I think endless space solved it better. Fights were fought as usual, but they were limited to ~40 seconds each. Noone except the involved saw the fights.  You were able to continue the simultaneous turns while another player was fighting. If you attempted to attack an army already engaged, you were queued to fight it. If another player was in a battle and you tried to end your turn, you were notified and just had to wait it out.

Can't always get what you want. Goes for Frogboy, his customers, and the Rolling Stones.

Poor Brad, those hundreds of dollars would have looked so nice stacked next to his solar powered mansion and millions of dollars.

Based on what evidence?  Historically multiplayer makes up a minuscule portion of TBS player base.  And once you account for players that only play multiplayer once or twice to give it a try, in other words cut out those who aren't really multiplayer players, the actual multiplayer portion is so small that it's not worth mentioning.  

I'd probably play LH with a few buddies multiplayer too if it were an option, but to pretend that my opinion is a majority is crazy.  All of these games are played overwhelmingly as single player games.  Brad has stated several times that "revenue" is not a motivating factor to adding multiplayer to LH (or FE or WOM, depending on when he made the comment).  The number of players who buy the game because it is multiplayer compared to the cost of developing a solid multiplayer experience is horribly out of balance.  If multiplayer is added it's because they want it multiplayer, not to make more money.  

For the record, I tend to find the few screaming/pandering for "OMGMULTIPLAYER" on this forum (whom may all be you) to be obnoxious.  Especially if they're incapable of simply hitting the *reply* button, and instead has to make their multiplayer demands in yet another, duplicate thread on the same exact topic.  Even if I agreed with everything you said, I (along with many) will think less of anyone for carrying on this way.  Such behavior is frowned upon most anywhere on the internet.  Forum etiquette 101.

All the while making the inclusion of multiplayer sound as if it was your birthright.

 

So you basically took something somebody said off the record years ago, and took it as gospel -- never letting go of it all this time.  That's nobody's fault other than your own.  Whether multiplayer ever happens or not, this was never promised to you in any way.  Hence the reason you have no rational, sane reason to expect and demand it now.

 

So... keep playing Civ 5?  I'm pretty sure Stardock will survive, despite your petty threats.

By the way, haven't I heard this statement elsewhere before?  All this multiplayer whining sounds so familiar...

I think this quote from the another multiplayer thread speaks for itself.  But you might want to try harder to not sound near-identical to posts made by your alternate username, if you want to keep pretending "so many people" want multiplayer for this game.  Using multiple names on a forum just to give the illusion of your opinion being echoed by others... that's really unfortunate.  I believe one can get banned for doing such things.  So how many other accounts do you have on here to promote your eerily-loud opinions?

But it makes me feel a little better that I wasn't "sh*tting on multiplayer threads" all this time.  Apparently it was just you I was sh*tting on.  Weird. 
 

As much as it may come as a shock to you, it's not your job to make this game popular.  Nor is it mine.  I don't care how popular this game gets.  Stardock has people on their payroll to take care of that for them so you don't have to.  As a fan, you can always promote a game you like, but it's not mandatory.  I'm just playing a game that I enjoy.  Aside from visiting this forum and checking mods on the nexus on occasion, that's about as far as it goes for me.  But if calling me a "fanboi" still makes you feel better, knock yourself out.
 

Yet as much as you rabidly love multiplayer, oddly you're still here.  Perhaps that means more people have stayed than you'd like to admit.  And after stumbling upon the discovery of your other account(s) just so you can form a false consensus about multiplayer, I think you've reached a whole new level of "fanboi troll" yourself!!  

years ago? https://forums.elementalgame.com/439794/page/1/#3314759

...

so you "don't care how popular this game gets."

good to hear you're supporting stardock. I make no threats, just point out that I have friends that wont buy the game because of no multiplayer which sucks. I've managed to convince only 1 so far and have 1 other pretty close

still here? more like came back after 2+ years of not checking this forum because I saw FE had an expansion out via steam and I was pretty shocked to see it without multiplayer still.

the accusation of multiple accounts is pretty funny I have to admit. conspiracy theory much? mods can feel free to check IPs and then ban you for false accusations

you're really rather hopeless

If you actually had read the entire post properly, you would understand that that "MoM" reference you are using are for the first "failed" elemental game back in 2010 or something. FE and FE:LH are different games, the designer for these games was Derek Paxton, not "Frogboy". By continuing making your argument on that reference, you are just making more of a fool of yourself, and hence why you get "trolled" as you claimed. 

Also there has been pointed out earlier that Stardock have been looking for a talented network programmer, so if you want multiplayer maybe get them that instead of going all crazy on the forums?

I love the line of reasoning that goes "Game X doesn't have feature Y.  I want feature Y.  Therefore Game X would sell TONS more if it had feature Y." It's almost as good as the reasoning that goes "everyone I know wants X to do Y, therefore Y must be the right thing to do".  Don't you think that in this world of ridiculously deep analytics-based customer insight that Stardock probably has a pretty good idea of how many people want multiplayer, how much additional sales MP would generate and can compare that to the cost of developing MP.  Probably a better idea than you, no?  Which is why I said that if this game gets MP it's because they wanted it to have MP not because it was a money making opportunity. 

By the way, get off your high horse and actually read the posts your responding to.  I never once said "multiplayer is bad for SP players" in what you quoted.  I said that arguing that they should add multiplayer to make money is dumb, because multiplayer is not a salable feature in TBS games.  Especially not once you factor in the cost of developing a solid MP experience.  

If you're going to call me narrow minded at least do it for something I'm narrow minded about rather than some stupidity you dreamed up. 

I think Xia had the right response in this thread.  Some sarcastic poking at the dumb arguments and move on.  

Someone put this thread out of its misery.  

Actually he has said a number of times long before, that multiplayer was intended down the line for Elemental.  In fact I was giving you benefit of the doubt on this one.  I would hope that your childish entitlement issues stem from latching onto more than just one 'off the record' quote.  Otherwise, that would be even more sad.

 

I believe frequenting this forum, defending them against rabid children (well, actually just you), and buying their games and DLC would indicate I support Stardock.  Now I know reading comprehension (and perhaps all brain-oriented activity) isn't your strong suit, so I'll reiterate.  Wanting a game to be as good as it can be, in hopes of maximizing its potential for your own enjoyment -- that's perfectly fine and I encourage that (given you don't carry on like a self-entitled child about it).  But getting overly-concerned about how "popular" a game gets is-not-your-job, both figuratively and literally.  In fact, from a consumer's perspective, it isn't healthy.  Otherwise, you sound like a... rabid fanboy.

Was it your friends, or your two cousins and your brother?

And just so you know, saying "if you don't give *me* exactly what I want, then you're missing out on my money AND my friends' money!!" or, "if you don't give *me* exactly what I want, EVERYONE is going to leave you and stop supporting your products!!" are textbook definitions of a blatant threat, and petty far-fetched threats at that. 

You're not even a multiplayer fanboy, you're a "multiplayer alarmist".  In fact, every time you make another post about multiplayer on this forum, you're either making threats to Stardock or anyone who disagrees with your childish perspective, which has been this entire thread so far.

Oh, good lord.  I'm not sure I've encountered a bigger compulsive liar on the internet (and that's saying a lot).  Doing 5 seconds of "research" shows you post (let alone visit) on this forum far more frequently than that.  And that's not counting your other username(s).

When two "people" posting on a forum who both make it their mission to convince the world that multiplayer is the way to go, that's one thing.  But then I find myself only arguing with you and RickyDMMontoya, over the exact same thing, over the exact same childish mentality, and eventually it dawns on me that both are not only making identical points, but also use identical grammar right down to sentence structure and vocabulary (point made in my RickyDMMontoya quote above).  Both continuously stress that their own lone beliefs are concensus (terrible debate tactic by the way, only makes you look more desperate).  Also whining about how I'm continuously picking on you when it was only my first replying to you, kinda gave it away.

And while you threaten to ban me, I wasn't planning on reporting you.  But I do believe your childish behavior could get you banned, as it is considered on many forums as a form of spam.  If you want to stick to your guns and keep up this charade, I personally don't mind.  Perhaps mocking you is too easy, but it does pass the time at work.

The irony is seriously killing me (lol).  But I look forward to seeing you spew more ignorant and childish banter next time I come by.  Unless Kantok gets his wish and this topic gets locked... that may be for the best.

Somebody did.

I have the patch installed. Basically it grants MP on a single screen, so all players use the same keyboard...

Also it treats each player as an active player, so the AI gets to go equal to the number of players.

As to MP itself, I couldn't care less for the feature, and the stats and info that SD has shared with us to date tends to agree with my point of view.

For Civ 4, there was only a very small percentage of users actually making use of MP functionality....and considering the investment required to provide said feature, they would have been better off just not having it for civ 4 either (and I think they could have made a better game as a result).

SD has there own stats for there games too, all saying the same thing. Providing MP tends for a minor percentage of there sales. It's just not worth it.

I really don't want to see MP on FE.

It will change the game competely to a magic version of empire total war.

Aren't there enough games out there like that?

From 4X to 1X - Exterminate only... very one dimensional.

it doesnt work like this. the network coder isnt sacrificing his time doing that rather than creating new content for a game. also the 200k estimate is way off