Hola,
of course you can do this in the editor easily, like a 100 things more you can do easily. But did you ever try to do it on a whole mission on your own? The big hard thing is to decide for the mission maker, which "easy" things to implement and which not. Moreover to do them in a certain timeframe is just complex.
Seriously: Its all "simple". But please try to do it for just one single mission and post it to the server. We will judge then if it is good or not. You will see, that what seemed easy in the beginning will get complex in a second. To find the right balance is an art. And even if oyu found it right for your own, a leader will come and break your wole layout with just another style of approach than you thought of...
On my last mission i worked for several weeks. I tested it locally and it went fine. I tested it on the server with another guy and it was fine. We played it on the server with 14 guys and it was crap.
I´d suggest if you have requests, write it as requests, not as demands, because its already very demanding for the mission maker to set up things like this working like it did. I´d advice you not to explain Spinoza how triggers will work, he problably will be already aware of it ;-).
Good thing is to give back feedback in general like "It was a bit too less action in our part, we could have done more". But even then i would not be sure of the thing because a very big part of the direction of a mission is given by the way its executed. So if there was another way to approah, would it have been the same thing for you? And if its the same for you, how will think another guy of it?
I hope there will be a next event in January like the one you had already and i hope i can join you!
Thx in advance for all the work you will have to set it up!
Greets
 Tony
(12-10-2011, 09:04 AM)Spinoza link Wrote:Im pretty sure if we had attacked same targets simultaneously at the beginning there would have been FF incidents.
The challenge of co-ordinating 50-60 people in a single attack shouldn't be dismissed - it's lots of fun, even if it is stressful. However, the facts that comrade Spinoza's concept
did include a final objective at which all three contingents would have to combine - and that we ultimately didn't get there - should tell you a lot about the real degree of control any mission maker has over the player experience. In other words: the mission design is only ever part of the story, and our experience is as much governed by the commander's plan.
(12-10-2011, 05:42 PM)Bubba link Wrote:Lastly, just one more thing. For how long will people attend coop missions that they find less interesting than regular coop nights? Of course the mission was great but the ground idea was not And please, don't consider this as anything like a "threat" but I just feel this way.
I'm not sure I understand this - are you able to clarify? (what was the 'ground idea'?).
(12-10-2011, 05:42 PM)Bubba link Wrote:Ps. What's a mega coop night? 
A session in which the objective is to play through a single coop mission written for a very high playercount (in this case, a co64).
I'm starting to work on the mission for the January 8th event (comrade Variable - should I start a separate invitation thread for that?), and will attempt to learn from the feedback and comments posted about comrade Spinoza's mission (and the Folk coop that CiA played in the previous week).
(12-11-2011, 01:03 PM)fer link Wrote:I'm starting to work on the mission for the January 8th event (comrade Variable - should I start a separate invitation thread for that?)
Yes please!
Will Friday will be more adequate? Looking at my online friends list on makes me think that Friday is the day with most available players. Aren't we better of setting the date for the January 6?
Traditionally we've held events on a Sunday, to replace the regular Folk or LDDK sessions. Asking Folk (and LDDK?) players to attend an event that's not on a night when they usually play is risky, so I'd prefer to stick to Sunday.
I'm sorry if i was a bit unclear about my point. But my point was that if someone has more fun on the regular, about 10 player, coop nights then why would he join the larger coop nights. Especially when the larger coop nights tend to mean that the briefing and setting up take far longer! I know it's propably wrong to assume the missions are freaking awesome and put all the stress on the mission maker, but the mission we played on 12.4.2011 wasn't any different from the missions we play on the normal coop nights except for some extra waiting, radio chatter, and far less effort put on the part of the mission we played. By this I do not mean that the mission should be any fancier or that it was bad, but I hope you get my point.
And once again please don't take this as whining but I'm asked to repeat my self. (propably my fault
)
And 'threat' was propably a bad word, so I hope no one felt offended!
(12-11-2011, 04:46 PM)Bubba link Wrote:I'm sorry if i was a bit unclear about my point. But my point was that if someone has more fun on the regular, about 10 player, coop nights then why would he join the larger coop nights. Especially when the larger coop nights tend to mean that the briefing and setting up take far longer!
It's a fair question .. but one which can only be answered by each individual, because ultimately it's a matter of personal preference.
(12-11-2011, 04:46 PM)Bubba link Wrote:I know it's propably wrong to assume the missions are freaking awesome and put all the stress on the mission maker, but the mission we played on 12.4.2011 wasn't any different from the missions we play on the normal coop nights except for some extra waiting, radio chatter, and far less effort put on the part of the mission we played. By this I do not mean that the mission should be any fancier or that it was bad, but I hope you get my point.
Spinoza's mission on 12.04 may have played out as 3 parallel missions (for the most part), but that was in part due to the way the CO chose to run it. As Spinoza has already posted, it was envisaged that the 3 contingents would end up together for the final objective. The mission you played in on 11.27 put everyone (c40 players) in the same contingent, making it possible to directly assault a large armour+infantry enemy - but the part played by any individual player was always going to be smaller. Again, it comes down to personal preference - there's no objective 'better' here.
I agree with Fer here. Yes the first mega co-op worked out that way, but that was just because of the way that the CO chose to attack this specific situation. Ultimately ending up together for a final assault is a pretty cool way to have things go I thought. That doesn't mean that every large game will be the same as this one was.
Personally I find that playing together in such a large number of players is a reward in itself. Having all the hustle and bustle at the base in the beginning of the mission and knowing that all of it was player controlled was AWESOME, and that's just the start of things that were really enjoyable. I'm REALLY looking forward to more games of this scale. I think its important for everyone to remember that not every mission is going to be the "perfect mission" and also that in any situation with so many players, it is not possible to please every player all the time.Â
Can't wait till the next game on the 8th. I hope that every player enjoys it as much as the next. I hope that our grammar and language barriers don't send the wrong message, I know that we all appreciate the large amount of hard work that goes into putting together events like these!