I think, if there could just be a single player style co-op version, with all the features from single player just with more human players, and no other MP, it would be very much appreciated.  Also, if you had this feature it doesn't matter if people have to wait for their turn and for tactical battles to be fought, as all the humans would be on the same team and share comraderie.  Maybe the only difference would be that you could have an option for watching and chatting in allied battles, and everything else would be exactly the same as FE vanilla SP.  You wouldn't even need to have more than two sides in a battle, just being able to watch your fellow human's battle and coach would be enough I think.  And hopefully, with a sequential turn order co-op mode that is very similar to SP, it would not take too many extra resources.

I do hope it makes it in.

Best regards,
Steven.

That 1% figure is true for other games in the genre as well, not just EWOM.  The only one I've ever played MP was AOW2SM, and that was becaue the SP AI was non-existant.  Stardock games usually have at least somewhat of an AI.

It is the tactical AI that is bad, with proper planning on the part of map makers it can be very difficult to beat if you auto all the battles.

Most multiplayer is done as coop, which is best done via hotseat and LAN. I doubt anyone has numbers on how much those get used.

Oh dont give me that BS BoogieBac, you go ahead post up the numbers my friend. Which game, which platform?

Lets see, 7 of us purchased Elemental because it sounded and looked great. We all know the game didnt turn out anywhere near what it said it would, and Stardock was basically lowering expectations for things like mutiplayer before the game was even released.

CIV4 had a very large multiplayer community be it lan or online. Civ5s multiplayer doesnt work correctly which has led the game to being panned (along with its dumbed down approach). Civ5 is pretty though. Ya know what, none of us who purchased it play it anymore because its simply not very good.

Back to your game though, we bought it with the idea of playing multiplayer against the AI and each other. You throw out a number around 1% I call bull crap. Try sampling from games that are the same multiplayer as they are single player, and are stable. If companies didnt half ass multiplayer these days and it worked properly, im sure more people would play it.

Take the poll of players who PURCHASED elemental already on the forum and the number probably sits close to 45-50% would like elemental to have a proper working multiplayer option.

S.R.

Sword of the Stars?

The number is likely larger that 1% if you include coop that is like single player, but I doubt it is 45%.

How about the budget for competive MP that less than 1% are interested in (if there is still any budget for it)?

The competitive MP crowd has a shorter attention span (I am sure you noticed how short while playing Starcraft II) than the coop group, so if they are not into Elemental by now it is highly unlikely they ever will get into it. And judging by there only being 2 ranked players, they are not.

Its Multiplayer and Singleplayer are interchangable to the point people can drop in and out of the game and let the AI play for them while they are gone. (As the manual puts it, singleplayer is multiplayer is singleplayer).

Good incentive, but don't make SP-style co-op only for that reason.

Best regards,
Steven.

Yeah, totally agree. The MP mode worth investing in is the one that plays like the SP game and gets the benefit of new stuff you add to the SP game. It's not the one that wants to be Starcraft 2.

Competitive players have moved on, and they're not coming back (assuming they were ever here in the first place, which is something I seriously doubt).

See if they just came out and said hey look, we screwed the pouch on this game and we are making it right, we promise to make multiplayer later id be totally fine with it. Id just like them to stop beating around the bush.

I'm not even sure how to address the 1% remark. How does Stardock get those statistics? Do they count the number of game sales and compare them to the number of people who have logged into multiplayer? That's not an accurate sampling because it's counting the people who picked up the game, bought it, didn't enjoy it, and moved on with their lives. There are a lot of those.

Even so, the TBS multiplayer market is very real, but Stardock definitely isn't tapping into it. Poor MP performance killed interest. Disabling multiplayer for a time definitely killed a lot of interest. Direction from the top that it wasn't a key issue to them has killed interest. Lack of customer confidence in recommending the game to their friends has killed interest.

Capturing the market and increasing Stardocks' share requires bold moves, not passive dismissal of what should be a valuable asset.

Remember: the single player crowd has no need whatsoever of Impulse, outside of a store. The featureset being developed (communication, connecting users) and its competitiveness with Steam is contingent on people who actually want to play with other people.

I'm not critizing you, or Brad, or Stardock. I would like to see Stardock succeed for many reasons. If I didn't care, I wouldn't be posting here. What I'm typing is an honest opinion from a member of a demographic that would like to be included, but currently isn't.

Exactly.

Yes, good practice for developing Impulse as a whole.

 

Not including a good "multiple human sides allied against the AI" mode is just a self-fulfilling prophecy, like I mentioned in that other thread.

Best regards,
Steven.