I'll be blunt. I can understand the reasons for not including MP, based on time, budget, or a combination of the two. What is really, and I mean really rubbing me the wrong way is how the information regarding the complete removal of MP was just kind of dribbled out two days before beta. I would not have purchased Elemental without MP, and while that game was a bust I've been patiently waiting for a year as Stardock has stated they would like to make things right. It's not an issue of money for me, it's the fact that I feel that I've been strung along for years now.
If Fallen Enchantress was an attempt to "make things right" with the customer base, it has certainly had the opposite effect for me. I fully acknowledge that, as a TBS gamer who gets the most enjoyment from coop with friends, I'm in the minority. I get that. But I feel I've been lied to and strung along and it's left me more than a little pissed off.
I honestly and sincerely wish the people working on FE the utmost success, but I think I'm done with Stardock. I'm not going to do anything silly like a boycott, it's not that, it's just that I don't feel like I can trust a damn thing they say, so why bother following their game development?
Anyway, this isn't some righteous crusade or anything, I just wanted to make my voice heard. Don't worry, I'll let myself out and make sure the door doesn't collide with my backside. For the majority of people who were only interested in single player, I hope FE turns out to be everything you hoped!
FB said it is a major priority for Derek to add it to the game after release. That is pretty clear, but nothing is guaranteed.
Stardock, give us multi player.
Nobody needs complex server infrastructure with millions of lines of code for load balancing, or complex ranking systems. E:FE is not that kind of game. But the ability to enjoy cooperative campaigns with friends or quickly host a peer to peer game with buddies and spin a few turns is a must. One master server for game handshaking and rankings is more than enough.
A well balanced single player will lead to a balanced multi player while lessons learned in multi player balancing will help improve the single player. I paid 40$ for the game and I would gladly pay another 20$ for a multi player expansion pack. Heck, I would even buy the game for my friends who can't afford it, just for the possibility to re live the awesome moments we spent many years ago playing Heroes of Might and Magic III (WOG) or Sid Meyer's Alpha Centauri.
Whomever fails to see how multi player benefits ANY game, well let's just say those people need a lesson in reasonable imagination.
Until we get a server or whatever ... I think just enabling Play By Email and LAN games would be enough
(and I guess pier to pier, but I don't have a sailboat yet)
I never want to see MP is a 4X turn-based game. This kind of a slow build game is better suited for 1 player. Plus, those resources wasted on MP, could have gone to making the SP better.
That's my 3 cents.
This is the failing of a game studio in my eyes, multiplayer has been the backbone of the game industry for a long time, and in my eyes if a game does not have muliplayer, it is not a game, it is masturbation.
@admkiza
First, we talk about a genre here. We talk about a 4X Game. Not only that, we talk about a turnbased game. We don´t talk about MP overall. And here are some numbers from frogboy about your so called "backbone" for this genre.
Now, that said, someone asked for some numbers. Here are some facts that help provide some context to the discussion.
77% of the Demigod user base after its first year had never attempted to play a single multiplayer game. And that was a game designed as a multiplayer centric game. Chris Taylor and I double checked that number repeatedly because we were certain it had to be wrong. It wasn't.
Over 90% of the Sins of a Solar Empire user base at the time we were about to release Trinity had never attempted to play a single multiplayer game.
At GDC, friends of my from Firaxis told me that only around 4% of the Civilization IV user base had ever played a single MP game (not finished a game, simply tried it).
Fewer than 1% of the WOM user base attempted multiplayer. I don't mean played a game. I mean simply went to the MP lobby (it adds an active flag to your SD account if you simply went to the main MP screen).
Thats some cool numbers,
I am still trying to figure out what 4x means ...
But while I am here, I can understand why they might not go through the hazzle of making MP ready for the release (I think they will implement it if the game becomes successfull enough, I hope they release it just to please meeee).
I do still hope they will work on it before that so I can play with my mate in Coop, meaby even just consider a Hotseat function.
for Admkiza - I know they thought about how and why to implement Multiplayer, its just resource taking, and they want to use most of theyre resources improving other parts of the game, and will focus getting a "Complete" game before adding multiplayer, it would feel empty to rush out a multiplayer, then to realize they didnt have enough time to polish the "Real" game.
Sincerely~ Kongdej
One idea: how about kickstarting MP mode to see if it's profitable:
No idea how much it would cost to implement, but it folks raised say , what you traditionally raise as a percentage of the budget from pre-orders and a bit more on top, then you'd do it? Only incentive would be free copy of the game if you put in $20 or something.
@Kongdej
4X = eXplore, eXpand, eXploit, and eXterminate
Hmm well I am one of the people who did not play MP in wom and with a game like this and the pace i play at no harm done bring back dynasties though
Yeah sure kid most 4x players do not play MP.. why would you want to wait for everyone to finish their "turn" before acting again and when I play the game it is usually for 8+ hours in one sitting and then more when i can... trying to complete a MP game would be a pain in the A$$
I understand you totally, I have 1 friend where we usually do some "all night" playing similar games in a lan as coop, But the explanation I had from some random post...
Frog said they messed up some game code to be extraordinarily hard to implement in a multiplayer game, so they would try and look at the possibilities after release, Personally I would love the game even more if there was a lan support so I could play with a friend, but I will also have patience for them to fix up the game.
I ofcourse hope they will implement it as fast as possible, but also want them to make as great a game as possible, then releasing it so they know what kind of resources to put into the game's "aftermath".
+1
Interesting debate, but this is the year 2012 and any strategy game that really wants to hit the mainstream had best include multiplayer and co-op support. Even Total War finally clued in with their latest release and it is hard for me to imagine a quality strat game without such features. I like everything I have read about Elemental Fallen Enchantress and I respect that the devs are trying to fix the many things that went wrong with Elemental War and Magic. But if it is the all mighty dollar that has driven the devs to leave multiplayer out. Then it is my dollar that they will not be getting. I was literally hovering over clicking the pre-order button till realized I did not see anything about multiplayer. A quick forum search reveled this thread and there you have it.. another lost customer. I am not sure what the opposite of "cha-ching" is but imagine that sound every time another interested person discovers this fact.
For you guys that are satisfied fighting alone and against only computer AI's, I do sincerely hope that this game is everything that you want. But I will be holding out for a FULL campaign multiplayer/coop version before I spend my money on this game.
Thanks,
Devs from other companies have found clever solutions to these issues, i.e. Total War: Shogun and other true 4x games all have simultaneous turn options and time limits on turns. It works very well and is the new "thing" in strat/4x gaming it is honestly an "expected" feature. I am very disappointed to not see it in this game.
Lets yank this horse out of the grave and give it a couple more floggings, maybe it'll listen this time!! yee haw.
(no really, lets not have a big scope change this late in development to include fringe 4x gamers who threaten to boycott if the feature isn't there). I know, why not put a poll up. Choices could be:
1) I don't care about MP - continue as planned
2) I care about MP as long as I don't have to pay for it.
3) I care so much about MP that I'll pay for it in an expansion
4) If the game doesn't have MP I'll /ragequit on the forum, not buy it, and tell "all my friends" not to either.
I wouldn't use Shogun 2 as your prime example. Their multiplayer is horrendous it is the example I would use when trying to explain why a developer should not add multiplayer if they cannot do it well and don't plan on supporting it after release. Now, their real time tactical multiplayer is a totally different game added on top of the core TBS game. That part was supported after release, but was never well balanced and failed due to poor tactical control. Total War has never really developed an interface that allows for real time battles to function well. WoM has better multiplayer stability than Shogun 2.
I'm also interested in playing with Friends and a TCP/IP and LAN (to include Hot Seat) is all we need. My friends and I want the entire SP game in MP. So just open up the ability to play with MP....Don't do any balancing, Don't make the TC quicker, or have servers to log into (unless you want to.)
This would not take much at all away from the SP and with Hot seat allow the single player to play more than one Soverign at a Time. The more options the better and those who say tha TBS games should only be for single play ......ARE YOU SERIOUS? That is the most retarded thing I have ever heard.
TBS are perfect for MP, look at the boardgames that inspired the TBS genra they were Multiplayer. And no matter how good the AI is a Human is for the most part more challanging.
I have my doubts that FE will have MP which sucks but as long as it can be as fun as GALCIV2 )I use this game as oppose to others like AOW:SM or MOM and the like because it has no MP) then I will keep playing it.
Depends on the game. AOW:SM as well as others allow simultaneous game play so no your not waiting for a long time between turns unless you want to. And many have a turn timer if you wis to use it. So no in my experance it has not been a pain in the a$$.
But as I said it all depends on how they set up the game. And if you don't like MP then don't play MP.
Its more than that though. Since it's still in development if the devs came on and said "Oh hey, we're going to work on MP now" what are they sacrificing in order to bring that component in? Would have their time been better used in balancing? Adding to the AI's capabilities? Differentiating the factions? etc.
Simply put - there are some people who won't buy because it doesn't have multiplayer. However I think their bet is that an excellent game that does SP well will sell more than a mediocre game that you can play with your friends.
Ah I for got Shogun 2 MP campaign which is awsome. And I'm currently playing it now
Is it awesome? It desyncs every ten turns or so. To fix it you have to send your save file to your opponent via third party and then load the game again. In ten turns expect another desync. There is alot riding on FE and I would hate for the focus to be shifted to MP this late in the game and end up as terrible as Shogun 2. These MP ranters will not buy the game if there is no MP. If there is MP but the SP game lack depth and the MP functions poorly, these MP ranters will still no buy the game. The devs have said that they will add MP after they are sure the game is good. So at the very least, you all will be buying the game late I suppose.
It would be absolutely great to take a survey of all the users in this thread and then see when or if they buy the game after MP is added. My hypothesis is that 90% of these forum goers are trolls simply trying to push the MP agenda, with no real desire to buy FE. The other 10% probably already have it or will buy it after it gets great reviews.
Who wants next turn on this dead horse?
I do.
I can see a great many arguments for why FE will be hard and costly to implement as a competitive online multiplayer game. But to say that implementing a LAN COOP mode would take away such a significant amount of resources that the single player experience would suffer a lot is just ridiculous. It would be pretty much the exact same thing as single player except that the people cooperating are on one team and both have to click the "TURN" button before a turn is over.
(Yes, I do realize it would be a tad more complicated than that but my point is that it would be super straightforward to add LAN COOP.)
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
