Please Increase the Playerlimit in Galactic Conquest!

[Bossz]

I really hope it gets increased in a patch or expansion. 2 player limit is a bit too low, 4 players would be just perfect. Sure it could cause some problems but here are my ideas how to get a 2vs2(or bigger) GC mode working.

 

A) Both players do their own thing on the Galactic map. They share resources and planets but fight their own battles. You can't join your teammates battles and vice versa.

 

B) You both control things on the Galactic map and you also participate in the same battles so all battles will be 2vs2. When a battle starts your forces are split equally between the players.

 

C) Only the teamleader controls the galaxy but all the other players will join the battles and get equal amount of troops.

 

I personally think that B or C would be best choices.

 

---------------------------

 

Skirmish battles don't really interest me because we have all seen from the demo that they don't have the strategy of other similar games. I'm only interested in this game because of the Holy Trinity(Galaxy map, land battles and space battles all together). I really don't want to play just battles online because the galaxy part is very important and makes the game fun.

[Hobbie911]

Wait, so you can't play this game with more than 2 people? The only multiplayer options are 1v1? Please tell me that's not right...

[Hartmrolf]

You can play skirmishes with, i think 6, people, but galactic conquest (logically) with 2 people. You can probably also do illogical things like an imp allied with a reb, against two rebs, against two imps or something like that.

[Athanasios]

Max multiplayer players' slots for skirmish mode is 8, which stands for 4v4 if you want.

 

The full galactic game is only 1v1, if im not mistaken.

[Teradyn]

The main problem with more than 2 playing in galactic, is the fact that any battle that occurs freezes the galactic map, so you may be in your own corner of the galaxy, but you have to sit and watch all of these battles in their entirety without being involved.

 

The "B" option posed above would probably be the only way to do it, but will most likely never happen as the game engine is designed to have 2 only in the Galactic MP. You could have 2 people controlling 1 side in galactic mode and tactical kind of like (i think) Ages of Empires 2 having more than one player on a team. This is something that would have to be built into the multiplayer engine from the start.

[popcorn2008]

I like that only two players can play on the galatic conquest maps, as it feels more like one on one combat to me. The logistics of getting four players to work on the galatic conquest is enough to give anyone a serious migrain. If you have ever delved into programming, than this would be a serious sync-ing nightmare. Besides as Teradyn said, how would you handle battles with more than two players? Do the players not involved have to sit forever waiting for their ally to finish?

 

I like the way they did it.

[Admiral Sith]

ou can play skirmishes with, i think 6, people, but galactic conquest (logically) with 2 people. You can probably also do illogical things like an imp allied with a reb, against two rebs, against two imps or something like that.

 

Im pretty sure in one of the Interview that they said, that you could have a multiplayer GC. Where there are only two side but you can have multiple players controling each faction, with the resources and planets split between them.

[Athanasios]

The logistics of getting four players to work on the galatic conquest is enough to give anyone a serious migrain. If you have ever delved into programming, than this would be a serious sync-ing nightmare.

Well, that's why computer game companies try to hire very good programmers in all stages of a game developement. No customer out there cares how and what efforts were put for a game to be made; they just want to have the "best" game running smoothly.

 

It's marketting. We demand, they make what we demand (in very very few lines).

 

So, it would be nice even if 8 players (4v4) could play galactic conquest. Sure, it won't seem like star wars history (Rebellion VS Empire) with so many factions; yet, playing with allies is always something different than 1v1 or ffa games. Calling for help, finding selter to a well-defended ally planet, seeing your allies sending great and valuable forces to defend you or a critical planet etc give many "+" to a game.

[RC2080]

Back on topic.. I think it'd be cool if there was a cooperative galactic conquest mode.. 2 human players on one team versus the AI.. then you wouldn't have all the sync problems..

[Alex2000]

Galactic multiplayer with more than 2 people is a must! Any one of the ideas the first poster would work.

 

In fact why not expand that idea so that both sides have different co-op multiplayer set ups.

 

 

Idea:

 

For the EMPIRE: have the different players who control the empire called "Moffs" "Moffs" ! Each player "moff" or "Grand Moff" would have his own planets of influence that he controls. .

 

You could expand on that idea several different ways. For example you might have X number of resources from the planets that the Moth controls head back to Corasant for "redistribution" to the other Moths.

 

Another way might be to have one Moff have the ear of the Emperor. He might have special powers. He might be able to change that "redistrbution" rate. He might be the player to control Corasant with its income and a special "Home Fleet". He might be able control a special unit like Darth Vadar. But then person might change throughout the game. If another Imperial player manages to do something special, he might have the ear of the Emperor.

 

For the Rebels, you could have a similar system with players controlling different planets and sharing resources with rebel teammates. Or, Keeping in mind that the two sides also play differently in game, you could have something totally different. Perhaps they would just work together and share all units.

 

 

 

As for the problem with battles, there are two ways to fix it.

 

As the first poster suggested, one fix would be to have all players zoom in and take part in the battle.

 

Another would be to have time time not freeze, but to just move slowly. That way you could have a choice. If it is a small battle, with just a few units. You could choose to let your partner take care of it. While he takes care of it, you could take care of some micro management. (setting production of planets etc). Or even sent some back up to the battle. If it was a larger battle that might go on for a while, you could choose to join in.

 

 

Anyway, this is all about CHOICE. If you think you wouldnt like to play with more than 2 people in a match, then join only 2 player, 1 vs 1, matches.

 

But I think a lot of us would like to work with our friends against an AI rebel or Empire team, rather then against them. I know I would.

 

Alex

[Jabbas WhOr3]

2-2 galactic seems fair to me. Imagine more than two people fighting each other in say rome total war the two peeps could be like in a clan and just wipe the floor with you 2-1 odds.

[Warstomp]

Who knows mabye if they do a clone wars expansion we could have 4 but it would be kind of stupid seeing 2 clone armys.

[Alex2000]

It doesnt even have to be 2 on 2, it could even be 2 on AI as I talked about in my post above.

[Rok_stoned]

I like that only two players can play on the galatic conquest maps, as it feels more like one on one combat to me. The logistics of getting four players to work on the galatic conquest is enough to give anyone a serious migrain. If you have ever delved into programming, than this would be a serious sync-ing nightmare. Besides as Teradyn said, how would you handle battles with more than two players? Do the players not involved have to sit forever waiting for their ally to finish?

 

yeah; I have problems editing space invaders...

 

Any ways, Why would combat even need to stop/slow down? I mean with more people you could be organized and launch multi-pronged attacks or engage in a space battle AND a land battle at the SAME time on the SAME planet? Oh and you don't even have to have Imp only and Rebel only sides, often times people don't think outside the box in terms of the bed-partners scenarios can produce. In case you can't think of one heres a reason for Reb to be fighting with imps against Rebs and Imps: A sect of the Imperial guard rebels and joins the rebels (causing imps allied with rebels) and against them the Empire hires a band of Mercs (Rebels) to supplement their own task force (imps) in a campaign against the renegade Imperials.

[Teradyn]

This would be an even more drastic stretch of the game engine.

[Prime]

More than 1v1 would be an ugly mess logistically, IMO.

[brownassociate]

I think one of the only ways to solve this problem with logistics would be for a team of two to be able to control ANY unit, fleet, planet, etc. on his own side. You could have different colors for each player (just to differentiate who built what ships and took which planets, as well as to see which units they control in combat). Otherwise, it would be impossible to launch a simultaneous attack on an enemy planet unless both teammates moved their fleets at EXACTLY the same time, otherwise you have two planets going.

So in summary:

Galactic map: can move any ship on your own side, can only build things on planets your units take over (side with the most ground units left gets planet if attacked jointly, the other side's get put in space).

 

Oh, and I think it would be fun to have to watch every battle even though you arent a part of it, that way every player's screens switch/load at the same time. Plus, since you will be able to move around your allies ships, chances are you will ahve a fleet that consists of both your units, thus both are taking part in combat.