Curse

WasAGuest · Mar 27, 2006, 04:21 PM // 16:21

An idea for future co-op missions:

With the addition of Factions and the larger team based play, I would like to see this type of play included in Chapter 3. However, in a pure co-op mode style of gaming.

A mission could include multiple groups of 4 to 6 players on a team. Each team is assigned by the mission a goal. The goal of each side must be completed to complete the mission.

Example(s):

Using THK as a base of this example - Team 1 is assigned to defend the west side. Team 2 is assigned the east. Add a 3rd team to try and take down incoming siege gear and finally take down an incoming mob boss.

Another example might be - Team 1 is set to assault a mob keep, but to gain entry, they must fight their way to the front gate, which is locked untill Team 2 makes their way around the back (using stealth maybe) and opens the gate. Once the two teams meet, they would be able to take on a final (larger and tougher) Glint-like boss.

These would be pure co-op missons with no competition in them, meaning the teams work together rather than against each other. Doing this, the amount of foes could be increased or the difficulty could be increased.

actionjack · Mar 27, 2006, 05:36 PM // 17:36

Yes, /agree
I think this is the best way to do massive battles.

however, should the computer auto assign to each's goal, or should goal be player defind? (where they can have say 2 or more team doing a goal first)

WasAGuest · Mar 27, 2006, 07:11 PM // 19:11

I would think it best if the server auto assigns the mission objectives. This way it wuold solve a couple of things at once:

1) Saves time in discussion on who is doing what
2) Each time you play the mission you are not sure what you'll end up doing, so it's a different experience

It really could be elaborated on as well.

One thing to also mention is that each team is not solely tied to the others. Meaning, if one fails or wipes, the mission is not over. The remaining team(s) could keep going, but it would be that much tougher. This wouldn't or couldn't be the case for all missions like the "Opening of the gate" mentioned above.

dreamhunk · Mar 27, 2006, 08:36 PM // 20:36

I like that

Minus Sign · Mar 27, 2006, 11:04 PM // 23:04

/signed. I'd like to see the mission objectives auto-assigned too.

xiaotsu · Mar 28, 2006, 01:47 AM // 01:47

If Team could pick who Team 2 was, and vice versa, then I agree with the idea, as without that option the communication would most likely be horrible, as with *most* PUG's.

WasAGuest · Mar 28, 2006, 02:58 AM // 02:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by xiaotsu

If Team could pick who Team 2 was, and vice versa, then I agree with the idea, as without that option the communication would most likely be horrible, as with *most* PUG's.

Not sure I understand where you are going with this. Are you wanting to direct the other team? Or are you wanting updates from the others?

Each team should have it's own leader and each team will be selected by when they clicked "enter mission". Otherwise we might have a huge issue with people standing around "LFG" all the time. It's bad enough now getting a full 8, but setting up two or three groups.. talk about a migraine.

WasAGuest · Mar 29, 2006, 10:58 PM // 22:58

Anyone else have any thoughts on this idea? Addtions so to speak?

xiaotsu · Mar 30, 2006, 12:17 AM // 00:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by WasAGuest

Not sure I understand where you are going with this. Are you wanting to direct the other team? Or are you wanting updates from the others?

Each team should have it's own leader and each team will be selected by when they clicked "enter mission". Otherwise we might have a huge issue with people standing around "LFG" all the time. It's bad enough now getting a full 8, but setting up two or three groups.. talk about a migraine.

I mean, "team a" starts their group, and "team b" starts theirs, and then maybe some kind of "mission alliance" option so that both teams can be in the mission with each other, so it wouldn't turn out like "team a" gets randomly placed with "team c" and "team b" and "team d" get put together. Communication wouldn't matter *as* much if you got to choose what team you co-op'd with, as most likely the majority of you would be friends, and possibly in TS of Vent. Then you could get both teams into TS/Vent alot easier and have full communication.

Heh, sorry if that's not understandable...It should be though, if you read it thoroughly.

WasAGuest · Mar 30, 2006, 12:25 AM // 00:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by xiaotsu

I mean, "team a" starts their group, and "team b" starts theirs, and then maybe some kind of "mission alliance" option so that both teams can be in the mission with each other, so it wouldn't turn out like "team a" gets randomly placed with "team c" and "team b" and "team d" get put together. Communication wouldn't matter *as* much if you got to choose what team you co-op'd with, as most likely the majority of you would be friends, and possibly in TS of Vent. Then you could get both teams into TS/Vent alot easier and have full communication.

Heh, sorry if that's not understandable...It should be though, if you read it thoroughly.

Ahh, I got ya now. Cool, yea that would work, but we would then need a way to see who is ready other than just voice comm. Not everyone has that and untill we get an in game one from Anet, we need alternative methods as well.