Co-op Needed!

[Apocalypse 31]

Title says it all.

Another quality release from the team, hoping that one day we'll see coop support.

[Doug Williams]

I agree with "Another quality release from the team". Bravo, BFC!

Co-op support is not something I care about enough to want to see any effort, time, or money expended on that would potentially cause a delay in releasing more WW2 CM games, modules, or packs.

I am assuming by co-op you mean four or more players playing CM at the same time, in real time, like Starcraft 2 or something.

[ZPB II]

Yes, it's yet another quality title.

I would love to see Co-op. Imagine playing a huge PBEM battle with say, 8 players. Each player would have his own company and his FOW would be limited to what his own units see and a very, very rough approximation of the locations and objectives of his friendly companies. After sending a turn you could record a brief radio message about the progress of your company and request an update from Bat HQ and your colleagues. What's happening and where? Are those friendlies? Who gets support? Why is Mr. Emrys's company moving at a snail's pace when it should be supporting my tank rush in the middle? Add in some metacampaign spice and you're approaching the wargaming Xanadu.

The immersion would be tremendous when played realistically and it would be supreme fun to play with more players even in a lighter setting. The technical challenge is huge and I'm not sure what would have to be traded in for this to happen. The turn rate in PBEM would be abysmally slow unless you play with some hardcore folks or the turn length could be adjusted, but there's always pauseable RT.

[Doug Williams]

Zeb, what you describe (co-op 8 player PBEM game) sounds interesting, but I could see such a game going on for literally a year or longer, given the inevitable sickness, vacations, losing interest, computer crashes, etc., etc.

The only way I could possibly see CM co-op play working is real time with an online lobby for hooking up and starting games. And I only play WeGo. However, if BFC ever does implement co-op play with a lobby, etc., I'll give it a go.

[ZPB II]

Yes, I thought about the same. One solution would be to implement optional mechanics for the host, such as being able to delegate the troops to another player or the AI for the duration of the leave so the entire game would not stall. The current AI is not up to the task but seeing that Steve has expressed the desire to buff the AI and the possibility of triggers, I expect a bright future.

Longer turns and the possibility to configure SOP + boolean logic chains...oh...oh...One can have wet dreams...

[Apocalypse 31]

Imagine playing a huge PBEM battle with say, 8 players. Each player would have his own company.

This would ROCK

[SlowMotion]

Great to see there are more people who'd like to have this game mode.

Some recent Battlefront thoughts about CoPlay in this thread:

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=105459&page=6

[Stele]

I'd love to see it too. One thing I like about gaming is the comradery in wargames. As for a coop game lasting too long, there are plenty out there that already do that (ie-War in the Pacific Admiral's Edition).

[Childress]

Zeb, what you describe (co-op 8 player PBEM game) sounds interesting, but I could see such a game going on for literally a year or longer, given the inevitable sickness, vacations, losing interest, computer crashes, etc., etc.

Yes, not even mentioning the 'niche-y' aspect of the audience for hyper-realistic and cerebral games like this one with its older, commonly employed demographic. Eight players is a lot for your typical CM scenario and, in RT, you'd need more refined Pause options.

The only way I could possibly see CM co-op play working is real time with an online lobby for hooking up and starting games.

Like Slitherine's and others? It's becoming an industry standard.

[JonS]

The only way I could possibly see CM co-op play working is real time with an online lobby for hooking up and starting games. And I only play WeGo. However, if BFC ever does implement co-op play with a lobby, etc., I'll give it a go.

That's interesting. Personally, for co-op, I wouldn't be interested in a lobby at all. I figure that if I'm going to be playing with and against a bunch of folk for better than a year, the last demographic I want to be doing it with is random unknown folks in an anonymous online lobby. To me, that sounds like a perfect recipe for abandoned games.

[Childress]

That's interesting. Personally, for co-op, I wouldn't be interested in a lobby at all. I figure that if I'm going to be playing with and against a bunch of folk for better than a year, the last demographic I want to be doing it with is random unknown folks in an anonymous online lobby. To me, that sounds like a perfect recipe for abandoned games.

But, Jon, didn't you meet your wife that way? You know, playing Age of Conan: Unchained.

[Reaper28]

That's interesting. Personally, for co-op, I wouldn't be interested in a lobby at all. I figure that if I'm going to be playing with and against a bunch of folk for better than a year, the last demographic I want to be doing it with is random unknown folks in an anonymous online lobby. To me, that sounds like a perfect recipe for abandoned games.

But seeing how relatively small our community is i would highly doubt people in the lobby would be that anonymous. Plus if implemented correctly if you had an opponent you didnt know you could easily see their dnf%

Also after awhile groups of players always end up knowing whos legit and whos not.

A lobby would just make it easier to discuss whos playing who, rules of engagement and seeing whos online and ready to go.

[Vinnart]

Absolutely interested! I see a day when CM offers 3v3 + 1 observer slot per side for real time play. When this happens I will be so on board. Sudden Strike 2 is a good model to follow for success for this multiplayer genre. A lobby would definitely be needed for joining, and finding posted games. When CM goes this route you will see the real time element of this game EXPLODE in popularity! For those not familiar with this type of play it is the most fun you will have gaming. The teamwork makes for good camaraderie, and if you play on an organized team with voice comms as I did it adds so much to the experience. The observer slot per side is also a must to do it right. The observer can just watch the game, use it for training, or can be a designated supreme commander to coordinate the team. I’ll have to do a mock up to show how Sudden Strike dealt with this element for those not familiar with it which made it extremely popular. Some of these type games were so much fun I can recall games I had 10 yrs ago. Nothing as satisfying as breaking through the line to play a major part in your team winning, or demoralizing the guy across from you so much that they quit. Ah, those were the days. Grogs this is the type of play that will really show your meddle.

This would be pretty much RT play as WEGO just does not lend itself to CO – OP. It is hard enough to get one person to send turns in a timely manner, so I doubt more than 1v1 is practical for WEGO. Real Time is where Co-Op

[Destraex1]

I agree.

COOP multiplayer. They claim this is too complex to impliment but may be in eventualy. However it has been proven in a lot of games that it can be 80% of the way people play. I have friends who will play no other way as they just consider that they will get their butts kicked by myself otherwise, especially if playing a game "I like". Silly as I know as I am no napoleon! COOP is also the most fun because you are working together and the communication and laughs flow freely. With the implimentation of pausable realtime multiplay. I am however satisfied.

Bad example. But Wargame European Escalation implimented COOP recently because of community demand despite a lot of people whinging that this would dilute the VS population for the game. People experience with Company of Heroes you see was that a lot of people simply played COOP as a "cop out" for a relaxing time of it. Reality was it was fun beating off hoardes of aggressive enemy attacks with friends and was great training on how things\units\tactics worked for VS games, even though VS tactics were a little different vs a human opponent.

[SlowMotion]

I have wondered what is the most difficult part to implement in CoPlay.

Some things I could come up with:

-If you want to mix AI and human player controlling units on same side, that might be difficult to solve. How to make AI plans that would work in this game mode?

-in RT games you might see performance problems

But if you had only humans OR AI on one side and only WEGO mode, I'd think CoPlay implemention would be much simpler. You'd need something so that players could decide who controls which units, something new so players could plan things and maybe each side would need to have a player with "super user" rights, so he could for example replace a player that has stopped playing with a new player.

[Destraex1]

I can see if you wanted to play two humans or AI per side how it would be a challenge.

But two humans VS one AI should not be if forces are split evenly.

I assume the scenario would almost have to be made for coop however just to split the troops.

[Steiner14]

I would love to see Co-op. Imagine playing a huge PBEM battle with say, 8 players.

It's already not so easy to find adequate PBEM-players, that fit from skill level, turn rate and reliability.

Now imagine the lenght of turns if a multiple of 2 would be involved.

Also imagine how few games would become finished and how many would suffer from disappearing players, once one side gets problems. Imagine the "fun" after an incompetent player lost 50% of his tanks and disappears, to take over the game and play a hopeless game, caused by someone else, to the end.

And them imagine, after some nice experiences of the human kind, how many players would be left playing CO-OP after one year.

[Destraex1]

I stopped playing PBEM because I prefer real time and the rate of play was excruciatingly slow. It became a chor fast.

Real Time coop is in the moment and over before I need to go to bed. It does not require me to keep up inspiration for months on end.

It also spurs on conversation about battlefield tactics and all manner of other things and encourages friendship. VS games tend to polarise friend a lot more. People wanting to keep their secrets.... to be victorious again the next time.

Even my favorite VS games of all times have been coop with a friend VS other players. Teams are much more fun than a set of poker faced polarised chess players.

[SlowMotion]

It's already not so easy to find adequate PBEM-players, that fit from skill level, turn rate and reliability.

Now imagine the lenght of turns if a multiple of 2 would be involved.

Also imagine how few games would become finished and how many would suffer from disappearing players, once one side gets problems. Imagine the "fun" after an incompetent player lost 50% of his tanks and disappears, to take over the game and play a hopeless game, caused by someone else, to the end.

And them imagine, after some nice experiences of the human kind, how many players would be left playing CO-OP after one year.

A nice list I'm sure BF has had such things in mind when deciding to delay CoPlay.

Having unreliable players is a problem, but this problem of having players with different skill levels is how real war was like. And the same thing happens in all other multiplayer games: rookies often have very tough time when playing against more experienced players. I think that adds one more interesting thing to the game: even if you know that you might have one beginner and one experienced player against you, you don't know who is controlling some enemy unit. A plan that might fail in one part of the map may be succesful in another area.

[Doug Williams]

It's already not so easy to find adequate PBEM-players, that fit from skill level, turn rate and reliability.

You would have a better experience in this regard if you joined a gaming club, especially one that specializes in Combat Mission.

[verb]

At least 2 co-op vs the AI would be most welcome. I can see all the problems of the lobby system or people quitting games so if people tire of a more robust co-op, it could potentially be a waste of time and money for the developers. However, having 2 vs the AI would open up a lot of possibilities. I would be more inclined to play larger scenarios if my friend was able to take a company or a few platoons.

Plus, when playing a scenario yesterday, 2 italian light tanks overran my fortification line causing havoc but with a lone bazooka man (last one from his squad) leaving a bunker, he managed to knock out both tanks within 2 minutes. I was so excited and there was much fist pumping but my wife sitting on the couch behind me just kept on reading her magazine as expected. Having a friend run half the battle with me would give me an outlet to share in the fun of this game. I hardly want to hoot and holler via Skype to my friend when I'm playing against him and knock out his tanks that way. That just seems rude.

[Vinnart]

When I say I would like to see Co-Op in the future I do not think it would be anytime soon. PC power for the average joe would have to be able to handle the size of a map that would accommodate a typical regiment size frontage. Not sure how big that would be, but probably more than the average PC to handle without LAG. Preventing lag in real time battles of this size is where PC power would have to catch up for smooth game play with all the under the hood calculations the game has to make.

Co-Op Human v Human is where it is at for gaining popularity. Against the AI I feel it would not be as popular since The AI is nowhere a challenge to humans. AI for this type of play would take much more work to script rather than human vs human play. My advice to the developers would be not to worry about Human vs AI Co-Op to start with, and concentrate on HvsH for initial implementation someday. Real Time Co-Op seems like a logical direction for the game to take eventually now that real time is part of CM. I KNOW it would be big, and would gain whole other market if advertised properly. If Sudden Strike could get that popularity I know CM can since it a far superior game for realism than Sudden Strike was. Sudden Strike is good to look to for learning from for a successful model for Co-Op play though. Also, seeing the mistakes the developers of Sudden Strike 3 made is a good way to avoid the same pit falls.

[SlowMotion]

Not knowing Sudden Strike3, what kind of problems were there?

[Battlefront.com]

To restate what I say every time this comes up...

Conceptually I would *love* to have CoOp for CM. In fact, I originally designed CMx2 in 2004 to be CoOp from the ground up. But that got abandoned very quickly because the work necessary to pull it off is massive. Given a choice between a massive effort for CoPlay and a massive effort into the gameplay itself... it's a no brainer. Until we've basically run out of ways to dramatically improve the game for 100% of our customer base, we will not divert such huge resources towards any minority feature. And CoPlay will definitely be a minority option. Maybe less so after some major changes to the core of the game first, so those have to happen first.

The only way this will be shortcut is if a military client funds the resources necessary to make it happen. From a military standpoint a few hundred thousand bucks is chump change, but to us it's an extremely risky venture with absolutely less payback potential than other things we could do with the same amount of money.

However it has been proven in a lot of games that it can be 80% of the way people play.

Yes, but those games are inherently designed for cooperative play. It's been 15 years since anybody wanted to play a FPS solo. Hell, who here remembers "LAN Parties" when people used to bring their clunky desktops and CRT monitors over to someone's house or place of work to hook together for a 10 hour marathon gaming session? I do

I have wondered what is the most difficult part to implement in CoPlay.

Some things I could come up with:

-If you want to mix AI and human player controlling units on same side, that might be difficult to solve. How to make AI plans that would work in this game mode?

-in RT games you might see performance problems

But if you had only humans OR AI on one side and only WEGO mode, I'd think CoPlay implemention would be much simpler. You'd need something so that players could decide who controls which units, something new so players could plan things and maybe each side would need to have a player with "super user" rights, so he could for example replace a player that has stopped playing with a new player.

Yup, and I can probably think of lots more stuff that isn't on this list. For example, the massively complex coding that gets all those players together in one consistent game without lag and/or synchronization problems. Months of work right there.

This is the thing that sucks about CoPlay from a development standpoint. We have to do a dozen big things for it to be viable as a game feature. We can't just do one or two here or there over time, like we can for other aspects of CM. It's all or nothing. And it's a big, huge "all" to get into.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

When I say I would like to see Co-Op in the future I do not think it would be anytime soon. PC power for the average joe would have to be able to handle the size of a map that would accommodate a typical regiment size frontage.

Not necessarily. I think it would be pretty fun to have players commanding a Platoon sized force in RealTime. WeGoers would probably hate it, but RealTime I think it would be really fun. And that is well within the scope of the current game environment.

But yes... if we're talking 8 on 8 with each player having a company sized formation... then we are starting to get into some serious hardware demands that further whittle down who would be able to play. Especially map size. It's one thing for a single player to command two Battalions in a narrow front, but it would get VERY old VERY quickly if that was the only option for CoPlay. Which means probably at least a 4 fold increase in the map size. I don't think that's viable.

Co-Op Human v Human is where it is at for gaining popularity.

For some CM players, absolutely. For online game players in general? Absolutely. But for the average CM customer? No, definitely not. And general game players don't want to play CM at all, so they don't factor into this.

Sudden Strike is good to look to for learning from for a successful model for Co-Op play though. Also, seeing the mistakes the developers of Sudden Strike 3 made is a good way to avoid the same pit falls.

This is another thing you customers vastly under appreciate. And that is the design costs of something like this. There's no simple way to go about the end user or backend aspects of CoPlay because CM is very much unlike all these other games. Technically and gameplay wise. The customers are different as well. Which means we have to figure out, for ourselves, what features CM needs and doesn't need to make CoPlay work well enough. That in turn means we have to put a ton of creative time and energy into figuring out how to implement it. Assuming we get it right (and it is entirely possible we won't on our first attempt) we will not have that focus on anything else but CoPlay.

There's a reason that most games out there have production teams many times our size. Since they are aiming for audiences which are proven to exist for such features, it's worth it for them to do it. And most still fail.

To do CoPlay ourselves we would have to "bet the farm" on it producing new revenue we would not have had before. If we lose the bet, we're out of business. Do you really think we should be gambling like that for CoPlay? We don't.

Steve