What about multiplayer

1. Absolutely

2. Online multiplayer

3. Think of our planet Earth. The Empire controls Europe, America and Great Brittain while the Kingdom have Asia, the Middle east and eastern Europe. You choose a continent and get figting on one of the fronts. Depending on the map size you choose you fight in a different place if you choose a XL map then if you choose a S one. So choosing XL you will be put in an invasion force of an enemy capital city while if you choose a Small map you'll invade/defend a minor village.

Since I'm competive in nature, I'm gonna play online multiplayer on the very best S or M maps (lots of games on a few maps like the heavengames community do in Age of Wonders Shadow Magic).

I also want a regular multiplayer option. You know a skirmish mode, a multiplayer game that can be finished in a days time.

The persistent multiplayer is fairly unintresting to me. there is never a winner in such modes, and newcomers get a huge handicap.

I hope for a hotseat mode... Two players on one computer... That would be ideal for me...

1. I don't usually play TBS games multiplayer, but I do occasionally and I would definitely like the option. Even more so for this game than usual!
2. I want both, but if I had to choose I would choose online over email.
3. We haven't got many details about the persistent multiplayer feature at all... I don't know what they're planning for it. Campaigner's vision of what it will be is interesting, but really we don't know what it'll be like.

That's already confirmed.

1.  Yes, definitely multiplayer.

2.  Multiplayer would hopefully allow:  LAN games, Online games, Hotseat Mode and PBEM Mode

                 (Each of these would bring in a group of customers which might play only one type)

3.  My impression of this quote is that once you've won a game you can choose to have your the game map  EXPANDED  introducing new unexplored areas and new already developed enemies.  On the same note for online it will allow three or more completed games to be connected thus creating a new game.   {just my guess}

1.  I care about multiplayer because for so long I said "if only master of magic was remade with multiplayer.  You wouldn't even need to better the graphics"  and as a result, I'd be a hypocrit if I didn't 100% back the multiplayer aspects of this game.

2.   I like the options.   Play by e-mail, lan, and hotseat the most, since I perfer to play with people I know over random creepos on the net (I'm king creepo, so it sets a high expectation for other creepos to be as creepy and annoying as I probebly am, thus I avoid them).  

3.  sounds like somebody's been getting some positive feedback from Demigod, and are using the same basic concept on other IPs.

Frankly the quote probably isn't talking about 'multiplayer' at all, just multiverse style faction grinding.

That is what I'm thinking... which is pointless.  Persistent worlds seem over-hyped to me.  Never have I seen a turn based game with a persistent world that really added to the game.  In fact, I haven't seen any wargames where a persistent world has been implemented well.  For a campaign like setting, I think it is much better to have a strategic map, set sides and finite games.  I think the main reason is that players will gravitate to the side that is winning so the developers have to put in mechanisms/incentives to play for the losing side.  I also think it is hard to create meaningful goals and a sense of accomplishment that will hook players in a persistent world.  I'm not saying it can't be done, but I've never seen it done.  If any of you have successful examples, I'd be interested to check them out.

The other purpose of an online world might be to do faction grinding like you pointed out or to get a ranking on a ladder.  What these do is get people to find a way to cheat they system to get whatever reward may be offered for success. So... I guess my take on it is to forget the persisten world and spend the time making the game as good as can be unless there is some formula for success I'm missing.  All I really want is a great core game with solid multiplayer and everything that detracts from that should be cut.

Could someone give some detail on this "faction grinding" stuff?

My PC gaming interests are extremely narrow, so I've never cared about any online multiplayer and I don't do RTS on account of liking to think before I click. In some ways, the "persistent worlds" talk reads like marketing vapor-language to me, but when I think about Elemental as an effort to bring some 'RPG' attitude to the 4/5X TBS experience, I really wonder if the online side of Elemental might offer a TBS-RPG context that I might want to join as a regular player.

From my experience, I've seen some online games in the past have a strategic level map with multiple factions.  One was an RTS where you would go and fight battles across the strategic map and the faction that did best became owner of that region.  It was years ago, so don't ask me the game.  This might sound fun at first blush, but it results as follows:

1.  one faction dominates and players migrate to that faction so they can win too.  Game companies then have to offer incentives to play on the losing side

2. even if it is balanced, it is just a never ending gotcha game.  Take this provence here, lost this one there.... wash and repeat... and pointless

I've also seen games like Massive Assault Network that has player ratings (like chess) and statistics for battles on different maps.  The statistics are persistent and it can be fun to see yourself improve over time.  It is also good for choosing playing partners with similar skill.  It can be bad if your very good at the game because people won't want to play you and some top players may not want to play because the risk/benefit quotient is out of whack.  They did have a campaign run by players for a while where you did strategic acitons each turn and resolved the combats with the game.  It  was fun for a while but once problems crept up with the rules it sort of faded away.

I will most likely be in the minority, but I have zero desire for multiplayer.  This goes for ARPGs, RTS, TBS, FPS, etc...  If I want a multiplayer experience, I'll bring out a board game and my friends and I will all gather around the kitchen table with our beers, chips, and cigars or play an MMORPG.  But when I'm at home, and looking to play a satisfying stable and fun game (either console or PC), I want only single player games.

I deal with way too many people throughout the day, I dont want them intruding on my relaxation time (game playing time), nor do I want my experience to be dependant upon other people.

A couple factors drive me to multiplayer.  Firstly, AI is not  capable against human opponents especially in very complex games.  Giving the AI the ability to cheat may create a challenge, but it is a different expereience than playing a good human.  Even if you get good AI, it may kick your arse when you are new to a game and may provide a  liittle fun once you get good, but eventually it will become predictable and boring. Plus, there is something more fulfilling/fun about outplaying a human rather than an AI.

Secondly, I love to bust out my board games with human opponents but being married with kids really limits my gaming time.  So to have a turn in my inbox when I get free at night in a play by email game is very cool.

I agree with Silicor... there are several ways to play multiplayer as well which won't leave any one individual feeling bad.  For example all humans can play against allied AI opponents.  Another method is the game can be setup where it's three humans against one human player, thus the one human player already knows he's probably going to lose so there's no shame or embarrassment when it occurs as its almost expected.

well a tbs is different here. In an rts it is almost impossible to play 1vs3.

In  turn based games you start on different parts of the world, and you can rarely gang up on 1 single player in the game, because of distances in the early game.(late game you can, but a lot can happen by that time)

So a skilled player can still beat 3 players ganging up on 1 player.

You can do this both in master of magic, civilization series, age of wonders, etc  etc.

The reason for this is that early in the game, you are trying to get a foothold in the world, and the truly good players will get a much larger economy and military and techs by the time you meet.

As long as there are not huge penalties for beeing big, the skilled player will have a chance on 3vs1 vs less skilled players.

In  civilization series you can cut taxes to 0 once you face a enemy player and just focus hardcore on stealing techs and maintaining a huge army.(this is a cheesy move though, but with enough spies it works a bit too well)

and just how would the 3 players feel if they got beaten when playing 3vs1?

This depends on which RTS game... take Stronghold for example which allows the game speed adjustment literally taking the game into an almost turn based mode.  There are other RTS games as well where it's real time yet the movement on the main map is so slow there's rarely any panic / quick thinking moments.

Usually my friends and relatives will play a custom map where the one player is slightly stronger, but otherwise 3 verses 1 for a random map rarely provides a win when all players are of equal skill.

Considering the three players lost as a team it's much easier to lose because all of the blame doesn't fall on the shoulders of a single player.  When having a choice it's better to lose with multiple allies or to lose against multiple enemies as compared with the dreaded  ONE vs ONE  match.

I prefer online multiplayer but that requires streamlined gameplay without the fluff and micro nightmare. After all, the more time it takes to finish an online match, the less popular it is. Unfortunately, streamlined gameplay doesn't seem to be the focus of Elemental Well, i hope there will be some game modes catered to online multiplayer.

:yeahthat:

The vast majority of any game I play, even Demigod, is in single player and for reasons very similar to Wizaerd. However, I definitely want MP in Elemental because some epic empire games with my friends and brother would be awesome

One issue I'd like to bring is randomisation and fairness/balance. Cutthroat competitive multiplayer commuties generally use 'random' as a swearword. I have a different definition of fun, and it's strongly related to variety.

Cuttroat multiplayer gamers like everything to be as symmetric and balanced as possible, they keep complaining how unfair it is to lose because of some random event. They like symmetric starting locations, resource placement etc. True, it does result in more even ground, but it makes strategy memorisable. Schematic. It is common to see metagame evolve in such way that certain actions become no-brainers and other are never performed. I've grown to hate it.

Myself, I really really like extra variety and lots of randomisation, even in multiplayer. I don't mind that it increases the odds that you lose due to factors beyond your control. For me, the primary objective is fun, not victory. The process of playing a game, not so much the moment when I win. I won't endure an hour or more of repetition and boredom just to see 'You win'. Ultimately, luck runs away. Skill doesn't ! True strategist should be able to adapt and make the most of his situation. History wouldn't be nearly as fun to study if it happened on a tenis court !

I could envision a Free-4-All starting format and allow the players to create Alliances amongst similiar faction types.

Given a 3v3 Large map, 3 Empire players vs 3 Kingdom players, each starts on a random map spot, on their half of the map, North-South, East-West whatever, then all have at it. The destruction of a player by any other player provides the victor with some level of Bonuses, be it Military or Production facility based.

The game is WON when one faction is totally wiped out so you could have a Shared victory with another Ally(s).

Persistant games with but 2 factions due tend to end up as previously noted. One Faction gets all the players and then it becomes a Joke and then Balancing elements are forced in and invariably create imbalances in direct conflict with the initial Balance scheme's. 

Personally, I really don't care about multiplayer for TBS.

TBS games are long and epic and coordinating that kind of time commitment with others just isn't going to happen (for me anyway).  Also, I like to take my time to design units and tweak my strategy.  Any form of time pressure is not something I want in my turn based gaming.

Multiplayer is very good and fun but I'll stick to genres that are more suited to it:  FPS and RTS.

As usual, just my $0.02.

I agree with you 100%. I like single player because I can play at my speed with the games spec to my licking. No need to compromise.

I also like the fact that this game gives us the options of choosing the game play we like.

Heresy.

TBS games with simultaneous turns (NOT like in Aow:SM) have all the advantages of SP turn-based games, including ability to take your time planning moves. And they don't suffer from typical drawbacks of TBSes (having to wait for your turn, A-B-A-B turns and artifacts. The reason turn-based games weren't popular in multiplayer was (aside from lack of the internet at the time) that RTS'es came earlier than simultaneous turns.

Try Laser Squad Nemesis or Dominions 3. People have no problems playing 20+ player games in Dominions3, because you don't wait for your turn. Dom3 is also very well suited for play-by-mail. All players plan their turns and server generates another one as soon as all of them are done.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_Squad_Nemesis

Well multiplayer also improves the singleplayer games in many ways.  First it increases the size of its gaming community  which means faster responses for questions/problems, larger selection of game content made by the community, and the forums stay alive with more postings significantly longer.   I'm sure other reasons of value exist as well such as a larger beta testing group.

So while you may only be interested in singleplayer games... the long term value of multiplayer is greater for everyone.

But what about the age-old debate over scarce dev resources--time spent on multiplayer mechanics is time not spent on 'core' parts of the game. And then there's the whole business of worrying about a game getting 'dumbed down' so that it doesn't generate too much grief from a horde of short-attention-span clickaholics.

I'm all for Stardock experimenting with TBS multiplayer via the Elemental project, but I hope they'll strip it down or even ditch it if it seems to be taking an unreasonable amount of dev time or generating too much useless chatter on the boards. I guess I'm thinking I'd rather see a smaller, stronger community than one swollen with the hordes of folks who already have plenty of multiplayer game titles to choose from.