Lack of multiplayer changed everything.

From my understanding. If FE is successful they plan on adding MP. They have "footholder" coding there. There's just too much for them to do with the single at the moment for them to tackle both. I just hope MP comes out as a patch, and not an expansion. I dunno if people would wait that long.

One can hope.

One can hope not, as well.

I'd prefer Stardock completely ignore multiplayer, which only serves 1% of its customers, and instead focus on what the game is about for 99% of all players: the singleplayer experience.

I find these kinds of threads very suspect. I am not saying you are lying, but I would need see proof of these friends. The fact is that MP is not used by most people, though some want it so bad, they create threads like this in hopes of persuading the devs. And in this case it is already planned for after release. Make sure all those friends of yours purchase soon so they can join the beta!

Yeah, it's an obvious attempt to pressgang the devs into action ("look how many copies you'll sell if you just add feature X"). Really, the same argument can be made in any request thread - "If you just add spells that affect the environment in your own domain, I would convince 3 friends to buy it because THEY LOVE THAT SHIT, but if it's not in they aren't interested ".

But as Frogboy has stated before, the numbers just don't add up.

I enjoy multiplayer games that last a relatively short time like Frozen Synapse or any First Person Shooter. Also enjoy open sandbox games as multiplayer like MineCraft. But personally I would hate to play a long game like FE waiting for a bunch of people to have their turn. Games either should be designed to be fast with multiplayer in mind, or designed to be immersive with singleplayer in mind. FE just isn't suited to multiplayer.

lol this is a noob point of view

everyone who is an expert gamer only plays online because that what a game is, single players dont matter to competitive players

thats obvious and i still dont get how you can ignore it

and OFC everyone has TONS of online friends, i played wow, im playing lol right now and played many other online games in which i had from 10 to 50/100 ppl i played with, thats completely normal

im not saying "i could bring 100 ppl to FE" because i dont even ask them to try it (at least not at the ones i know they want to play online) but i surely know many of them would play a good online game

just as an example i had around 10 ppl with whom i played civ online

i tried to explain this point maaaaany times but even you guys who have a brain stil dont get it

actual multiplayers strategy games SUX HARD

civ 4 has been a total mess for 1 to 2 years, civ 5 for over 1 year and still isnt perfect

thats totally unacceptable for pro gamers

the only reason when you do some poll 90% of ppl dont care about online part is that pro gamers are not even here reading the poll knowing how things go

but every time a SH developed a good online game there were millions of players in a bit, instead SHs want first ppl to buy games and then to develop/fix the servers, lag, ui, connettivity

and ofc players can not accept that

I think its kinda silly how often half this games fanbase bashes on people that want MP. I don't really care either way (RTS is much better for multi  strat games anyways) but I personally know a couple people I wouldn't mind gaming with on this game.

Just because you don't doesn't mean others don't.

With that said I can understand the OPs dissapointment but people have overlook well made SP games for a long while....especially strat ones. (its all adventure/shooter, etc. for SP nowadays) Game will be still worth keeping up with...especially if you will get FE for free (aka early purchaser of original).

this is conceptually wrong

even civ could last hours

because ai is dumb thats all

dunno if you have civ and can try online anyway if you do believe me youd get STOMPED HARD

multiplayer games do not work like a slow look around trip, they are frenetic and rushed to the top

50 60% of my civ games ended in less than 30 min and at least 20 30% were over even b4 just took a bit to make ppl surrender but they were totally over

ofc you would have to adapt a bit settings, not like its possible to play a huge map with 20 players in it

I think you've just described why multiplayer in TBS games isn't very popular.

Even in League of Legends which is by definition a multiplayer online game the stats I have seen suggest about half the people don't play ranked games (potentially more if you also rule out the people who played a few ranked games and then decided not to play any more).

If you play competitive multi-player games it is tempting to think that everyone else is like you but it appears that most games which have decent single player and multi-player modes are mainly played single player.

yes and no

i perfectly know there are many ppl still thinking they should play multiplayer with those insane settings cause ofc i have struggled a lot for years in civ

but i know as well most ppl used to play serious games online do understand it

problem is online games usually dont have many settings, and even if they do soon some become less popular and some the most played

its normal

in a tbs there are TONS of settings, and casual ppl just erroneously think they can play all of them

they are just wrong, usually most settings are flawed even in single player

ofc multiplayer NEED to put rules

like in every game

when you play with a ball in your courtyard you dont need many rules, when you play  a world cup you do need lots of rules and usually there arent enough

You probably care as much about my opinion as you do about orthography, but I stopped reading everything you wrote after these "sentences" above. My guess is that other people on these forums are like-minded. You are making a number of errors in posting as you do. Firstly: Your tone is perfectly fit for a radically different target group, such as a Blizzard Warcraft III forum or MMO guild chat. Here, you will only be convincing others that you are a 14-year-old blighter whose opinion is best overlooked, even if you are not. Secondly: by expressing your viewpoints about a product you claim to have a vested interest in, and at the same time annoying those you are trying to convince, you are engaging in a performative self-contradiction. Finally, your choice of diction (calling others or their views "noob", using jolted fragments, etc.) makes any point you really want to make difficult to extract.

Even if you may be right (and frankly I have no idea, since I never made it to whatever "argument" you may be attempting to formulate), I hope that the forums here will be freed of such noob-calling soon. Please go and play a game that "expert gamers" play. I and a significant other portion of paying customers here are interested in a decent AI for a single-playing experience.

The thing is most of us don't give a rat's hiney about the 'pro gamer' market.  There's only a very very small # of those guys in reality, no matter how many people try to market themselves as 'pros'.  Who cares if it doesn't appeal to that slice of the user base?  Not me.

I can't imagine playing FE with three other people across a four hundred turn game.  We'd be at it for EVAH.

- Manii Names

yes i agree

in fact i wasnt the one opening the thread and if you search my post my comments on multi were a small minority

i dont care either, i took the news about the lack of multi with a bit of sadness and that was it

but i cant accept ppl still stating wrong facts based on a wrong view of the world

online games are  a brute force in the gaming industry, the fact is that many many SH totally failed, even blizzard failed a lot or theyll be even more productive they already are

its a wrong assumption think you are some kind of gamer

no one is born like that, its the other way around, GAMES do create the players

wow created millions of players fond (or addicted ) to the game, its not like there were 10 millions ppl in need of wow, i started playing withough even knowing what a mmo was, i tried, i liked (for a bit) and most ppl did the same

sry but if you dont understand the argument we are talking about and have NOTHING to say in the matter of the thread you should just shut up

come back again when you have something to say about the TOPIC ppl is discussing your behaviour about the ppl talking

if you have something to tell ME as person there are private messages or if you prefer i can give you my msn

this forum is for talking about fe beta not your wierd idea about how ppl should communicate

Well i have to admit certain sadness myself. Right now I know only of one strategy that is attractive in MP and that's Dominions 3. 

The complexity of game makes it so interesting that there is still quite a good population of people playing, many years after it was release. 

I am sad also b/c MP tests you well, right now in FE basically any strategy i tried works ... I would love to fight against spear rush with my magic fellows, or vice-versa and see which strategy is better.   

If/when MP makes it into the game I will certainly play a few MP games against some friends of mine.  However I doubt we'll ever play more than a handful of said games, unless there are some massive adjustments to help turns go faster.

- Manii Names

TBS multiplayer is a chore.

Seriously, you make a very good argument against the addition of multiplayer to Fallen Enchantress. I'm not sure having more of these self-styled "pro-gamers" with terrible spelling and unacceptable behavior* - such as yourself - is so desirable.

*Note: I am not criticizing real pro-gamers, or multiplayer aficionados; only the people sharing ddd888's mentality.

Didn't mean to cause flaming, just thought the whole idea was suspect. With multithreading you can do alot faster MP. FE's MP will almost certainly have the best TBS MP if they are able to make it. I just have trouble finding patient players that are willing to negotiate the finer points of a non-aggression pact or wait for me to do so with another player. You have to have the whole day to play a good role play experience. Most MP players are obsessed with speed. That turns me off the concept. I might play with Heavenfall or some of the other people on the forums I have played WoM MP with. I am wary of MP gamers though. I have had bad experiences in Red Alert 3.

Brads declared his own desire to see MP realized. He has also spoke of balancing priorities and how MP had to be down rated based on the percentage of players that would use it. Much work has already been put into it. Much more would need be done. I understand the need to focus on SP atm, and have a small idea as to the difficulties of balancing a game such as this for MP. After more headway is made on the core game, I'm sure that Brad will re-evaluate MP.

Stop bagging on the people who want MP. I have only minor interest in it myself. And only for PBEM which I'm sure would require the removal of tactical battles. But I see why people would like to play this game with others. And had I now, the gaming groups of my past, I would very much love to LAN play a game like this. I look fondly on my days of D&D. And all the hours playing Risk, and the 48+ hour sessions of Axis and Allies. It's fun to socialize gaming. Understand that people will have desires counter to your own. Leave them to it as you would have them leave you to yours.

The problem isn't people who want MP, it's the people who insult the SP-only side. I don't think anyone here would flame or troll someone for wanting MP, as long as he doesn't start the sort of arrogant, poorly-written post like the ones ddd888 has written when contributing to this thread.

Just wait it out.

If FE is a success ... and if they implement MP ... then buy all the FE you want

However, for now just wait and see.

you are right

thats why online gaming is not a role playing experience (on average, i had fun with MUDs where i role played, it was very fun and addictive, but was also another era)

right now the gaming is different, ppl hardly want to emulate a real world/diplomacy, they just want to compete on a strategic level and i agree since there is not much point in doing anything else with the average random player

but ofc you could have your group of friend and you could play some different kind of game with them

i dont know really, mostly it depends on the past experience

i mean right now we all have dsl or cable right? if youd go on a pc with a 56k wouldnt you throw punches at the table for its slowness ?

its the same for games, ppl who played 123132313 matches already obviously find the first moves pretty obvious and so cant enjoy wasting time on them

its like playing a spanish opening on chess, if someone takes 10 min on third move id rather quit the game