Spring RTS Engine

I think all would concurr that Co-op has ruined the balance in teamgames specifically.

Please post if you would say for the latter.

Coop is a mod option, so:
a) Ask host to turn off coop
b) Vote to turn off coop

Choice > No choice

Teamplay wins games. Coopers are much more likely to be actually working together as a team.

I've played a lot of coop, and lost quite a bit to non-coopers who were similarly working together. I've also made a few "coop buddies", and occasionally we find ourselves playing together in non-coop servers. And we try doing coop-inspired strategies, like lab sharing and gifting resources for early teching, and they work just as well.

There's nothing magical about coop that teamplay can't similarly accomplish - it's just that players who choose to coop tend to actually know it's a team game and treat it that way.

Its the same unbalance that happens at the start of a game when 1 person drops and the person who takes over gets to start with 2 commanders and gets the other player's resources as well
(usually 2000 M + 2000 E and a spare commander to bomb with freely).

In early game, having the ability to spam 20+ flash/instigator or 12 Stumpy/Raider in under 2-1/2 mins is retarded, any way you put it.

You can also tech 2 in about 2-1/2 minutes as well if 2 players are co-oped and rushing together for it.

Problem is, that most of the good servers have it set for COOP.

Only about 3-4 good servers have COOP disabled, most of which never get any players on them or at least very rarely do, so there is still a limited choice.

MR.D wrote:Its the same unbalance that happens at the start of a game when 1 person drops and the person who takes over gets to start with 2 commanders and gets the other player's resources as well
(usually 2000 M + 2000 E and a spare commander to bomb with freely).

In early game, having the ability to spam 20+ flash/instigator or 12 Stumpy/Raider in under 2-1/2 mins is retarded, any way you put it.

I don't see how. If this is genuinely retarded we should be playing smaller games or different maps where this isn't a good strategy. In principle 2 comms controlled by separate players can work together just as well as 2 comms controlled by the same one.

You can also tech 2 in about 2-1/2 minutes as well if 2 players are co-oped and rushing together for it.

One nice feature about BA is that tech 1 is actually better at first. Putting basic mexes on empty metal patches, for instance, is more efficient than putting moho mines on them - it's only when you run out of metal patches (and geo spots) that the t2 economy becomes profitable. You also need a substantial economic base to get it started: the cheapest t2 energy source that isn't moho geo or fusion is combat engineers, and they're about half as efficient as basic solars.

coop is about micro, not new strategic possibilities

And 1 player with 2 commanders is never as good as 2 players of same skill with 1 comm each.

And t1 is usually better, all game...

You turn off co-op, I'll eat your babies.

Teamwork is OP! Nerf Teamwork!

YokoZar wrote:

MR.D wrote:Its the same unbalance that happens at the start of a game when 1 person drops and the person who takes over gets to start with 2 commanders and gets the other player's resources as well
(usually 2000 M + 2000 E and a spare commander to bomb with freely).

In early game, having the ability to spam 20+ flash/instigator or 12 Stumpy/Raider in under 2-1/2 mins is retarded, any way you put it.

I don't see how. If this is genuinely retarded we should be playing smaller games or different maps where this isn't a good strategy. In principle 2 comms controlled by separate players can work together just as well as 2 comms controlled by the same one.

This


Each map has an optimal number of factories per side, CCR for example being 4. Any number of commanders over this are better off assisting teammates then making their own labs, regardless if it is coop mode or not.

Alot are saying that there is no difference if two seperated players with coms work together tightly.

There is one very important difference. If players share 2 coms that means they have 2k metal storage. If you don't know where then ill clarify: one com can spam units for 2k metal and other can push very effectively and not have his resources stay unused.

If you still don't think this is a very big difference, get 2 teams of very good players / teamplayers together of even skill- have team1 coop and team2 seperately. Make it a map where frontline matters so com pushing matters.

You will see close to 100% winning percentage for the cooping team. If you want to call bullshit really have some friends or yourself play this, espescially try being on the non cooping side.

Storage is not an issue, if theres no noobs in the team everyone can set to share their resources. If theres a noob in the team you of course dont want him to drain whole teams resources, then you have to share player to player.

Coop mainly gives advantage in micro.

And coop is very easy to screw up if you have a lot of players and not enough practice in it. Very easy to make too much or too little E or bp, and have some units unmicroed or same units microed by 2 people.

Even if coop on a mod level is disabled, you could just as well write a widget that shares the resources between two players.

Coop mode is just a way of making things easier that are already possible in every game.

JohannesH wrote:And coop is very easy to screw up if you have a lot of players and not enough practice in it. Very easy to make too much or too little E or bp, and have some units unmicroed or same units microed by 2 people.

This is true. I've definitely seen large coops fail when a single player decides to energy stall the whole team by overbuilding nanos, for example.

YokoZar wrote:

JohannesH wrote:And coop is very easy to screw up if you have a lot of players and not enough practice in it. Very easy to make too much or too little E or bp, and have some units unmicroed or same units microed by 2 people.

This is true. I've definitely seen large coops fail when a single player decides to energy stall the whole team by overbuilding nanos, for example.

Ah, but, almost every game I join is dominated by Piro on Co-op, the game finishes in 10 minutes or less.

CCBlackmilk wrote:

YokoZar wrote:

JohannesH wrote:And coop is very easy to screw up if you have a lot of players and not enough practice in it. Very easy to make too much or too little E or bp, and have some units unmicroed or same units microed by 2 people.

This is true. I've definitely seen large coops fail when a single player decides to energy stall the whole team by overbuilding nanos, for example.

Ah, but, almost every game I join is dominated by Piro on Co-op, the game finishes in 10 minutes or less.

You mean Fx right?

Yada yada, same thing samething XD

CCBlackmilk wrote:Ah, but, almost every game I join is dominated by Piro on Co-op, the game finishes in 10 minutes or less.

Guess if thats because

a) they coop
b) other team sucks

JohannesH wrote:

CCBlackmilk wrote:Ah, but, almost every game I join is dominated by Piro on Co-op, the game finishes in 10 minutes or less.

Guess if thats because

a) they coop
b) other team sucks

Well to be quite honest, any team full of gold/silver stars is remotely respectable, but, I'm sure it's nothing compared to the other team skillwise still, but, the game was done too fast, they just spammed raiders and the game was over. that was that

JohannesH wrote:

CCBlackmilk wrote:Ah, but, almost every game I join is dominated by Piro on Co-op, the game finishes in 10 minutes or less.

Guess if thats because

a) they coop
b) other team sucks

Or both.

Gertkane wrote:Alot are saying that there is no difference if two seperated players with coms work together tightly.

There is one very important difference. If players share 2 coms that means they have 2k metal storage. If you don't know where then ill clarify: one com can spam units for 2k metal and other can push very effectively and not have his resources stay unused.

If you still don't think this is a very big difference, get 2 teams of very good players / teamplayers together of even skill- have team1 coop and team2 seperately. Make it a map where frontline matters so com pushing matters.

You will see close to 100% winning percentage for the cooping team. If you want to call bullshit really have some friends or yourself play this, espescially try being on the non cooping side.

because, you know, a player couldnt just share 100% his m and e to his team and compush

oh no, wait

he could

the _only_ advantage of coop is much better teamwork. two indiviual players that have TS on and know how to play the game can acheive just as much.

1v0ry_k1ng wrote: the _only_ advantage of coop is much better teamwork. two indiviual players that have TS on and know how to play the game can acheive just as much.

negative. the resource pooling changes things a lot programmatically - it prevents any one player from ever e-stalling, for instance. yeah the individuals could quickly share their E, but this isn't the same at all. all non-coop could play with share bars all the way down and i'm pretty sure it wouldn't work the same as coop.

think about it. you can go on ridiculous dgun rampage on a coop team because you have 10000 e storage instead of four separate, stallable 2500s. you know exactly when to stop dgunning because you see the e bar that your whole team has. no one ever e-stalls and everyones turrets work that entire time.

non-coop team has absolutely no way of coordinating this as quickly or as perfectly efficient.