so where are the coop ppl?

[KEVMAN68]

I wish to find some coop games but no one trusts other ppl to guard them because of the CAPTAIN IS DOWN thing! PLEASE keep this but give us a choice GRIN. You gotta give some respawn in coop if you dont give save points.....AI can be stupid but ppl can be real stupid

please give us coop ppl firefight....look at GR in ubicom....lots of coop ppl love firefight

Edited August 5, 2006 by KEVMAN68

[Low Profile]

One of the biggest problems I have with the "commander dies game over" deal is that as client players we are at the mercy of the commander and what he does, or doesn't do in every respect. This is all well and good if you are playing with a commander that does his job well, but if he does his job poorly it makes for a very lousy COOP experience not to mention a big waste of your time. There is simply no amount of protection client players can provide the commander if said commander does not do his job properly. My only way to deal with this most of the time is to not even join COOP games as a client, but host them myself. Some of the stupid things I see commanders do on a weekly basis are listed below. If you feel so inclinced reply to this post adding to my list. )

1) The commander does not communicate with his team effectively (whether it be via chat or on comms) or show any sort of leadership, spoken or unspoken.

2) The commander insists on taking point while injured when all other members of his team are alive and in good health. More times than I can count the commander has insisted on playing pee-a-boo with an MG position for instance, when myself and others on a team had things perfectly under control. Commander dies. Game over.

3) The commander does not know a particular mission at all.

4) The commander does not know how to perform tasks such as setting C4, calling in airstrikes, or ordering the drone to complete the objective in, "Contact!". The rest of the team ends up chatting to the commander for 10 minutes before he or she figures things out.

5) The commander does not warn his team prior to setting C4 or calling in airstrikes. By not warning the team we don't have time to get in position for any incoming assaults which usually occur after taking out a target, not to mention the fact a player may not be clear of the target which is about to blow sky high.

The list goes on and on. Now I know that the first reply which will come in response to my post here is that I should just play on servers where I know the commander is experienced. That, or host COOP myself. As I've already stated, I do mostly host COOP so that I can avoid playing with lousy commanders. I also know what servers to look for with good commanders at the helm. The problem is that there are so few servers ever available to choose from, and I get tired of having to host all the time quite frankly. On any given day as a client player it can literally take 15 minutes or more just to find an unlocked coop game. At best I've seen 5 or 6 games in the browser at any one time, since I've been playing this game. Most of the games are always locked. Several things are contributing to the lack of COOP games waiting for players as I see it. Some of these things are listed below, including some ideas I have to improve COOP gameplay.

1) Commander dies, game over. This needs to be a server option only. The server player should also be able to designate one of the client players as commander if they so choose. When the "Commander dies, game over" option is disabled role of the commander should be handed down to the next in line when the current commander dies. This could be accomplished via the interface prior to the mission being launched. The server player would have the ability to establish a chain of command via the interface. I also think it would be kind of cool to allow for said commander to be able to serve as an active player or passively. Passively the commander would not actually be in the mission, but would remotely act as commander via the tactical map and deathcams.

2) A proper deathcam needs to be implemented. The fullscreen crosscom just doesn't cut it. Said deathcam also needs to support nightvision and zoom, unlike the current Adversarial deathcam which supports neither of these things, nightvision being the biggest priority of the two. How does Ubisoft and the game devs expect their customers to observe a night mission in COOP, or a round of Adversarial play at night without the ability to enable nightvision? Also, the current deathcam for Adversarial gameplay is lacking something crucial, the compass. The players compass should be showing in the deathcam for obvious reasons, but it's not. Without this people observing have no sense of direction and can not offer assistance to the players alive if needed in an adequate way. Let's just hope that when COOP gets a deathcam it offers nightvision, zoom, and the players compass showing.

3) Four player COOP limit. This should be immediately increased by 2 if possible. If I am not mistaken there should be enough room in the helo and APC's for 2 more players. The helo may be a tight fit, but there's certainly plenty of room left in the APC's for 2 more players.

4) The Firefight gametype for COOP is sorely needed. There is a large segment of the COOP community (from days gone by and present I'd assume) that prefer the firefight gametype specifically over playing missions. The Defend gametype would be nice as well. Can anyone say, "Ghost Recon: Island Thunder". I'm indifferent about having respawns for COOP, but I still support the option being added. Key word here being option. Respawns I know were especially popular in conjunction with the Firefight gametype.

5) No one but me may be asking for this, but in addition to a proper deathcam as I've described it for COOP, any players that have died should also have access to the tactical map. With access to the tactical map any players that have died will be able to offer valuable intel to their team throughout the rest of the mission. Along with a proper deathcam this will certainly keep players on COOP servers after they have died. The tactical map needs to be taken advantage more with this game. Having it available to teammates that have died observing the rest of the mission would be one of the best uses for the tactical map that we've seen.

Edited August 5, 2006 by Low Profile

[WytchDokta]

All the co-op people are playing GR1. Got that right, that's where they are.

GR1 forever!!

[Strapt]

5) No one but me may be asking for this, but in addition to a proper deathcam as I've described it for COOP, any players that have died should also have access to the tactical map. With access to the tactical map any players that have died will be able to offer valuable intel to their team throughout the rest of the mission. Along with a proper deathcam this will certainly keep players on COOP servers after they have died. The tactical map needs to be taken advantage more with this game. Having it available to teammates that have died observing the rest of the mission would be one of the best uses for the tactical map that we've seen.

I agree with everything else except the things in section 5. I prefer when you are dead, youre dead. No talking and giving advice to the living. Not even over TS Maybe an option to restart mission from a certain point could be somehow implemented, because I dont like the idea of respawns in online coop. People just use it as an excuse to be careless.

[Stormin]

One of the biggest problems I have with the "commander dies game over" deal is that as client players we are at the mercy of the commander and what he does, or doesn't do in every respect. This is all well and good if you are playing with a commander that does his job well, but if he does his job poorly it makes for a very lousy COOP experience not to mention a big waste of your time. There is simply no amount of protection client players can provide the commander if said commander does not do his job properly. My only way to deal with this most of the time is to not even join COOP games as a client, but host them myself. Some of the stupid things I see commanders do on a weekly basis are listed below. If you feel so inclinced reply to this post adding to my list. )

1) The commander does not communicate with his team effectively (whether it be via chat or on comms) or show any sort of leadership, spoken or unspoken.

2) The commander insists on taking point while injured when all other members of his team are alive and in good health. More times than I can count the commander has insisted on playing pee-a-boo with an MG position for instance, when myself and others on a team had things perfectly under control. Commander dies. Game over.

3) The commander does not know a particular mission at all.

4) The commander does not know how to perform tasks such as setting C4, calling in airstrikes, or ordering the drone to complete the objective in, "Contact!". The rest of the team ends up chatting to the commander for 10 minutes before he or she figures things out.

5) The commander does not warn his team prior to setting C4 or calling in airstrikes. By not warning the team we don't have time to get in position for any incoming assaults which usually occur after taking out a target, not to mention the fact a player may not be clear of the target which is about to blow sky high.

The list goes on and on. Now I know that the first reply which will come in response to my post here is that I should just play on servers where I know the commander is experienced. That, or host COOP myself. As I've already stated, I do mostly host COOP so that I can avoid playing with lousy commanders. I also know what servers to look for with good commanders at the helm. The problem is that there are so few servers ever available to choose from, and I get tired of having to host all the time quite frankly. On any given day as a client player it can literally take 15 minutes or more just to find an unlocked coop game. At best I've seen 5 or 6 games in the browser at any one time, since I've been playing this game. Most of the games are always locked. Several things are contributing to the lack of COOP games waiting for players as I see it. Some of these things are listed below, including some ideas I have to improve COOP gameplay.

1) Commander dies, game over. This needs to be a server option only. The server player should also be able to designate one of the client players as commander if they so choose. When the "Commander dies, game over" option is disabled role of the commander should be handed down to the next in line when the current commander dies. This could be accomplished via the interface prior to the mission being launched. The server player would have the ability to establish a chain of command via the interface. I also think it would be kind of cool to allow for said commander to be able to serve as an active player or passively. Passively the commander would not actually be in the mission, but would remotely act as commander via the tactical map and deathcams.

2) A proper deathcam needs to be implemented. The fullscreen crosscom just doesn't cut it. Said deathcam also needs to support nightvision and zoom, unlike the current Adversarial deathcam which supports neither of these things, nightvision being the biggest priority of the two. How does Ubisoft and the game devs expect their customers to observe a night mission in COOP, or a round of Adversarial play at night without the ability to enable nightvision? Also, the current deathcam for Adversarial gameplay is lacking something crucial, the compass. The players compass should be showing in the deathcam for obvious reasons, but it's not. Without this people observing have no sense of direction and can not offer assistance to the players alive if needed in an adequate way. Let's just hope that when COOP gets a deathcam it offers nightvision, zoom, and the players compass showing.

3) Four player COOP limit. This should be immediately increased by 2 if possible. If I am not mistaken there should be enough room in the helo and APC's for 2 more players. The helo may be a tight fit, but there's certainly plenty of room left in the APC's for 2 more players.

4) The Firefight gametype for COOP is sorely needed. There is a large segment of the COOP community (from days gone by and present I'd assume) that prefer the firefight gametype specifically over playing missions. The Defend gametype would be nice as well. Can anyone say, "Ghost Recon: Island Thunder". I'm indifferent about having respawns for COOP, but I still support the option being added. Key word here being option. Respawns I know were especially popular in conjunction with the Firefight gametype.

5) No one but me may be asking for this, but in addition to a proper deathcam as I've described it for COOP, any players that have died should also have access to the tactical map. With access to the tactical map any players that have died will be able to offer valuable intel to their team throughout the rest of the mission. Along with a proper deathcam this will certainly keep players on COOP servers after they have died. The tactical map needs to be taken advantage more with this game. Having it available to teammates that have died observing the rest of the mission would be one of the best uses for the tactical map that we've seen.

BRAVO BRAVO... Excellent points made here which I totally agree... I like having access to the tactical map but not sure if providing intel to the team would be a good thing... I'd have to think about that one for a bit... And I do remember Island Thunder too....

[calius]

http://www.ghostrecon.net/forums/index.php...=34369&st=0

http://www.ghostrecon.net/forums/index.php...=34386&st=0

They posted in these threads & went back to GR1

[Tinker]

5) No one but me may be asking for this, but in addition to a proper deathcam as I've described it for COOP, any players that have died should also have access to the tactical map. With access to the tactical map any players that have died will be able to offer valuable intel to their team throughout the rest of the mission. Along with a proper deathcam this will certainly keep players on COOP servers after they have died. The tactical map needs to be taken advantage more with this game. Having it available to teammates that have died observing the rest of the mission would be one of the best uses for the tactical map that we've seen.

I agree with everything else except the things in section 5. I prefer when you are dead, youre dead. No talking and giving advice to the living. Not even over TS Maybe an option to restart mission from a certain point could be somehow implemented, because I dont like the idea of respawns in online coop. People just use it as an excuse to be careless.

I like to run a mission with no respawn but in training as soon as we lose a man in [GR], we restart and have a debrief on what went wrong, then jump back in and get it right.

Being able to abort mission is very important to some definatley.

Tinker

[rossiski]

All the co-op people are playing GR1. Got that right, that's where they are.

GR1 forever!!

Playing GR1 at this very moment with 14 other coop guys on Alpha Squad's server.

GR1 still can't be beat.

However, hopefully this may change in the near future.

[Buehgler_AS]

Playing GR1 at this very moment with 14 other coop guys on Alpha Squad's server.

GR1 still can't be beat.

However, hopefully this may change in the near future.

What, you don't want to keep playing good co-op w. 14 people???

It would be nice to see the same sort of thing in GR:AW

On point I have not mentioned, that does worry me, is that we really need some sort of effective grid ovrlay system for GR:AW. The "limited scollability of teh crosscom, and lack of grids makes it very difficult to communicate with teamates.

Anyway, it was a good Saturday night on Alpha#2. Glad to see you and everyoner else there.

[Lightspeed]

I tell u where this cooper aint - playing the GRAW debarcle - i have traded the game in for Hitman Blood Money - looks a lot better.

Good to see ppl are playing Coop at Alpha, the best place to play it the way its meant to be played. Are there any GRIN members in there, they could learn a lot.

Will see you in there soon Alpha Squad.

miss u all lots,

Lighty.

[EricJ]

1) The commander does not communicate with his team effectively (whether it be via chat or on comms) or show any sort of leadership, spoken or unspoken.

2) The commander insists on taking point while injured when all other members of his team are alive and in good health. More times than I can count the commander has insisted on playing pee-a-boo with an MG position for instance, when myself and others on a team had things perfectly under control. Commander dies. Game over.

3) The commander does not know a particular mission at all.

4) The commander does not know how to perform tasks such as setting C4, calling in airstrikes, or ordering the drone to complete the objective in, "Contact!". The rest of the team ends up chatting to the commander for 10 minutes before he or she figures things out.

5) The commander does not warn his team prior to setting C4 or calling in airstrikes. By not warning the team we don't have time to get in position for any incoming assaults which usually occur after taking out a target, not to mention the fact a player may not be clear of the target which is about to blow sky high.

1. Generally that can be solved through communication, or prior to running the mission, the commander should have some familiarity with the mission, i.e. at least played it SP. However, if that's not the case then, at least the commander should listen to those who have played it. You can't make them play it SP, it's their choice.

2. Same with 1, crosstalk. Such as me and Tinker played co-op earlier. We were playing Strong Point and got he almost hammered by the two .50s So I told him to hold tight where he was at (he was behind the buildings) and I flexed, and killed them both. Teamwork is the key of course, and it worked out well. I got both, and we moved on.

3. Same as 1.

4. I think that also goes with 1. The Commander should have played a few missions prior to get the "feel" for GRAW. Even a commander who has some basic tactical sense and knows the basic operation of the systems available to him/her can still command effectively even if he/she doesn't particularly know the map, Teamwork. Rather than castigating, the team should be working.

5. Teamwork teamwork.

But seriously not coming off as disagreement, I agree with the points above, defintely needed, along with a grid system overlay as per GR1. While I never played GR1 that way, it's still easy to figure out a grid system and how the Commander wants to employ the team to accomplish the mission and how to effectively move them. However, the Move command appears on the teammembers HUD (me and Tinker were also trying it out, as I was curious myself on how it really operated Co-op wise). It takes some time to get a team well honed but also have to enforce team play. While the "Move too far away from the Commander" is retarded as the teammember may need to move farther away to accomplish the mission.

Note the Blackhawk can seat 11 troops with the seats, so it's definitely feasible even for 14, but that's quite a tight ride... and the Stryker can at least seat 8 to 10 (my mind is fuzzy on that number) soldiers in the back.

[NoQuarter]

On point I have not mentioned, that does worry me, is that we really need some sort of effective grid ovrlay system for GR:AW. The "limited scollability of teh crosscom, and lack of grids makes it very difficult to communicate with teamates.

I still can't believe that a coordinate system wasn't included from the outset. It would really help all phases of the game, SP, MP, and modding. It doesn't seem like it would be hard to in-corporate so why it hasn't been is really puzzling.

[KEVMAN68]

I tell u where this cooper aint - playing the GRAW debarcle - i have traded the game in for Hitman Blood Money - looks a lot better.

Good to see ppl are playing Coop at Alpha, the best place to play it the way its meant to be played. Are there any GRIN members in there, they could learn a lot.

Will see you in there soon Alpha Squad.

miss u all lots,

Lighty.

Sorry I'm not gonna give up on GRAW that easily. The ppl trading the game will be missing out when the patches are all done. I probably will buy Hitman Blood Money but not trade my GRAW in for it. Hope you keep reading posts on the updated & it brings you back to GR. Anyway....thanks for the heads up on ALPHA. Maybe see you there.

[siiix]

W T F is up with CO OP

i played around 10 rounds, let ssay i try to play , avery round it was the same we (not only me but random players) did not even made out the 1st corner, the computer is just waaaay to good

there is no chance in hell even on "easy" to play CO OP mode, the computer is over powered

i gave up on CO OP

Edited August 6, 2006 by siiix

[Creatch]

W T F is up with CO OP

i played around 10 rounds, let ssay i try to play , avery round it was the same we (not only me but random players) did not even made out the 1st corner, the computer is just waaaay to good

there is no chance in hell even on "easy" to play CO OP mode, the computer is over powered

i gave up on CO OP

Well I don't quite know what to say about that, as myself and one other real player can beat any of the missions in co-op on hard. I thought it was a bit easy.

A good 4 man team working "together" can beat these missions quite easily. I wanted them to be even more aggresive and smarter.

But as for real co-op play. GR:AW simply does not have it. At this point it's a team v team or every man for himself run n gun game.

We have been promised that co-op content is comming. Untill that time comes, Im off to play CO-OP at Alpha. M16 C-mag n frags baby.

[Tinker]

W T F is up with CO OP

i played around 10 rounds, let ssay i try to play , avery round it was the same we (not only me but random players) did not even made out the 1st corner, the computer is just waaaay to good

there is no chance in hell even on "easy" to play CO OP mode, the computer is over powered

i gave up on CO OP

You may find a lot of guys completing missions with just pistols only.

Otherwise, team work, use comms, shouldn`t be an issue.

Look forward to what may be to come.

Tinker

[EricJ]

On point I have not mentioned, that does worry me, is that we really need some sort of effective grid ovrlay system for GR:AW. The "limited scollability of teh crosscom, and lack of grids makes it very difficult to communicate with teamates.

I still can't believe that a coordinate system wasn't included from the outset. It would really help all phases of the game, SP, MP, and modding. It doesn't seem like it would be hard to in-corporate so why it hasn't been is really puzzling.

Could be just their reasoning:

"They got this cool hi-speed CrossCom doohickey, so that grid thingamijigy isn't necessary"

In a sense it really should be implemented, but then again that CrossCom doohickey isn't too bad, just gotta work with it I guess.

[Kingkat]

I believe that WE are out there...............lurking about...............waiting for the patch.

Co-Op is a little tough with just 4.......and if you lose 1 or 2 guys.....well it gets almost too tough to finish. WE have hope about more playability for Co-Op. At least I do. Played today for about 2 hours and NORAD was almost too much, but great fun.

TL dies should be option............whatever.

The real downside is TS should have a system of YOU having a Channel, with YOUR settings and be able to DIAL into another persons set-up. Yes, I guess like a phone, but so we could communicate better. Everybody who had a TS Channel, could in theory talk to each other.

Kingkat

[semjonov]

I believe that WE are out there...............lurking about...............waiting for the patch.

Co-Op is a little tough with just 4.......and if you lose 1 or 2 guys.....well it gets almost too tough to finish. WE have hope about more playability for Co-Op. At least I do. Played today for about 2 hours and NORAD was almost too much, but great fun.

TL dies should be option............whatever.

The real downside is TS should have a system of YOU having a Channel, with YOUR settings and be able to DIAL into another persons set-up. Yes, I guess like a phone, but so we could communicate better. Everybody who had a TS Channel, could in theory talk to each other.

Kingkat

Well, I wouldn´t care about the four people just don´t make it to be game over when the captain gets killed ######.

[rossiski]

Playing GR1 at this very moment with 14 other coop guys on Alpha Squad's server.

GR1 still can't be beat.

However, hopefully this may change in the near future.

What, you don't want to keep playing good co-op w. 14 people???

It would be nice to see the same sort of thing in GR:AW

On point I have not mentioned, that does worry me, is that we really need some sort of effective grid ovrlay system for GR:AW. The "limited scollability of teh crosscom, and lack of grids makes it very difficult to communicate with teamates.

Anyway, it was a good Saturday night on Alpha#2. Glad to see you and everyoner else there.

I know, I know...I'm a whack job for wanting to play good coop with 14+ people and still think it's the shiznit after all these years. I'll go into therapy.

EDIT: My doctor says that another Saturday night coop mission-fest is necessary therapy. Recovery is hell...

"Hi, my name is rossiski and I am a coop-aholic."

"Hello rossiski!"

[}PW{ Postal]

Playing GR1 at this very moment with 14 other coop guys on Alpha Squad's server.

GR1 still can't be beat.

However, hopefully this may change in the near future.

What, you don't want to keep playing good co-op w. 14 people???

It would be nice to see the same sort of thing in GR:AW

On point I have not mentioned, that does worry me, is that we really need some sort of effective grid ovrlay system for GR:AW. The "limited scollability of teh crosscom, and lack of grids makes it very difficult to communicate with teamates.

Anyway, it was a good Saturday night on Alpha#2. Glad to see you and everyoner else there.

I know, I know...I'm a whack job for wanting to play good coop with 14+ people and still think it's the shiznit after all these years. I'll go into therapy.

EDIT: My doctor says that another Saturday night coop mission-fest is necessary therapy. Recovery is hell...

"Hi, my name is rossiski and I have a coop addiction."

"Hello rossiski!"

Yeah, i dont play co-op because it is only 4 guys.

If you could choose a bigger number of players and get rid of the SL dying game over issue...i would be all over co-op.

[Strapt]

I assumed that the majority of people who play GRAW are in the USA and that all the coop action would take place after i've gone to sleep (i'm in UK). Well it's 03:00 here and still hardly anyone's playing.

I use http://cert-clan.com/graw.php to check for servers. It seems to be acurate enough. Sometimes it shows co-op servers that don't seem to show up in my game, though.

Game: Ghost Recon: Advanced Warfighter

TeamDeathmatch 79 players 12 servers

Deathmatch 16 players 5 servers

HamburgerHill 13 players 5 servers

Domination 7 players 5 servers

Cooperative 1 players 1 servers

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TOTAL 116 players 28 servers

From my point of view, this is how [GR] was after 3 years. Hardly any coop going on (not counting the direct ip stuff thats pw protected). I've tried coming online at various times through the day/night and this is the latest i've been on. Surely the TL dies thing can't be putting people off that much... When does everyone play coop then?

[thr0tt]

I did play Coop for a bit but got bored of it. PPL would join and not stay for the round if they died, a lot of ppl would rush it and not take orders and there is no voip so its hard to get randon ppl on the same voip program.

Still, may aswell play coop by yourself as when you die the game is over so no loss there. Maybe the last miracle patch will bring a new coop group back ?

[Waika]

All the criticism I've read here and other threads about GRAW COOP in it's present state and a few of my own are valid points and obvious deal-breakers to a sustainability large audience playing GRAW COOP:

· dependency on Captain's skill

· game over on Captain's death

· no respawn

· support for too few players

· ridiculously long restart time when game ends prematurely

· no original content or dedicated COOP mission desgin

· COOP server instability

· inability to find, join and spec an active game

· ridiculous and nauseating spectator camera perspectives

But, if you're willing to tough it out, luck out and can both find an active COOP game, and one that's served by a capable Captain -- GRAW's COOP can be a lot of fun, some of the most enjoyable I've played recently...

On the high difficulty setting GRAW's AI at least looks like it's moving and maneuvering realistically, realistic RTFA squad maneuver is almost essential to staying alive, and there's a lot of the pressure and tension that has been virtually a Clancy game exclusive...

If this missions were diced up to be a tad shorter, and the spectator features were better I think that alone might get more people involved... As things are I'm sure a lot of people give up on GRAW before they even get a chance to have a decent COOP experience... I'd say my luck has run about 1 in 20 games for something worth-while...

Edited August 28, 2006 by Waika

[Forrester]

I understand the coop issue of teamleader dies, since he is hosting from His PC it prevents him from playing untill the rest is dead too, so everybody would kill the game in order to be able to play again...

This could be fixed by setting up some UBI-dedicated coop servers, where the first to join the game becomes leader, but the game continues after the leader is dead. (takes some scripting to continue mission)

So Grin wat do you think, is it possible to create such a thing, or am I premature and is it in the next patch?