I still think that a chain-of-command is not necessarily a bad thing for co-op mode. Sure, one player will get to do more than another, but I think that's a given in any co-op game. You just have to make sure that there's a motivation for each player give it his all.

The great thing about co-op is that you can make the gameplay more diverse. Where one player might only be able to do X things at a time, two players could be able to do 2X things at a time.

I'd personally like to see a game where each player performs a very specific task but where they are all located within the same vehicle. The tank with one player drivings and one player shooting is a good example. But I'd like that to be taken to more of an extreme.

MechWarrior has always been an interesting title to me. Stick with me. MMO. Players start with little cash, purchase small, used Mechs. As they complete missions (quests) they become richer (bounty). The more money they have, the better Mechs they can purchase. The better Mechs they have, the more difficult missions they can complete. The more difficult missions they complete, the more money they get. Eventually, all players would have the top-of-the-line Mech under their control.

Now, bring in the extreme co-op mode. It all starts with one player having so much money that he is able to have a custom design Mech build, so big that it towers over all other Mechs, say 10 times the size of a regular Mech. This giant Mech can not be controlled by just one player. For example, one player would need to take care of movement, while another takes care of firing and reloading the missiles in the missile launcher that is located on the left shoulder. Yet another player deals with the massive laser, placed on the right shoulder. One player would need to play the part of commander, sitting in the head of the Mech, watching the action unfold before his eyes.
"Missile: target enemy 1. Legs: walk to position X. Laser: target pursuers."

The motivation for the players to place themselves under command of another player is that they will become better (be it player skill or character skill) and will gain a name for themselves if they manage to stay alive and perform well. "Yeah, this guy here has fought with me in 4 consecutive battles. He's pretty much the best missile launcher this side of the planet."

If the action is intense, and if each individual gameplay element is designed to be a game by itself (launching missiles, moving legs, aiming laser, etc), then all players in the Mech will have enough to do to keep them busy and entertained.

As an added motivation, let players gain higher amounts of money from playing this co-op mode than from playing single player (in the smaller Mechs). That way, a new player can quickly gain some money in co-op so that later on he can purchase bigger Mechs for the single player mode.

EDIT: Just watched Crimson Tide a few times, and think it would be nice to have that kind of structure in a game. "This is your captain speaking. We have located an enemy Mech two miles from our current position. We are going to close in, target it and blow it into a thousand little pieces. Destroying this Mech is worth 1000 gold pieces to each crew member. Let's do this people. Weapons: are missiles loaded? Is laser ready? Radar: any other enemies nearby? Keep an eye out. Engine: full power. Engage."

[edited by - Silvermyst on August 1, 2002 1:40:53 PM]

quote: Original post by Ketchaval
Consider the cooperative games that you have played, and what their strong points and their weaknesses were.

Everquest was my first cooperative game. By having classes, each with a specific job to do that the other classes could not do. You had to depend on other people. The strong points of this design is that you must group, meet people, etc. An essential part of an online community. Communication and planning were also essential to a successful group.

One of the weak points is that the job only your class could do was often rather limited. Clerics were essential groupmates, but their job of cast heal, sit and regain mana was boring and repetitive. Part of this was due to EQ''s overall design, but any game with characters having dedicated jobs could fall into the same trap.

The other weak point was that if you couldn''t find a group, you were out of luck and couldn''t do much.

I definitely think you''re onto something Silvermyst.

Silvermyst has broken through the "forest for the trees" problem. Giving people a well defined role at something they do well and enjoy is most of the battle. A little thoughtful organisation and integration with story & gameplay and we could have a shining gem.

Think about it in slightly more abstract ways, we have a number of people each doing a job and these jobs cooperate. It would work with several generals in a battlefield, each with troops to command (co-op C&C); or a team of racing drivers: one quick, one agile, one to bash enemies and the whole team wins if any member crosses first (i "invented" this one with toca and mario cart games).

Your allies aren't just your wingmen.


********


A Problem Worthy of Attack
Proves It's Worth by Fighting Back

[edited by - walkingcarcass on August 2, 2002 7:54:08 AM]

is it a sytemic problem that for a theoretical system of cooperation to become real, one has to subordinate oneself to real structures which distort cooperation in one way or another?

For example, a game player may want to play a cooperative game. However, to do so the player has to become a programmer that is part of a team and the team will never have the goal of creating a cooperative game as long as it wishes to remain a team. Why? Because in a single instance of time, a game requiring the cooperation that keeps the team together would destroy it... unless the team consumed twice as many resources.