The one flaw I see in the argument of saying they shouldn't focus on MP:

Nobody can even play MP. Nobody plays MP because there's no MP in the game. It's just a desync simulator the technologically inclined. You can sit there and enjoy your SP, but all the people who miss that human connection are now arsed out of thirty bucks.

And saying ES isn't an MP game is like saying mayonnaise doesn't belong on sandwiches. You don't have to have mayonnaise on your sandwich, but if you do then society doesn't stare you down like a crazy bastard.

raubtier86 wrote:
i dont think turn based strategy games should focus on mp. most players probably play solo or coop vs ai with friends since they have other stuff to do than playing a 10 hours match on a single day.

10hours match? That would be my sigleplayer time, I think multiplayer would be even longer



But yeah, I agree!

Atlantis_Risen wrote:
They're balanced, but in a very Starcraft-like, rock paper scissors manner. They did try to add diplomacy in a DLC and it was IMO the weakest part of the game. Personally, in an empire building game, I want some imbalance in the the races. I want some weak thinkers, some strong warmongers, so that when the game randomly generates the galaxy, depending on who your early neighbors are, it can drastically change your game. This randomness and imbalance is what makes a game like ES almost infinitely re-playable.

You can have one race be bad scientifically and one race be bad economically and one race be bad militarily and still have it all balanced. If you think it's impossible to pull that off then you're not trying hard enough, and you're being far, far too pessimistic.

Fenrakk101 wrote:
My point is, just looking at Sins, you can see how it's possible to balance different races with each other, even if they play vastly differently. If the geniuses who did the balancing magic in Sins tried to add more 4X elements to the game, I'm pretty sure they could have pulled it off. Not balancing the races is just lazy.

They're balanced, but in a very Starcraft-like, rock paper scissors manner. They did try to add diplomacy in a DLC and it was IMO the weakest part of the game. Personally, in an empire building game, I want some imbalance in the the races. I want some weak thinkers, some strong warmongers, so that when the game randomly generates the galaxy, depending on who your early neighbors are, it can drastically change your game. This randomness and imbalance is what makes a game like ES almost infinitely re-playable.

Atlantis_Risen wrote:
Sins is a almost entirely a combat game. They're balanced against each other in regards to combat. That's a completely different scenario than an empire building game, like ES, where I want some races that would rather research techs or go a diplomatic route than go to war.

My point is, just looking at Sins, you can see how it's possible to balance different races with each other, even if they play vastly differently. If the geniuses who did the balancing magic in Sins tried to add more 4X elements to the game, I'm pretty sure they could have pulled it off. Not balancing the races is just lazy.

Fenrakk101 wrote:
No. Many games end up like Starcraft because they try to be like Starcraft - it's successful, after all, isn't it? And if you have true balance, you can still have scientific races, military races, and economic races, etc. Sins of a Solar Empire isn't turn-based, but 4X games can still take a lesson from it - the races all play completely differently, and yet they're balanced. The TEC isn't "strong" against the Vasari and "weak" against the Advent. And yet they each have completely different strengths and weaknesses. There shouldn't be "strong" and "weak" races - that's a terrible, terrible idea, and you should feel bad for even SUGGESTING that a good game has weak races and strong races. What if you love the Pilgrims, but you can never win as them because they're too weak? Or what if you hate the Sophons but you can't win as any other race because they're strong? Do you even play as all the different races yourself, or do you only play one or two, three at the most? Because if you have weak races and strong races, nobody will play the weak races unless they force themselves to. (Okay, yes, people will, but only 5% of the people who played the game).

Sins is a almost entirely a combat game. They're balanced against each other in regards to combat. That's a completely different scenario than an empire building game, like ES, where I want some races that would rather research techs or go a diplomatic route than go to war.

Atlantis_Risen wrote:
I'm not making an argument, I simply posted someones else's words, that I completely agree with. Balance in a 4x TBS = boring. There should be weak races and strong races, scientific races and economic powerhouses. That kind of diversity makes a fun game, and is the opposite of balance. With true balance, you wind up with a rock/paper/scissors scenario, like Starcraft. Which for me is a snoozefest.

No. Many games end up like Starcraft because they try to be like Starcraft - it's successful, after all, isn't it? And if you have true balance, you can still have scientific races, military races, and economic races, etc. Sins of a Solar Empire isn't turn-based, but 4X games can still take a lesson from it - the races all play completely differently, and yet they're balanced. The TEC isn't "strong" against the Vasari and "weak" against the Advent. And yet they each have completely different strengths and weaknesses. There shouldn't be "strong" and "weak" races - that's a terrible, terrible idea, and you should feel bad for even SUGGESTING that a good game has weak races and strong races. What if you love the Pilgrims, but you can never win as them because they're too weak? Or what if you hate the Sophons but you can't win as any other race because they're strong? Do you even play as all the different races yourself, or do you only play one or two, three at the most? Because if you have weak races and strong races, nobody will play the weak races unless they force themselves to. (Okay, yes, people will, but only 5% of the people who played the game).

Fenrakk101 wrote:
So now your argument is that it's physically impossible for anyone to ever play multiplayer in a game AND enjoy it at the same time? I don't know how you even take yourself seriously.



Not all "balance" issues are "give me an easy way out" issues. In fact, in a competitive multiplayer game, a "balance" issue is usually when someone ELSE has found the perfect way to win and other players want it nerfed (See: Hissho Rebalance). So the basis of your argument, in this situation, is completely false.

I'm not making an argument, I simply posted someones else's words, that I completely agree with. Balance in a 4x TBS = boring. There should be weak races and strong races, scientific races and economic powerhouses. That kind of diversity makes a fun game, and is the opposite of balance. With true balance, you wind up with a rock/paper/scissors scenario, like Starcraft. Which for me is a snoozefest.

Atlantis_Risen wrote:
I saw this posted at the forums for Stardocks Fallen Enchantress turn based strategy game, and I just couldn't agree more, and I believe his words hold true for ES as well. I too have noticed that when people complain about 'balance' in strategy games, they're usually coming from a competitive multiplayer perspective, looking for a quick win.



http://forums.elementalgame.com/435995/page/2/#3269779

So now your argument is that it's physically impossible for anyone to ever play multiplayer in a game AND enjoy it at the same time? I don't know how you even take yourself seriously.



Not all "balance" issues are "give me an easy way out" issues. In fact, in a competitive multiplayer game, a "balance" issue is usually when someone ELSE has found the perfect way to win and other players want it nerfed (See: Hissho Rebalance). So the basis of your argument, in this situation, is completely false.

I saw this posted at the forums for Stardocks Fallen Enchantress turn based strategy game, and I just couldn't agree more, and I believe his words hold true for ES as well. I too have noticed that when people complain about 'balance' in strategy games, they're usually coming from a competitive multiplayer perspective, looking for a quick win.



http://forums.elementalgame.com/435995/page/2/#3269779

For the most part whenever I see someone complaining about "balance" I know just what kind of criticism the game is in for. It's the veteran MP gamer. It's not too surprising, since most games these days are built and targeted at the dedicated MP gamer. And most online game forums are filled with the same.



This gamer is the kind of person who has been trained by years of MP gaming to find the "best strategy" and hone it to a knife's edge. He recognizes that 3d models and sound effects are far less important than the numbers those graphics and sounds represent. As such, for him games aren't really about presentation as much as they are about some variation on Rock-Paper-Scissors.



It's a valid point of view. But it's easy to see why a game like FE would fail to capture said gamer's imagination. Mainly because imagination doesn't really play a part in how he approaches games.



The tipper in this case is the complaints about randomness and luck. Randomness and luck have no place in the world of the veteran MP gamer. Everything is deterministic. Do thing A, followed by thing B, followed by thing C and if your opponent doesn't do D and E, you win! Which is why it's a breeze to program scripted & braindead AIs for such games.



FE is distinctly not deterministic. (If anything, the game is not random enough for my liking.) And "balance" in FE is not about ensuring that all strategies can be countered. It about allowing the maximum number of viable strategies possible.



IMHO, posts like these can be helpful in that they'll spur Frogboy on in his development of the AI. But in terms of review of the game, I just think you're missing the point. The joy of FE is in crafting a narrative of your own, not in ROFL-stomping the computer. It's about working towards your own long-term goals and seeking to accomplish them despite the opposition arrayed against you. If you fail, start again with new ideas! If you succeed, start again with new ideas!



There is no "correct" way to play; you can win with almost any strategy. I get that for you the game is broken because of that. I see many of the same flaws that you do (and the developers see them too), but they are small in my mind compared to the ease with which this game lends itself to fun, creative play.

Aye. Was also this way with some of the more gratuitous battles in Supreme Commander (Pre-expansion). More often then not, my friends and I would have to set up individuals times across multiple days to get through a match.



It's awesome. I love that every skirmish in Endless Space feels like a small campaign all its own.

Fenrakk101 wrote:
Who in that poll is more likely to be playing the game still six months from now?

In theory, it would be MP players, but right now that seems less likely, since multiplayer is broken beyond belief.

I disagree with this. I NEVER play MP in TBS games, and I've been playing them over and over for many years, as I will play ES for many years.

Dropfish wrote:
4x in general are as much mp games as CS is a sp game! Same for ES, todays games just need to have a mp part because it makes them sell better, but every shifts towards mp is a step away from a good 4x tb game. Only one example: simultaneous turns. A bonus for mp but annoying in sp.

I completely agree with this.

i dont think turn based strategy games should focus on mp. most players probably play solo or coop vs ai with friends since they have other stuff to do than playing a 10 hours match on a single day.

Atlantis_Risen wrote:
You're probably right. I've never played a MP game like that. I think I just don't have geeky enough friends.

Just pointing out that he suggested exactly what I suggested.

Strudo76 wrote:
I'll agree that an open MP game where anyone can join is probably going to be a rush for ships, and then quit if they lose, but a private MP game with known people doesn't have to be anything like that if you pick your players to suit the game you want.

You're probably right. I've never played a MP game like that. I think I just don't have geeky enough friends.

Why do you think all MP games are just war games? Maybe you need to find different players. I generally play MP with my brother and we just play our usual style. Would be fantastic is there was a co-op mode or teams, as we generally work together, but there is no victory condition to allow two players to be considered the winner.



I'll agree that an open MP game where anyone can join is probably going to be a rush for ships, and then quit if they lose, but a private MP game with known people doesn't have to be anything like that if you pick your players to suit the game you want.

morernil wrote:
I don't get you MP haters out there... Lets say you are traveling with airplane a lot , and you like to sleep during the trip (you don't eat ,don't watch movies , don't go to bathroom). But hey other people do those things and those things are part of airplane and service and a lot of people will be pissed because they cant eat anything , go to bathroom and watch movies during flight but they paid their ticket.. Makes sense ? Of course it does , fix frakking MP please..Thank you

I'm going to quote myself here.

Atlantis_Risen wrote:
...Again, this is just my personal taste. There's plenty of room for everyone's opinions.

I don't get you MP haters out there... Lets say you are traveling with airplane a lot , and you like to sleep during the trip (you don't eat ,don't watch movies , don't go to bathroom). But hey other people do those things and those things are part of airplane and service and a lot of people will be pissed because they cant eat anything , go to bathroom and watch movies during flight but they paid their ticket.. Makes sense ? Of course it does , fix frakking MP please..Thank you

Atlantis_Risen wrote:
This doesn't make much sense. And I already stated that MP games are warmonger games that I don't like, so I'm not going to seek out people to play games like that with.

...you just definitively proved you haven't paid attention to anything I've been saying.

Atlantis_Risen wrote:
On the contrary, I've played both extensively (SP of course). Sins is a good MP game, but it's (at least in it's first iteration) is a war game. It's also not turn based, it's an RTS.



Civ V's MP is infamously horrible, at least if you go by fan reaction.

You make a good point with Sins - I was thinking of 4X games in general. But my Civ reference still sits true. The Civ series as a whole, actually, has been MP-heavy. I remember playing Civ III and Civ IV in MP a lot.

Atlantis_Risen wrote:
Of course ES is a SP 4x, it's a spiritual successor to MOO and galciv, both SP games. Also, SP in ES works and clearly MP does not. That should tell you where the developers priorities lie.

They also fixed the Hissho's Bushido bonus, which alone betrays your argument. The Bushido overpowerment has no bearing in SP; the AI isn't intelligent enough to use it and if you don't like it you can just avoid exploiting it. The fact that they patched it out shows they listened to the fans and removed it. The fact that MP is broken shows that the issue is probably far more difficult to fix than people like to think. And it is a spiritual successor, yes, but MP was a large part of their advertisement for the game.

Fenrakk101 wrote:
Again, of your "vast majority" of people playing SP, the chances of them having the same free time schedule as you is "slim to none"? Even if only 1% of them did, by your own reasoning it shouldn't be difficult to find those people.

This doesn't make much sense. And I already stated that MP games are warmonger games that I don't like, so I'm not going to seek out people to play games like that with.

Fenrakk101 wrote:
You're clearly a person who's never played Sins of a Solar Empire or Civilization V - two of the more well-known 4X games in recent times.

On the contrary, I've played both extensively (SP of course). Sins is a good MP game, but it's (at least in it's first iteration) is a war game. It's also not turn based, it's an RTS.



Civ V's MP is infamously horrible, at least if you go by fan reaction.

Fenrakk101 wrote:
EDIT: Another point - this is not an SP 4X game. Something you need to accept. MOO was designed around a single player experience. Sins was designed around the MP experience. ES obviously attempts to embrace the MP experience, but it's caught in a bit of an identity crisis as to which is the focus.

Of course ES is a SP 4x, it's a spiritual successor to MOO and galciv, both SP games. Also, SP in ES works and clearly MP does not. That should tell you where the developers priorities lie.