Actually multiplayer is just another beta at this point. While the bugs can be fixed and the game can be balanced at some point, the main problem remains content - we have two factions with limited differences, low mobility ( bad transports, no dedicated spells for exploring ) and uninteresting rewards for quests. The game needs fresh ideas like the thalan race in GC2 TA. The lore is not even implemented - we see a levitating channeler in the game but there are no spells for that.

My guess - they alocated resources in creating their own game engine, and tried to implement many tech trees while ignoring the magic system.

Damned if they do, damned if they dont.

A wonder they even read their own forums anymore.

MP is a feature on the box, so releasing it is the right thing to do for those that want it and already payed for it.

We will see if they like it or not, but it is theirs to decide.

The CEO is also the owner - that can be a good motivation to start with.

Sure. Flame him hard enough and he might be motivated to close the gaming division of Stardock.

I would think that a loss to gaming community, but the trolls will just turn to somewhere else.

Balance and mechanics are important to fix, but everyone seems to be forgetting that there are a lot of people who don't really have strong opinions on the matter. All 90,000 people who bought the game so far aren't on the forums wanting stuff rebalanced. There are bound to be lots of them who don't mind the current state of the game, and just want to be able to play it with friends.

MP needs to be turned on now and fixed up as needed along with the SP.

I am slowly coming to the point where I hope multiplayer comes out and works flawlessly day 1, patches come out weekly (babysteps!!!), and the game gets fixed by 1.3 , to where its so much fun , I can't STOP clicking ONE MORE TURN.

I love the core of this game, its just not a lot of fun due to a ton of small things.

If I had to guess, I'd say the thinking here is the box that shipped out last month said "features: 16 player multiplayer" not "features: balanced game".

I also agree with other posters, it is more important to have a functional multiplayer, than a balanced multiplayer.

It is largely irrelevant whether they are vocal or not, the issues still needs to be fixed. It would be naive to believe that the majority are happy about the state of the game, simply because they aren't vocal about it. You'd find that it would be more likely, that they simply move on from the game and don't bother looking back. That is bad for potential future customers.

That said Adding multiplayer won't magically make the game any better, or worse for that matter. And if it weren't because MP was an advertised feature at launch, then it should have been put on hold indefinitely until the game would be in a far better state then it currently is.

Of course it needs to be fixed, but not to the exclusion of other promised stuff. People were promised multiplayer. They weren't told "well, you'll only have multiplayer when nobody complains about single player." Note I never said that a "majority" is happy. But you can bet plenty of people just don't care if it's too easy for squads to beat single champions, or that the AI is dumb. Why should the people who want to be able to play the game as-is with other people be told no?

Indeed. But it was advertised, so they do need to get it out.

If Stardock had offered a version without MP and cheaper, many people would have bought that version instead.

Because the people whom would enjoy MP in the current state the game is in, is undoubtedly a very tiny minority, and shouldn't be the focus for limited development hours.

But again, this is all irrelevant, because the feature was already promised at launch and it's not like they are just now starting to develop MP functions.

Only if you assume that they can only work on one thing at a time. Obviously I don't know how it's structured, but one would assume the people who're working on MP aren't the same ones who are supposed to work on balancing.

Assuming that we (by we I mean the predominantly single-player crowd pushing for lots of changes) lose something because they decide to push out MP is, quite frankly, childish. It amounts to nothing more than "Give us what we want, but don't give the other guys what they want until we're happy!" They can do both at the same time.

like you fanboys are any less annoying than we are. 

anyway:  was sold as a mp enabled game, would help test balancing issues in a way that a gimpy AI cannot.  i personally won't use mp but it should still be turned on.

the most important thing is another

you guys dont consider that multiplayer is the BEST balance workshop

its way harder to balance while ai does stupid mistake, instead in mp you can see the real problems when actual ppl play and learn from mistakes and use good strategies against each other

Then, by that logic, the game should be considered done as soon as MP opens since balance isn't "on the box".

For those of you who want Stardock to delay multi-player even longer are really just putting them in a terrible position.  Poor reviews, bugs and backlash will be nothing compared to someone actually suing Stardock for blatant false advertising.  Because until Stardock gets multi-player in, what they are really asking for is a lawsuit, which to most people, is far more dangerous than some disappointing reviews.

Unlike a lot of Stardock "fans" who frequent the forums and lap up every piece of information, the vast majority of Elemental customers are just average folks who don't know Brad Wardell, don't have any leniency or goodwill toward Stardock, and will only see the game for what it is, as advertized on the box.

Here is some very good advice about how to run your company from TvTropes which applies very well to the multi-player controversy:

Taking these fans too seriously is usually a mistake. Although they tend to be louder than the rest of the fanbase combined, they are usually a decided minority in almost every fandom (though they often claim to be a majority). Fan Dumb also tends to suffer from an extreme case of Fan Myopia, regardless of what kind they are; in any variation, they are often intractably convinced that the views of "the fans" (or perhaps more accurately, them) are both more widespread and more mainstream than in fact they are. If you're a producer, then pandering to them is usually a good way to make your show crash and burn. And to add insult to injury, they usually won't be very grateful that you were thinking about them, but will instead start whining about how you made the show crash and burn.

I absolutely agree...

...assuming the players are of high skill level.

While, granted, they are (likely) going to be better than the current AI and I agree that MP certainly gives a lot more data for consideration (strategies, abilities/skills/spells used in ways that might not have been imagined when they were created, etc), humans aren't immune from making stupid mistakes either - especially if they are newbies to the game, play a few campaign missions, then jump on to MP to try their luck.

actually mentioned several times...including in the post immediately before yours...

why o why don't people bother to read the whole thread before they post? 

On a personal level I agree. I do not plan to use multiplayer and the single player game needs attention.

However, since this was a promised out of the box feature, and since some people did buy the game specifically for this reason, I don't think these customers should be abandoned. Stardock is right to get this promised feature working at a reasonably acceptable level as soon as possible, even if it takes some resources away from balancing efforts.

Stardock once said (can't find the quote, it was forever ago) that they planned to track multiplayer statistics and feed it into creating a better AI - i.e. if strategy x won more often than not, teach the AI to use strategy x better!

So even though there will obviously be exceptions (bad players or even good players making mistakes), if you look at the average results of all multiplayer games, you should get some useful info for both game balance and a better AI. Even if players using an "overpowered" unit/strategy/etc can make mistakes and still lose to a weaker unit/strategy/etc, the people using underpowered strategies will make mistakes too, and overall the overpowered choice should lead to more wins. The only thing that might throw off your results is too small of a sample size - i.e. not enough people playing multiplayer.

For example: you're an amazingly skillful player who happens to love archers even though they suck, and you consistently beat lots of noobs by using archers. If 10 people total are playing the game, sure you could seriously throw off Stardock's perception of game balance by making archers look good; if there's 100 people, your impact will be small but maybe still noticeable; if there's 1000 people, your impact will be trivial, the averages will show that lord's hammers are better and win far more games. If even 1% of Elemental's buyers play multiplayer, we're pretty close to that 1000 mark.

In other words, if your sample size is large enough, player skill should be pretty irrelevant. Even if bad players sometimes use lord's hammer, they also use bows sometimes too, as do good players - the average should still show that lord's hammer beats bows most of the time.

Childish? Heh.

If the team is large enough to handle both aspects, sure. If it ain't, then the focus needs to be where the priority is. It's simply about resource allocation. It has sod all to do with keeping the "other guy down" as you put it.

But again, this is all largely irrelevant, seeing as how nothing has changed since five minutes ago about the fact that the feature has been promised all along, and that it's in a state near release anyway. So I don't see why you continue to debate a non existing issue.

The enabling of multiplayer is pretty much a "flip of the switch."  The addition of multiplayer will assist greatly in gameplay, balancing, and AI issues.

some ppl open 10 15 threads and then replies them in a row and sometimes there are posts in the while

Yes of course, i worded it bad i guess.

It is just that those who dont care about MP (that would be me *wave*), dont care about its advertising on the box. If it wouldnt be for the forum outcry, i wouldnt even know it isnt there.

For those that care, it needs to be released yesterday. It was promised, it was payed for.