Anyone know why it's taking so long? Thought it was supposed to be late last week? My friends and I are itching to play.
On a side note: Does the MP aspect of games like this increase the longevity?
I could be wrong, of course, and/or this could have been changed since I read this.
During the MP phase of beta MP had to be done thru their server (no LAN or players hosting), and for me syncing was so bad that after a few tries I gave up testing it (units would appear to move but not move, they'd 'skate' off the map, etc. -- truly untestable each time I tried). I never saw much to indicate my experiences were unique (again I could be wrong) so I'm wondering how good a test MP got.
Add to the above that many game features weren't present and/or have been greatly changed since the beta MP test, and I'm wondering how MP will work.
Given the crunch to get the game ready for release, and the above mentioned MP issues, my guess is that MP was in no condition for release, they didn't have time to work on it, and that's why it's not in now. Statements that it would be added 'next week' (ie -- this week) were likely made when the mindset was that the release was more successful than it now appears, and given the size of Boogie's list I'd be surprised to see MP implemented in the foreseeable future (please to prove me wrong! )
Personally I intend to wait and see what changes take place from SP to MP before I decide if I should be happy about the difference or not
MP was disabled entirely in the beta in beta 3 and never turned back on. Beta 2 didn't have most of the game systems in yet, so from the public testers MP was basically not tested at all.
TBH at this point none of the friends I wanted to play MP with are remotely interested anymore. They see Civ 5 on the horizon and assume that it's MP will work within a week of launch.
You are aware that Starcraft 2 has very different rules, units, etc. for single player vs. multiplayer right?
That is a ridiculous statement to make.
You can compare the campaign in Starcraft 2 to the campaign for EWOM, where they both differ greatly from the "usual" sandbox in EWOM or skirmishes in Starcraft 2. In Starcraft 2 at least, multiplayer plays exactly the same as a skirmish against the AI. This is what should be the case with EWOM. If in doubt to the popularity of certain aspects of the gameplay when in MP, just add an option to disable it. The default however, should remain consistent with the usual gameplay.
I hear people complaining that they promised multiplayer and didn't deliver...
Why aren't you complaining about they promised a GAME and DIDN'T deliver?
Don't understand this statement? Been playing the game for many hours a night since the Monday before release. Yes it has some bugs? Is it unplayable? No.
Is it a good strategy game? No. There have been countless threads discussing combat, magic, research, and other topics showing why this game is currently a joke. And it is awful after 100 turns due to slowdown.
The slow down doesn't seem to be an issue on my machine. And there have been a lot worse games made that won't give you a refund. Games like Dungeon Lords, Age of Conan, & Witcher just to name a few. With the patch tonight that will be two patches in as many weeks, I am sure glad I don't work for them. That is alot of late nights.
And yet there's still some people enjoying it anyway. "Good" is a subjective thing, and ultimately a playable game was delivered in one form or another.
"Multiplayer doesn't work" isn't. It's just a statement of fact. So they're not quite the same thing.
I can't remember ever encountering something quite like this for a box feature on a game that Brad said was "ready for release" before. It's rather disheartening.
I hate the witcher as well, I don't get why people like it. Age of Conan was another game that fooled some including me. I ultimately quit because it wasn't a deep game and combat wasn't very strategic (and I had one of the first epics on my server, sorry, had to brag about that sometime ).
Don't get me wrong though, I love Stardock's after release support. But that should be for new features and bugs, not to fix the entire game. That is what the beta was for. And even the beta shouldn't have to change so many systems so drastically. It's as if Stardock got caught up in features and just put a bunch of poorly made ones in.
What's that -- 'MPing'?
The game was too unstable for him to beta test, so he's just now starting to play. We each play SP while on voice comms, and I answer his basic questions (the game is much easier/funner to learn when someone can answer the basic questions and offer basic pointers), and we both compare notes/strategies/discoveries. It's kinda MP, and we've been having fun. We both like the game and hope that we'll have real MP in the not-too-distant future.
The second guy I bought the game for has been too busy since release, but hopefully he'll join us soon. There's a 4th who's got the game for MP, and if things continue to improve as they have been, a 5th will be made and offer he can't refuse...
Hopefully, after Civ5 loses a bit of it's shine/luster/newness, and Elemental's MP is in and stable, your friends will return.
Hmmm.... now I'm starting to wonder if Civ5 might lure away my buddies... Ack
LOL! You sir, have made my day!
Cheers,
V.
I was unaware til recently that Civ 5 will be very moddable(at least so the gamestop thing says, which is probably THE WORST spot to get information). If that's the case I'm shocked anyone would stay who is just a fan of TBS games. The only thing setting this really far apart is the environment, which really isn't too magical no matter how hard the title tries to make it seem so.
Civ 4 was pretty moddable as well as far as I remember. I don't know how easy it was, but I think some of the expansions came with some interesting mods that pretty much turned civ 4 into a completely different game.
Civ 4 was extremely moddable. You had simple mods in the form of XML (like Elemental has), things like map scripts in python (Elemental will apparently have python scripts at some point for mods, but not sure if that'll allow map generation), and massive changes using compiled C++ with the SDK.
The last one was harder to use, but opens up a ton of power.
The game is completely unbalaced (after 100 turns, I've checked the kingdoms and empires stats - it's weird that you can do that for all factions, without even meting them - and my numbers were astronomicaly superior), full of AI bugs (I've just played a game where an AI spent 100 turns standing still, the initial settlement only, no improvements and the faction leader motionless for 100 turns), full of implementation errors (absurd costs for some basic things in certain factions, and so on) and the lack of feedback during game leaves you without knowing whether something is working as it was suposed to work or not.
You can play that if you want, but don't say that this is a finished game.
civ 5 will not die down lol....and a pre review is out and its getting rave reviews...its going to destroy lives...im not going to be upset about the state of elemental because i will have that coming at the end of the month i can play that until this where i would like it to be ..i can understand the people angry about multiplayer these are things that could have been helped with a delay of release...but at the same time...i think if it goes in right now....you will be just as mad because of everything that is stripped out compared to playing against ai....so either way SD cant win with you about it.
I made an analogy about this very problem. Let's say you are playing a computer chess game. The AI can move it's pieces, turns work, the basic mechanics. But, the AI's tactic is just to move it's pieces to your side of the board. It won't try to take any of your pieces and will randomly pick a piece and move it forward. So, although one could argue "The game is playable", but after you realize the AI is not trying to win the game, how long can you play it?
I mean if you like to take elemental as a citybuilder sandbox game for now, yeah, and it's true that one can experiment and test the tech trees, differences between Kingdowm & Empire. But this is just that, experimentation/exploration.
I personally find it a little disapointing to invest hours in a large map game, to find that the AI horded crazy amounts of towns and armies, declares war on me, and well... just sits there. "waiting". Or worse, you mount a large invasion, take 1 town, 2 towns... and by the gods, the AI might not even "care".
So yeah, let's not be splitting hairs here. The game is "PLAYABLE" but in terms of the AI, there are some major issues at hand which could "arguably" make the game "unplayable" when taking into account certain factors.
Regards,
V
Then People would have been Mad because of the delay. I don't think they could win for losing on that.
"A game is only late until it ships."
Some people would have been annoyed by a delay, but when you come out and say "it's not in a state that meets our standards for quality, so we're going to delay it" you'll find most people are understanding. Hell, stuff like that tends to win you more customers because it just doesn't happen that often. (Blizzard's fanbase grew out of their willingness to delay and outright scrap projects that just weren't working out.)
Stardock is being very cryptic about multiplayer in this game. I think nobody has any idea when it will be in the game, how well it will work, or what features it will include. All I know for sure is it will definitely be different somehow.
Last week they said it would be available this week, and earlier this week the in-game message, when clicking multiplayer, said "Later this week." After the 1.07 update the in-game message says "We are looking for feedback on single-player before enabling multiplayer" (or something like that).
As Nick says, multiplayer worked very poorly during its brief test in the beta. Sounds like for those problems to be resolved, especially since the game is much more complex than it was back then, it will take a lot of work and a lot of time. Even then, since it wouldn't have been available to the public, there could be a ton more bugs that need to be sorted out once it is enabled.
What will the game even have in it when it is enabled? It probably won't have tactical battles. It probably won't have quests. The tech trees will be different, but who knows exactly how. There will be no tactical spells to research, and instead there will be equivalent spells put in their place.
I am content to wait, but I can't help be curious as to why Stardock is being so obscure about multiplayer.
Annoyingly they don't seem to be giving full refunds for the lack of multiplayer, citing that its not a technical issue. It IS a big technical issue. I paid 50 dollars so I could play some fun civ-like fantasy fun with my roommate. The store page said it had multiplayer. Yet here I am totally not playing multiplayer right now!
I'd be just as annoyed if the game didn't include include its other advertised features, such as intergrated editors or randomly generated worlds.
Why don't I deserve a full refund? I bought the game for its advertised multiplayer and it didn't have it. I'm not saying I wouldn't repurchase it later once it does have multiplayer, but I'm rapidly losing faith in stardock. It feels like their "Gamers Bill of Rights" was more a publicity stunt and that they don't really care about it at all.
Just to say, Frogboy have said, last week, that MP is ready to go. But team need a rest. So they will enable it this week. Which is obviously not the case.
I still do not get it. Why they are changing MP experience, from SP. Would not it be better, to release it with same things as SP has, to make sure it is working and then continue from there? Instead of changing rules even before people get the chance to decide what they want?
There is enough limitations already.
No random generated maps(seeds)
No Tactical battles
Different spells (If I understood properly in Master List thread)
Different Technology Trees
Limited Quests
And maybe others. It seems to me like a waste of time. Maybe you want to make it right stardock, and you try to bring us more balanced version of elemental. But this is going to take you, quiete long time. As single player has everything except any sense of balance.
If you read some of his earlier comments, he had a competitive focus for MP, and the changes were largely aimed at that. I honestly don't know *why* they went that way, as I don't see this as a competitively focused game (particularly not with random people). Playing with a group of friends and playing coop are the more likely scenarios IMO, and those don't require drastic changes from the single player game.
Maybe this will be re-evaluated after Brad's vacation when they decide how to proceed for the next 6 months.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
