We need larger Co-op Missions!

Co-op Missions Discussion
Dear Blizzard,

Consider adding larger Co-op Missions that require more than 2 players... 3 player or 4 player co-op missions would be just awesome.

Sincerely,
your fan.
The more commanders you have, the beefier the enemy has to be. Blizzard has stated many times that there are significant hardware limitations as to how many units you can fit on the screen at once. Adding one or two additional commanders will create increased lag, drops in frame rate, and an overall over-saturated co-op experience with too much going on at once.
Unfortunately the game engine is too !@#$ty for that.
And by nature coop is for 2 people mostly anyway.
10/26/2016 01:01 PMPosted by Northwoods
Dear Blizzard,

Consider adding larger Co-op Missions that require more than 2 players... 3 player or 4 player co-op missions would be just awesome.

Sincerely,
your fan.

and cause more lags?
yeah no....
10/26/2016 01:38 PMPosted by kAI
Unfortunately the game engine is too !@#$ty for that.
And by nature coop is for 2 people mostly anyway.


Co-op Jet Force Gemini m-fer!
No thanks. Adding that many more units is a huge hardware strain, when certain enemy comps already cause problems.

It would also be a titanic mess with so many units trying to attack objectives.
While its a fun idea in concept, I agree with everyone else, too much of a hardware strain, and would probably be tricky to balance.
Unfortunately ALLgame engine is too !@#$ty for that.
And by nature coop is for 2 people mostly anyway.


FTFY. No game is going to handle this much heavy AI and invidual number of units well.
10/26/2016 03:37 PMPosted by ArcanePariah
Unfortunately ALLgame engine is too !@#$ty for that.
And by nature coop is for 2 people mostly anyway.


FTFY. No game is going to handle this much heavy AI and invidual number of units well.

It's doable, but the engine needs to be heavily multithreaded (right now it's single-threaded which is a HUGE no-no for a modern RTS game). Ashes of the Singularity is a fairly decent example of what is possible when you're properly using modern multicore processors: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OuUcIfcMDtc
Though someone may like 3 or 4 people co-op, at least my computer will not love and refuse to handle it. Also, more people also mean more enemy units, more time on waiting queue, and much harder to communicate with your allies, and hard to coordinate an attack of defense.
4 player co-op is great conceptually but there are too many technical limitations that will prevent this, namely the outdated game engine and that a number of players' computers can't handle the kind of intensity you would expect.
Honestly I am all for bigger and badder missions but not more commanders on the field because of it
They won't, due to technical performance and the game dragging on longer than it should...

" Our original design philosophy was to create a mission that defeats the player at about the 25-minute mark if they do nothing. Players had to collaborate to not allow this to happen, and the AI’s job was to prevent the player from succeeding. Remember that commanders have a lot of power.

If we allow players to just sit around and build up their bases, we’d never be able to create a mission that is engaging and challenging. Having that time pressure is what gets players to move out from their defenses and coordinate with their partner. "


-- Matt Morris

source: http://us.battle.net/forums/en/sc2/topic/20749275144
10/26/2016 03:37 PMPosted by ArcanePariah
FTFY. No game is going to handle this much heavy AI and invidual number of units well

And you based that statement on what exactly? /facepalm
Plenty of RTS exist that can do that. Even with better graphics.
What do you guys think about adding some missions to co-op, from SC and SC BW campaign, added here to co-op.Wouldn't that be a great concept ? :)
The Zerg ling build alone would melt so many computers...
Games shouldn't limit themselves because people refuse or are unable to upgrade the potatoes they run the game on.

The engine could easily handle 3 or 4 player co-op. What would be causing you lag is your !@#$ PC.

Go on custom maps and you can easily find games with 4 or 5 times the amount of units/ abilities/ special effects/ and ai all happening at once compared to co-op maps... Of course many of you complaining about FPS drops probably wouldn't be able to play these custom maps with any kind of decent FPS. That doesn't mean the game engine can't handle it.
10/26/2016 02:28 PMPosted by Alten
No thanks. Adding that many more units is a huge hardware strain, when certain enemy comps already cause problems.

It would also be a titanic mess with so many units trying to attack objectives.


What problems are already caused by certain enemy comps???

I have run into no lag, no fps drops, nothing that would signify hardware/engine limitations in co-op. Not once.
10/27/2016 12:29 AMPosted by Rymar
They won't, due to technical performance and the game dragging on longer than it should...

" Our original design philosophy was to create a mission that defeats the player at about the 25-minute mark if they do nothing. Players had to collaborate to not allow this to happen, and the AI’s job was to prevent the player from succeeding. Remember that commanders have a lot of power.

If we allow players to just sit around and build up their bases, we’d never be able to create a mission that is engaging and challenging. Having that time pressure is what gets players to move out from their defenses and coordinate with their partner. "


-- Matt Morris

source: http://us.battle.net/forums/en/sc2/topic/20749275144


First off. How long the game lasts isn't dictated by how many people are playing. It's dictated on level design and ai. You could have 4 people co-op on a map that is basically just "survive for 10 minutes" and it would be a 4 person 10 minute game.

Secondly. I completely disagree with Matt Morris' opinion on letting people sit in their base and build up is not enganging or challenging. My favorite campaign level from original SC, hands down, is the level where you have to survive for 30 minutes and wait for evac. Essentially all you are doing is sitting around and building up your base. It was great.

Furthermore, The statement made by matt morris has nothing to do with adding the option of 3 or 4 player co-op. His statement is in regards to their original concept for 2 player co-op.

Join the Conversation

Return to Forum