Cooperative Gameplay, When?.

[Cid250]

Two or more players in the same side, was one of the ideas discussed for this new engine...

The lack of this feature makes this realtime oriented game much less appealing than the earlier CMBB and CMAK, designed only with the excellent WEGO turns in mind.

You can't handle a big amount of units in real time with enought quality in the command detail with CMSF (in real time Player vs Player)... more players with less units under his command responsability, (may be) will improve the overall situation of gameplay. Actually it's a pause/click festival concentrated in the most active engagements, it's much better the pre-stablished 1 minute pause when you face a big scenario with many troops to handle.

What is the current status of cooperative gameplay?.

[Battlefront.com]

It's going to be a while, unfortunately. The main reason is that there is enough work in that one feature to occupy us for almost an entire product development cycle. With so many things we need to do in the short term (temperate environment, Quick Battle improvements, etc) it's going to have to wait. At least that's the way it looks right now.

Steve

[Cid250]

Well, 1.11 is out, and 2009 begins. It's considered this feature for the 2009's development cycle?. Or maybe it will be considered well after 2010?

[Cid250]

It's even considered after the British module release?.

[Lethaface]

Well, 1.11 is out, and 2009 begins. It's considered this feature for the 2009's development cycle?. Or maybe it will be considered well after 2010?

It's even considered after the British module release?.

I hope you didn't mean the British module only comes out after 2010

---

This would indeed be a very nice function, thanks Steve for sharing the bad news hehe.. At least its better then no news at all

[Cid250]

No, i only ask for the approximate possition for this feature in the development list... i'm just curious.

If it's mid-term, it can be an objetive for the year 2009. But if it's low in priority, then it will be long-term (for 2010 or later).

After the new blue bar introduced in the WeGo gameplay, i consider cooperative gameplay the most important feature for the game, since it can allow 2vs2 player scenarios, or (if we are lucky) 4 vs 4 player scenarios.

With this feature, you really introduce the sense of "friendly fog of war", and "friendly fire" events. Chain of command, contact reports, and comms... it matters!, in the new gameplay that follows to this "great" feature.

[panzermartin]

CMSF with its real time engine and 1:1 screams for a cooperative mode. Cooperative will mean less micromanagemnt, more focus on smaller units, a new strategic layer in the game with each player assigned a dedicated role in the battle and lots of fun moments. RT will become much more playable, since there is no pause online right now (hope this is fixed in the coming months). But some extra work would be needed, with a lobby and in game comms system between team mates. An arrow to indicate axis of attack or a higlight cursor to pass intel about enemy forces etc. This could bring the game to a whole another level.

[TempV]

C But some extra work would be needed, with a lobby and in game comms system between team mates. An arrow to indicate axis of attack or a higlight cursor to pass intel about enemy forces etc. This could bring the game to a whole another level.

Good point here. I think some set of Quick Team Commands like "Move here" "Defend Here", "I need AT", "Attention!" etc. will be very useful.

I really want coop in CMx2 Normandy. By the way, will "Normandy" be real name for the game or BFC thinks about another one?

[Israelistyle]

I think that cooperative game play will make CM:SF...well to make things short, The Game. I hope that BattleFront will be thinking about this next, after the British Module is out. I think we can all agree that cooperative gameplay beats almost any other type of game play.

[CptWasp]

As I declared a long time ago, that would be a wonderful feature. Please Battlefront!

[Thomm]

While multi-multiplayer does not excite me too much in practical terms (think of the organisational skill necessary to get more than two CM:SF players to play at the same time), the prospect of friendly forces acting outside of the players control is delightful!

Best regards,

Thomm

[Patrocles]

As I declared a long time ago, that would be a wonderful feature. Please Battlefront!

right on!

Yeah, I played the old Age of Empires II RTS game as coop (one player would control the farmers, city development, building armies and would then pass on the troops to the other player who was out fighting the enemy players or comps) and it was a blast and as others have mentioned made life much easier for us folks with low "twitch-factor."

If possible to code, and if CMSF even comes out with coop, it would be nice to be able to designate which player will control which units (I don't want my coop player taking over my units).

[panzermartin]

(think of the organisational skill necessary to get more than two CM:SF players to play at the same time)

Thomm

You got a point here though it is working almost falwessly in so many RTS. But yeah, they have a dedicated multiplayer server and a lobby which makes things easier. Histwar is a small team's game too, but they seem to have dedicated a lot of effort in the multi aspect. From what I've read they seem to have gone in depth with each player's role and up to 8 gamers will be able to hook up from the release build! Why not CMx2?

[Sergei]

From what I've read they seem to have gone in depth with each player's role and up to 8 gamers will be able to hook up from the release build! Why not CMx2?

Look at it in this way: CMSF is on the market, Les Grognards isn't. There is a good reason why some features have to be left out.

[salwon]

At some point in CMx2's life, there will be Co-op.

At the exact same moment, there will never again be any reason to play anything else.

[Other Means]

After taking part in a meta-campaign I can't imagine me playing co-op more than once.

I'm obviously in the minority but just getting people from across the globe to play and play together.

Nightmare.

Hey ho, lets find out.

[Bonecrusher-17]

I'd agree with Other Means from my experience playing Joint OPS IC. CMSF would lend itself to players becoming speciality branch players on a side beautifully. I.e. CAV, STRYKER, ARMOR, FISTers, etc... JO:IC was played like that and when you start relying on a mass of people across the globe to fill unit specifc roles,or just 'command' in general it gets messy.

That said though, I'd love to see it happen. It would be slicker than snot.

[-Pv-]

Although I haven't had any experience playing coop in ground combat, I have participated in many air combat coop battles using Apache and Falcon4.

I'll use Falcon4 to make my observations because it's been a very popular combat mult game for a very long time and like CMx2, I suspect its strongest attraction is to help each other thoroughly trounce the AI in battles the size of which are difficult to manage by a single player. Also, the excitement a particular player communicates when something important happens is a very contagious factor in online gaming.

The typical solution Falcon4 players have adopted (note: F4 is a 3 dimensional combat game with far larger game maps) is to form organized "squadrons" of players that are highly disciplined who practice together regularly. There is even a practice combat map in the dessert of the US complete with AI Opfor. Squadrons will rehearse communication techniques to a fine point as well as movement, overwatch, etc.

I suspect this will happen in SF also where after a few months of frustrating chaos while players learn the feel of the game dynamic, players will form Companies or Brigades organized around custom Web sites where games are scheduled and organized and a regular group of hard core players will practice together and work out cooperative techniques while refining their specialty niche (tanks, infantry, support, command, recon, etc.) New players after a few initiation games in chaos rooms will eventually join the organized groups, train and get certified for action by taking combat level tests and working up military-like command structures. The skill with which organizations do this without making civilians feel like they're in boot camp will be a large measure of success. Typically in F4 there are no military ranks, just measures of skill with those of higher skill usually being ASKED to command a strike. New players are always helped and encouraged because it livens up the game and adds to the unexpected.

Using voice servers, the result will be howls of intense fun. The friendships which will develop within the organized groups will be rich and long lasting. The chaos players will revert back to single player and all will be well.

-Pv-

[Bonecrusher-17]

JO:IC was organized as two Campagin Armies against each other (rather creative forces too like Australians (NATO) vs Tonganeese (Rebel forces). Both Armies in turn were broken down into multi 'divisions' or 'regiments' for simplicity sake with specialized BOS (Battlefield Operation System) functions: rotary wing aviation, SF, Armor, infantry etc...

Armies and Divisions withtin them basically recieved a Map and WARNO foe the follow Sunday's battle with objectives, and starting positions. They then had to develop their campaign plans and reherase actions down to the squad level. Honestly that process was more fun than the battles sometimes. JO:IC, much like the BF series, was a FPS that focused on combined arms ops in multiplayer.

Two big issues: Communication once the game started from higher echelon elements to lower elements in the game. And, as mentioned earlier, if a division (essentialy a 'clan') was short on members or leaders during the battle it rapidly made them combat ineffective. One of the reasons for this was the length of battles (1100-1900 EDT) and the world wide audience that played it. It made it fun too.

I'd love to see this game go Multi, I think it would be tremendous fun.

[Cid250]

Next Question...

How much complex is to include this feature with RealTime support in mind, versus only WeGo?.

I bet that WeGo can minimize the number of issues, since all players send his orders to be executed simultaneously... more players in real time looks like a more complex development.

If this guess is true... will be possible to drop the cooperative-play feature from real time to make it available at least in WeGo mode?. Something is better than nothing.

In other words... if the development of cooperative-play for both: RealTime and WeGo, means that we can't expect it until year 2014, will be possible to develop cooperative-play in WeGo (only) if this choice push the release date of this feature to year 2011?.

As a side note, at some point, if RealTime grows in the number of possible players... it will reach a point where the development of a dedicated server software to host the battle, will be more than "interesting".

[Patrocles]

Yes, Coop play would be an excellent feature for CM:N (if that will be the name of the normandy game).

[kipanderson]

Hi,

I hugely look forward to cooperative play…. with really small numbers of units for each player it will change everything… the chaos and FOW will be unparalleled.

However I do think WEGO in CMSF is now every bit the equal of CMX1… absolutely full feature… so I certainly enjoy CMX2 even without cooperative play.

All the best,

Kip.

[Battlefront.com]

The short answer is... CoPlay is still a ways away from happening. It's a major undertaking and it's not a "core" feature. By that I mean it will be a HUGE, ground breaking feature that a pretty good sized percentage of CMers will LOVE... but I suspect the majority won't do more than play it once at most.

Given a choice between adding something that the majority will find a lot of value in, and can be coded in a reasonable amount of time, and a feature that a decent sized minority will love, but takes an ungodly long time to code/test, we have to go with the best bang for our buck. The only thing that would change this equation is a military contract since CoPlay would undoubtably be a requirement. But the chances of landing a military contract are a bit worse than being struck by lightning (an analogy coming our friends inside military sim procurement).

The way we envision it working is that people will form "clans" based on compatible time schedules. A full time server hosting a "lobby" is also unavoidable. Communications between sides would be done through VOIP and text messages. The two forms would be controlled via game settings to either be realistic (interruptible by game events) or constant (uninterruptible). Players would be on their honor to not use other forms of communications to work around whatever limitations are imposed upon them.

Initially CoPlay would not include AI control of friendly forces, which is why initially it will be limited to the hardcore online gamer. The work required for that is way beyond daunting, let me tell you Massive amounts of work that will take huge amounts of time and probably produce mediocre results. It's definitely not even on our radar, though of course in theory we would love to have it.

I also don't see this being viable for PBEM. The logistics of having a file passed around to 8-16 people don't look so good. Probably not worth the coding time.

Steve

[-Pv-]

When you say "would not include AI control of friendly forces" what does this mean exactly?

-Pv-

[Battlefront.com]

Meaning, CoPlay will initially require Human players for all the forces of a particular side. This means if you have the forces divided up as follows:

Battalion Commander

Company Commander

Company Commander

Company Commander

Each one of these positions must be "staffed" by a Human. Ideally it could be a mix of Humans and AIs, but the amount of AI programming necessary to make that work is enormous. Easily 4-6 months of solid development time. In fact, I would say it's more work than making the rest of CoPlay combined, including a "Lobby" client.

Steve