I have tried to find this but:
a- there is nothing about it.
or
b- i'm blind (or need to put on the glasses). In which case i would like a link and/or quote.
Ok, so there is multiplayer. So maybe some kind of PBEM (spelling?). What about Hotseat? Not sure about how does the battle exactly work so not sure if it could be possible afar from "auto-resolve" realm. I still remember fondly the times when i could play Lords of the Realms or Heroes of Might and Magic II in Hotseat mode with my friends...
I'm all for PPEM and Hot seat, hell at this point I don't care if I have to whip out the punch cards I just want to play!
Sammual
I haven't seen anything about ahotseat option either. But it is a turn based game so why not? I doubt it would be very hard to implement. And yeah, that brings back some very fond memories of hotseating HoMM, though I played HoMM 3 the most but HoMM 2 had WARLOCKS!!!!
Hotseat, yee!
I think this should be an option. And I think there should be duel-screen options (like 1 screen = 1 player, other = other player) and have some actualy fun cinematic views for the 2nd player to watch durring battles and stuff
Also, there should be hotseat online play.
thats my 2 cents
I have totally forgotten about this for Elemental. I rarelly get someone to play with, but I like it a lot when I get. I really like games that can have and have this option.
I'm really old in Internet years (just turned 44), but doesn't hotseat = only have one, non-networked PC to play on? I mean how is the seat hot unless someone else's butt was there right up until yours was?
I still have no idea if I'll want to do much with multiplayer anything, but hotseat vs. online seems like asyncrhonous vs. synchronous to me, and I'm really hoping that if the game has to pick favorites across a division like that, then the asynchronous multiplayer people will be the winners.
Maybe it means two people playing on the same computer can both play online with other people, as well?
I'm completely the other way around. Synchronous multiplayer >> asynchronous multiplayer. For one, it gets rid of the turn order advantages/disadvantages, and more importantly it makes games go SO much faster, especially as you include more people in the game (synchronous is about x times faster than asynchronous, where x = number of players). As far as I'm concerned, the only reason to include even the option for asynchronous multiplayer is so that hotseat would actually be possible. And if hotseat isn't important to very many people and balancing/designing the game with both modes in mind turns out to be painful, then I'd vote that they even drop hotseat.
As far as my memory serves, hotseat means two or more players using the same computer in a not online game. They could battle themselves or fight against each other (or suffer the usual friend that finds amusing to betray you in the worst possible moment...), but all the game would happen in one computer.
I suppose that Starcok's priorities are SP and MP, but it would be nice if they could devote some time for hotseat as long as pigeonpigeon conditions weren't meet.
The problem with everyone moving at the same time is that it's not a thinking game anymore. You're chasing your opponent down with a superior army that moves slower? No problem, just make sure you move before he does, problem solved!
I play TBS games for unrivaled strategy, when I want something fast I settle for RTS. It's a nice idea, but I still haven't seen an implementation that solves the speed clicking idiocy.
That isn't how synchronous turns works. Or at least, not when it's done well. If you've played civ IV or HoMM V multiplayer then you probably have played with synchronous turns. All it means is that the actions of all the players are resolved simultaneously, at the end of each turn. I don't know exactly how it all works behind the scenes, but I've never encountered a resolution that made me yell at the computer in frustration.
But how does it work when two opponents are trying to attack each other? wouldn't they just go back and forth over and over again?
No. Like I said, I don't know exactly how things are resolved behind the scenes. But if two people both try to attack each other, and they are in range, then they will fight. If one tries to attack the other, and the other moves, it's more complicated but still works well. For example if one runs and the other chases, I think the final position of each is determined and if the runner ist still ahead of the chaser, then no battle. However if the chaser is capable of overtaking the runner, then you have a battle! (vague Tweedle-dee and Tweedle-dum reference, anybody?)
Yeah, but I was taling about two guys, with the same speed moving towards each other, when the turn ends and they move they will just end up changing places???
No, that's my point. They don't switch places. If two armies with the same speed (and are within range of each other) are moving towards one another, then they will fight. Like I said I don't know how it's resolved behind-the-scenes, all I know is that it works.
I certainly hope there is hotseat. I like to be able to play with my kids or wife or friends on the same computer.
Age of Wonders uses a synchronous & asynchronous option. You can only play hotseat with the 'classic' turn order set, when playing single player you can use the simultaneous turn order, which essentially speeds things up. The computer usually decides what to do before I do, but occasionally I do move some guys first. You can run away with weaker armies by selecting them and moving before the computer in this case.
I don't know what games you've played that have it, but like that, Civ4 worketh not. Maybe you're confusing lag with some complex system for resolving turns?
Movements are made in real time, he who clicks the fastest gets to decide how things work out. It's bloody irritating in the FFH mod. Radial damage spell spamming...
The only way you'd get something other than that is by two people moving at nearly the same time and having commands undo themselves because your move was late, but before it was triggered. I tried it out in Civ 4 an entire game before I got tired of trying to beat the AI to the punch line.
psychoak, was there no way in Civ 4 to have 'normal' turn processing (like I remember from Civs 1 & 2 & maybe 3)? I never bought it because my local 4X friends called it to task for being a lying resource hog that needed way more PC to run decently than the box claimed. I've been flirting with getting a copy now that I have an adequate Vista box, but I'd think my money wasted if I ended up forced into a click-speed fight with my own PC.
I guess it's been too long since I've played Civ IV in multiplayer, then... For some reason I don't remember ever having to try to move before the other players. Maybe it was so traumatic that I blocked it from my mind?
There is normal turn processing. I'm positive of that for singleplayer. Obviously my memory is fuzzy on the issue of multiplayer, but if it exists for single-player I'd imagine it must be an option for multiplayer.
would be nice for the return of hotseat into the gaming industry
yes online is a fantastic addition to the world of gaming but sometimes i don't want to play against someone miles and miles away, i want to challenge a friend in the same household...
Amen
back in the late 90s I feel like there were many hotseat games. HoMM, bugsey (that might be the wrong name), worms.... More games should have this option. Its one thing when its like an FPS or something that would make it crazy to try to hotseat. But turn based games like Settlers of catan (I'm lookin' at you Sea3D) and other such games should certainly have it.
Both Hotseat and PBEM options are musts for this sort of game, IMO. My wife, buddy and I spent many a fun night hot seating Reach for the Stars and Heroes of Might and Magic. The PBEM of Age of Wonders was a blast, despite the horrid AI that made automated battles such a crap shoot. I suppose we can all play together in the same space now with our laptops, but then I implore Stardock to build a Mac client as well. At least half the laptop users I know use Macs and from what I understand, Bootcamp won't be an option too much longer as Intel processors get phased out.
Stardock has stated that Elemental will be released for Windows, and Windows only. I'd love for them to release it for OS X, but it's not going to happen.
That said... where are you getting any information about intel processors getting phased out? I haven't heard anything about that, and I can't find anything about a phase out in a quick google search.
It was mentioned in a Mercury News article a month or so ago... sounded pretty fait accompli at the time. Sorry I don't have the time to look it up right now. It was an overview of Apple moves and was part of the story on their pull out from Mac World, I think.
I suppose the fact that moving to Intel processors was an actual user friendly move on Apple's part makes it easy for me to believe they'll discontinue it ASAP. I need a Unix laptop for work or I wouldn't own a Mac. Apple's got to be the least user firendly company I've ever encountered, outside of the phone "services", anyway.
That's the complete opposite of my experience with Apple. They have been by far the most friendly computer company I've ever dealt with.
But uh, you don't need a mac to run Unix... At all...
Edit: I humbly apologize for helping to derail yet another thread...
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
