Hotseat or Multiplayer Campaign

**emotion_name** · September 13, 2010, 08:22 AM

Well, going on the other thread regarding hotseats, it seems there is a divide between those who want traditional Hotseats similar to M2TW and those who want an improved MPC similar to ETW and NTW.

So, just for funs sake, and my own curiosity, i thought a poll would be a good idea!

**Darth_Revan** · September 13, 2010, 08:35 AM

I prefer multi-campaign. I didn't really like the hotseat campaign

**Ayleid** · September 13, 2010, 08:37 AM

Hotseat isn't really important for me. I much prefer the option for an improved multiplayer campaign.

But why do we have to choose between the two?

**emotion_name** · September 13, 2010, 08:42 AM

coz i wanted to see which one was more popular with the community!

**Achilla** · September 13, 2010, 01:18 PM

Hotseat has a lot of inherent issues. It takes very long to roll your turn again and very few players actually stay to the end. Synchronising all real-time battles between actual players (instead of abusing stupid AI) is practically impossible and the campaign save might get 'lost' in the process.

Honestly, if we can have both, why not have both ... but if we have a choice, shorter multiplayer campaign with fewer players is an instant winner. It should be improved, yes. One improvement would be creation of few 'mini-campaigns' to choose from, all based on a main singleplayer campaign, allowing each player to actually win the campaign in a reasonable time frame (reasonable = before people start losing interest/quit ... 2-3 hour 'matches' are your sweetspot here).

Additionally, auto-resolve ought to be vastly improved and there should be a limit on how many real-time battles you can fight per turn (it would be nice if you could personally play your more decisive battles either against a real player or an AI, but were forced to auto-resolve all the other skirmishes, to not slow everyone down ... time limit for battles and score resolution for victory would be a welcomed addition, too, to discourage camping and other lame behaviour designed to make the battle as long as possible ... well, no problem if you play a multiplayer battle outside multiplayer campaign, but MP campaign is something different ... you're expected not to waste ppl's time).

**THEMIK DK** · September 13, 2010, 02:31 PM

Improved Multiplayer

**Caleb_141** · September 13, 2010, 02:34 PM

18/1 so far... haha, think its obvious what the community wants

**Chyeaaaa111** · September 13, 2010, 04:03 PM

Well, CA really SHOULD have both options in the game but we all know they WON'T. Because of this, I think they should focus on the MPC as Hotseat is far more limited.

**emotion_name** · September 13, 2010, 05:44 PM

Wow, 21 to 2 on the first few hours!

Seems pretty conclusive so far, most would prefer an improved MPC!

**Kinjo** · September 14, 2010, 03:55 AM

lol ... hotseat sucks.

**Wolvvv** · September 14, 2010, 07:17 AM

you are mistaken ... both features are needed

hotseat is for people who have duties,kids etc and cant sit 6hours and play, also try to gather 10 or more people for multiplayer campaign, same people regularly- GOOD LUCK

**emotion_name** · September 14, 2010, 11:37 AM

I agree both features inclusion is better option, but if that was an option on this poll i fear most would select it, rightfully so however i wanted to see what the preference was!

With voting at 27 to 3 in favour of MPC, i think its pretty obvious exactly what mosts preference is!

**emotion_name** · September 14, 2010, 12:06 PM

Ok guys, since most would want Improved MPC, i made a thread here ( http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=389605 ) for people to express what they think would be essential for MPC to be improved, i hope you can all post ya thoughts there!