turn. At some point you take your turn, then the game sends me an email saying its my turn. This keeps going, with us taking our turns whenever we feel like it. Games last a VERY long time, but you can play with someone even if your schedules have no overlap whatsoever. Turn based games are well suited to it.

Civ IV & V have the Pitboss system to coordinate it. Pitboss is a server that sits somewhere and manages the game, letting players take their turns and optionally sending out notifications when it's your turn. You can play games with several players using this system.

Hotseat isn't asynchronous, as everyone has to be in the same location at more or less the same time. (Bathroom breaks don't disrupt other players of course.)

Hot seat is just a faster version of asynchronous played on the same machine. I've played PTO II hot seat where games took a couple weeks, even with the two players in the same room. That was on Super Nintendo, so PBEM was clearly out of the question. In fact, at one point we'd play two games at once - I do my turn on game 1 while my brother was doing his turn on game 2, then switch. THAT took a bit of mental agility to keep what you were doing in each game separate.

I could see a huge benefit to switching between the two modes in the same game, though. Start a game with several people playing hot seat; when the night ends you continue playing (at a much slower pace) over PBEM; then the next week or whatever when you get together again you could resume hot seat at the much faster pace.

It may not even take that much to program, if Stardock is using Steam to run whatever asynchronous mode they already have planned. Players may even be able to fake hot seat; have Player 1 do his turn, log out, have Player 2 log in to the system and do his turn, log out, have Player 3 log in and do his turn, etc. It would get tedious logging in and out all the time, but it could probably be done. But if Stardock adopted that sort of thing, addressing the log in/log out tedium could be a user interface issue rather than a program-a-whole-game-mode-from-scratch issue. It would require Steam to be in online mode to make it work, though, since you'd essentially be playing a PBEM system with every player using the same computer sequentially.

Hotseat is not asynchronous. We have to be playing at basically the same time, in the same location. We can't play hotseat if you're not at my house, and we can't realistically play it if I take my turn at 8am and you take your turn at 4:30pm.

Plus people are asking for it specifically to pay when their friends are over, all playing at the same time (taking turns). That's the opposite of asynchronous play.

Asynchronous can also be simultaneous play.  In that case, it can go much faster than hotseat.  Let's say there are 4 human players.  All players can take their turns at the same time and the game is resolved once all players have submitted their turns.  The wait time would be significantly reduced.

It would be a better way of playing IMO, especially if there was a "drop dead" timer that would resolve the turn after a set amount of time with the AI taking over for that player.  

Under certain circumstances we could. Well, not we specifically, but if you were to play a game with your wife it wouldn't be a barrier at all.

I think we're using different definitions of asynchronous and talking past each other. If you want simultaneous play such as Mottikhan is talking about, use that term. If you want time-delay tolerant gameplay, we'll have to come up with a term that fits that type of play. Sequential-turn, maybe.

That would work for things that don't actually need to involve other players or the AI, but for ship movement is something I for one have no desire to see in the game, and would simply abandon the game if it was included in the single player experience - and the effort needed to include both this and completely sequential turns would make them pretty much two separate games.

Introducing that level of uncertainty in the actual movement aspects of the game would certainly break the game to the point it couldn't be played. Who would want to play a game where *maybe* you get to colonize that planet, if someone else's ship doesn't come out of the fog and take it between the time you hit turn and your ship arrives? Or one where you *might* get to attack that Altarian fleet, if it doesn't move before you get there?

Allowing planet management, ship design, etc. "off-turn" would be fine. Your ships not moving immediately would suck beyond compare.

Before this gets into another heated discussion, let me say that my questions have been answered. I can see that each MP method has its own advantages and disadvantages and their own requirements.

Thanks for your explanations.

I could be wrong, I read that diagonally, if you know what I mean, but if I recall correctly, Nival is going to implement asynchronous MP in their upcoming Blitzkrieg 3. Meaning - player creates his "base" (similar to generic missions from earlier Blitzkriegs, this time user-generated (not sure about landscape, though)), then other players are trying to attack it and steal resources. After that, defending player will be able to watch recording of the session and analyze it, to improve defenses. Both defending and attacking players could be online at different times - hence all asynchronous name. So instead of pattern-based gameplay (I don't mean Starcraft, but older Blitzkriegs, where you know that on this hill you'll see tank, there in forest will be pillbox and trench, and there, near warehouse you'll find two armoured cars and AA cannon between those barrels and concertina wire. In theory, larger amount of players could provide more variants of tactics, and their constant flow due tool-vs-counter change.

I'm not sure how that could be implemented in GC3, unless players "invade" Stardock generated galaxy, fortify it, organize manufacturing flow, etc, and then let other people invade it, while AI is playing as defender. That, and certain holy RND could create endless flow of maps, altered by users basic actions.

Hotseat would make it worlds easier for me to be able to play a long game. Instead of having ass-hats drop out all the time I'll be able to make the chains just long enough for them to reach my computer.

I'll never touch it myself, but as long as a few people want it and Stardock can allocate some time to it without damaging other aspects of development, I'm all for it! More options are always better!

it already has a name. Asynchronous multiplayer is not a thing Stsrdock just invented. It's in lots of games already. We know what it looks like. 

If i can take my turn even if nobody else is currently around to play the game, it's probably asynchronous. If both of us have to be in the game at the same time, it's probably not. 

Look at it this way: an email conversation is asynchronous. We can talk to each other by reading and sending whenever we want, and I can send you a message even if you're not around to get it. A phone conversation is not. Even though only one of us can talk at any given moment (and be heard, no trying to shout each other down), both of us have to be on the phone at the same time For it to work. If you're not listening exactly when I'm talking, it doesn't work. 

Sequential turns are not the same thing, as that's used for a game where turns alternate between players, as opposed to simultaneous turns. In Shogun 2, when it's my turn nobody else can do anything. In Endless Space, it's everyone's turn at the same time. 

I also have two understandings of that definition. One I wouldn't want is real time stradegy where there is no turns where everything is timed instead. There may be a variation of this. The other I think is a good idea at least in multiplayer is where it is turn based where you end your turn when you are done except everyone takes their turn at the same time, and then the computer or server computes the values at the end of the turn. I like the second idea for multiplayer.

As far as single player I would rather take turns to play. I admit that you would have to be turn based to play hotseat. I really don't think that this would be a big deal to make this adjustmant difference between two kind of games civilization does it just fine.

I never even considered controlling multiple civs by myself in hotseat mode.  That might actually be sort of interesting. 

My main beef with multiplayer in a turn-based game like this, is that it seems like they would have to water things down to keep the game flowing.  I'd hate to lose any of the cool features we'd expect from a Galciv game, simply to accommodate multiplayer.

I agree don't change the mechanics for single player. Hotseat would work the same. I do think that taking terns simutaneously in multiplayer would work better. I think this is a reasonable tweaking not something serious.

O that really slow timing doesn't make sense in Hotseat because it is played on one computer. In the late game each human player takes about 20 minutes. In multiplauer you could allow the computer to play in away mode for players who have to step out of the game. I don't understand why this couldn't work in turn base.