[quote who="shadowtongue" reply="5" id="2901680"] Then again maybe gay marriage is supposed to be in the game, I don't konw. [/quote] They will refuse when you make a proposal, stating there will be no heirs.
[quote who="shadowtongue" reply="121" id="2901467"] I don't really understand why people who want MP would want to play MP in a game which isn't particularly designed for MP, but I'll take your word that that's what they want. [/quote] Because they do not play enough to justify buying a game that targets that, but find it fun to do occationally. The discussion is more about what the limit resources availible for creating MP should be used for, rather than if it shoul
[quote who="Savyg" reply="35" id="2901431"]I'd be surprised if OpenCL made any headway in gaming though...the only reason it stands a chance is Valve with their cross platform crap.[/quote] For use directly it in a game/engine may not, but I would be suprised if it does not get through some library for game development or other.
[quote who="Savyg" reply="33" id="2901419"] I believe DirectCompute was enabled for DX10 cards (version 4.0, where the version for DX11 is 5.0) when DX11 was released. Valves hardware survey says over 50% of peeps have DX10 card+OS, and only 5% for DX11. [/quote] It is, but there are restrictions. And you need to use the interfaces for 11 to get at it. So you are basically using 11 in compatability mode for DX10 hardware at that point. Everything that is
[quote who="Savyg" reply="29" id="2901409"] 11 and 10 are similar to code for afaik. [/quote] They are, 10 just have some features missing (such as the ability to use shaders as a means of leveraging the GPU for general calculations). I doubt 11 will be used exclusively much (my video card is only two years old and only gets 10, and I imagine that there are plenty of people with cards that are not old that do not support 11) for some time to come; however, from a pro
[quote who="shadowtongue" reply="119" id="2901245"]No. If I want to play something MP, I will pick something specifically designed for MP. There are fine options out there if this is your thing, I don't see what Elemental or FE would have to offer for MP that would be any better than anything else honestly, and specifically better than games designed for MP from the start. But sure, if you want to play coop with your friends, and
[quote who="RFHolloway" reply="47" id="2901080"] One simple example for you - in a 3 player multiplayer with the current tactical battle set up - what is the third player to do while the others play out the tactical battles. If 2 players are involved in a war it will get very boring for the one just building up his cities. Thats not a problem in single player as the single player is always involved in the tactical battles. If you can think of a simple way to resolve thi
[quote who="vagabard" reply="42" id="2900591"]I think different types of multiplayer would help. Multiplayer designed for friends to play together against AI (less worry about cheating, turn enforcement) should be much cheaper / easier to implement than competitive multiplayer pvp where you are playing with unknowns. The friend coop is what I use this, HOMM, and Civ for. I don't really care if I can ever play multiplayer against people, or with people I don't know. Did
Save and save often? If you are on a 64-bit OS, there are solutions that will make it take longer to happen. Look for programs to enable the "Large Address Aware" (LAA) flag. Let it be noted that such things are not sactioned and will need to be redone after each patch.
[quote who="mqpiffle" reply="40" id="2900546"] I really think it could mean both in the case of Elemental, a game that is both an RPG and a Strategy game. I think the concepts I proposed would at least need to be considered, if not for very long. [/quote] I am refering to what is being asked for. At some point the terms became confused as it is easier to say "coop MP" that "MP that is just like SP only with human players taking the place of some AI players".
[quote who="StevenAus" reply="111" id="2900536"]I think that if it was made clear that was was being provided was "co-op only" friendly MP that is like SP only with human players instead of AI then that removes most of the problems, as games can be tailored for the people in them, and there is no "human vs. human", which I think is the most devisive. I think Stardock could make a good process and a good co-op
[quote who="mqpiffle" reply="38" id="2900518"] This may be true for existing fans of the game, but usually when you market a strategy game as having multiplayer, your average prospective player will assume that the game is balanced for competitive play in MP. Fortunately most of those folks stick with Shooters or RTS style games and have little interest in TBS. Another issue I just though of for E:FE MP would be cooperative play, where the players are on the same team go
[quote who="GoaFan77" reply="1" id="2900186"]a ship prefix like U.S.S. or H.M.S.[/quote] However the 'S' at the end of both of those stands for "Ship".
[quote who="kenata" reply="36" id="2900215"] The all important question is: why would a feature be undoable in MP but not SP? The only reason I can think of is it is being done wrong. There are any number of reasons why a feature would work in SP and not MP. Some are balance or design reasons, others are technical reasons, and still yet others are simply business reasons. To say that the only reason that a feature would be unimplementable in MP but not SP is that the fea
[quote who="Frogboy" reply="34" id="2900157"](i.e. eliminate some single player feature because MP would be hard to implement for it).[/quote] The all important question is: why would a feature be undoable in MP but not SP? The only reason I can think of is it is being done wrong.
[quote who="mqpiffle" reply="32" id="2900123"] It *is* reasonable insofar as they have had to back out on / alter so many promised features already, so what's one more? [/quote] But are those features listed in the product discription?
[quote who="mqpiffle" reply="29" id="2900113"]Since Brad did (help?) create the Gamer's Bill of Rights, I'm pretty sure he'll do the right thing, whatever the final solution happens to be. [/quote] [e digicons]:annoyed:[/e] So you think it is reasonable to sell MP for E:WoM as DLC when it would be illegal (though unlikely to be enforced) and cosider it a possible course that they might take, but you also hold that they will not abuse DLC because they wrot
[quote who="GW Swicord" reply="102" id="2900098"] That's probably true about "the active community," no matter what you might mean by the term. But the 1% number that Brad and others are citing is about the customer base for the 4X TBS genre as a whole (or at least that's how I read the forums; I've not seen a link to any formal survey data). [/quote] The traceable part. I doubt it includes statistics from forms of MP that do not require connecting to the central server (Hot
[quote who="mqpiffle" reply="26" id="2900036"]To me, offering MP as a DLC is one of the most rational uses of the DLC system that have been suggested. Those players who will only use the SP version will pay $50 for the game and be perfectly happy. Gamers who want to enjoy the experience with friends or other MP gamers would certainly gladly pay an additional $10 for this feature. I don't particularly like the idea of paying $3 for a new cool spell or weapon though. Thi
It is to be noted that Channellers age really, really slowly after reaching adulthood.
[quote]I agree completely. I think that spending the extra time making SP amazing would only benefit a later addition MP DLC. The general problem with this push for SP like MP is that it places additional strain on SP experience. For instance, say the developers figure out a really cool set of mechanics that work great in SP but are either unfun or not workable in MP. Since the devs want to make SP and MP as closely linked as possible, the devs decide not to put in some really cool mechanics
[quote quoting="post"]So in my session, the magic number I gave was 7 people as the maximum number before you have to really go after it as a software engineering exercise. Some would argue you should do it with 3 people and I wouldn’t argue with that. I’m saying that with 7 people, our collaborative, easy going development ways still worked and beyond that they felt apart into chaos. [/quote] There are reasons to take it seriously even with just one perso
[quote who="eddieballgame" reply="3" id="2899530"]How about offering what was advertised? I am quite sure most gamers prefer "multiplay" vs an idiot AI. Many past programs have benefitted/survived because of it. [/quote] It was advertised for E:WoM and not E:FE.
As long as it is multiplayer that is like singleplayer, then the cost of adding it should not be too great given how much stuff would be shared resources. In theory the heavy lifting for the networking would be done by Impulse::Reactor and assuming the core game is well designed then it should be able to handle more players with little to no change. This is why the way they are doing it now is rediculous. You should either optimize the game for multiplayer or singleplayer and not make
Stardock Forums
[quote who="Annatar11" reply="64" id="2899108"]Guys, the engine for Sins started up in 2004. In order to make a 64-bit version, it would basically have to be re-done from scratch. It's not going to happen. Be realistic here. [/quote] That would depend upon how it is written. It is possible to write code where the process of making it possible of upgrade to 64-bits would be minimal. But I take it they did not do so.