Jolly Cooperation

Help make Party-approved missions harder
User avatar
Lord Penney
Posts: 28
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2012 6:49 pm

Jolly Cooperation

Post by Lord Penney »

Comrades! As of typing, Jolly Cooperation has only just been uploaded to the main server so this post is a placeholder for when the mission is (hopefully) played.

It's a bit of a first for me and (as far as I know) FA as this mission is a cooperative-adversarial; therefore, I'd greatly appreciate any feedback both positive and negative. Furthermore, I'd like to know what you guys think of cooperative-adversarial's in general, specifically do you think the idea has legs? I've an idea for at least one more and I'd like to know if FA would be interested in anymore.

Cheers!

- Lord Penney
Image

User avatar
audiox
Host
Posts: 641
Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2012 10:58 am
Location: Norway

Re: Jolly Cooperation

Post by audiox »

My positivity to the concept has already been noted, i hope. Therefore i'll keep this post to what i think needs to be fixed.



1. The mission overestimates the average number of players for an FA session.

At best for an adversarial you'll get 18-20 guys pr. team, and with the current numbers that is on the higher end. This gives you a full Alpha + SL, CO+liaison, and perhaps an MMG or an MRAP. As it is now there is way too much clutter on both teams. Streamline and focus the lineup a little, that way we know we have what we need when we start the mission.


2. The mission is too spread out.

With all the objectives, and all the ground to cover, there will be way too many deaths early on, and way too much time before the mission is either a success or a failure for either team. Make one mission that is exclusively urban, and one that is exclusively countryside.
Basically, after tonights run through i think it would make much more sense to start both teams directly on the border of the city centre, and then have a race from there.
Then it becomes a competition about who is the tacticoolest when it comes to movement in the city, and it would be much easier for the teams to act independently, yet inbetween one another. Both would be confined to a general area, and they would be within visible range of oneanother.

3. Get a killcounter.

Figure out a way to count accidental kills CSAT <-> AAF. That way teams can be called out on it if they have lost control over what they are firing on, which might very well happen. (At least in an urban setting.)


4. The mission is too long. (See also #2)

I'm thinking moving from the south of the city and into the house with the laptop should take ~30 minutes max. As it is now we spent 20/30 just to get within dying range of the first objective. (That, ladies and gentlemen, is what you get when you put the combined brainpower of a norwegian and a swede together! :hist101: )

5. Put the liaison in CO's group

It seems easier if the liaison (which might not be needed in the complete rewrite envisioned above.... :oops: ) is in CO's group so that they can speak with their own CO through VON, and then be in the other teams TS-HQ and speak with the opposing CO there.



Thats all i can think of right now, i had to spend my insomnia somewhere! :laugh:

Draakon
Posts: 109
Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2011 5:52 am

Re: Jolly Cooperation

Post by Draakon »

audiox wrote:1. The mission overestimates the average number of players for an FA session.
I think the layout itself was fine. They both were 1-1 in terms of who you could take with you to this mission. Besides, say we had CSAT slotted into covering elements (such as MAT, MMG, etc) and we completed the first objective without a problem. The plan, as I assume based on what I heard and saw, had the 2 forces get split inside the city. While slotting in such a way to have 1 team be Assault and the other Covering, they would be at disadvantages during the 2nd phase of the mission.
2. The mission is too spread out.
Agreed. The problem I think the first objective had because AAF assaulted without the covering element being in position is that there were too many things bringing death to AAF.
3. Get a killcounter.
What would that accomplish though? It would turn the mission into an adversarial if people decided to shoot each other like that based on a kill counter.

If it was an loosing condition (e.g CSAT killed too many AAF, CSAT loose and vice versa with AAF) but the stat for that is hidden, that could work as initiative not to kill each other.
which might not be needed in the complete rewrite envisioned above.... :oops:
You definitely need some kind of communications between the CO's if they follow the same path towards the final objective. If it was separate paths for the 2 teams (1 starts in the south of the town, the other north) then it could work. I'm not sure what the CSAT adviser did, but as the AAF adviser it was really apparent that not only is he useful as a remote walkie-talkie, he's really useful as a remote camera for his CO too.

Aqarius
Host
Posts: 413
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 9:28 am
Location: Hobbiton, The Shire

Re: Jolly Cooperation

Post by Aqarius »

The problem the first objective had is that, despite the name, there can be no cooperation between the factions. By just letting one side die, the other may not win, but it will not lose. For cooperation, there needs to be way, way more severe penalties for failure to cooperate, and I can't think of any way to implement them.

The other thing is, having secondary objectives just delays the inevitable. Having them be strongholds is actively hindering, because taking them is very costly to the one who does it, but both sides reap the benefits. Again, this incentivises the team who stands back and lets others do the heavy lifting.

I suggested mines earlier, because they could be easily dispersed over the entire city perimeter if need be with relatively little hassle, and exert a, sort of, attririon per square meter, without being too much of an area denial tool. Alternatively, there could be patrols roaming the countryside. Or, you know, just scrap the approach, fill the city with troops (in and out of buildings, perhaps even via Zeus) and let the meatgrinder begin.
[/allegedly]

User avatar
Rook
Posts: 29
Joined: Thu Dec 26, 2013 6:01 pm

Re: Jolly Cooperation

Post by Rook »

I liked the idea, especially the embedded advisers, but INDFOR drew the short straw to attack first, and got slaughtered while CSAT pretended to help. I have no idea what would fix this tactic.

User avatar
head
Posts: 133
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 4:22 pm
Location: Sweeeden

Re: Jolly Cooperation

Post by head »

Rook wrote:I liked the idea, especially the embedded advisers, but INDFOR drew the short straw to attack first, and got slaughtered while CSAT pretended to help. I have no idea what would fix this tactic.
To be fair, i assumed there would be not as much forces in the compound as it was. was expecting 2 squads max.

User avatar
Lord Penney
Posts: 28
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2012 6:49 pm

Re: Jolly Cooperation

Post by Lord Penney »

Rook wrote:I liked the idea, especially the embedded advisers, but INDFOR drew the short straw to attack first, and got slaughtered while CSAT pretended to help. I have no idea what would fix this tactic.

v3 of the mission includes multiple casualty caps that will fail the mission for everyone if either team takes 80% casualties. Hopefully that'll do it!
head wrote: To be fair, i assumed there would be not as much forces in the compound as it was. was expecting 2 squads max.
My bad! This was the result of a mixture of over engineering and mission rewrites. AI numbers in the mission as a whole, but especially the mentioned compound, have been MASSIVELY reduced.
audiox wrote:2. The mission is too spread out.
Thank you for your very interesting and detailed post audiox. However, since I think the above answers most of your other points, I will only directly address this one.
I want to hold off moving the tasks themselves until this latest version gets played; this is because I don't think the first (available) version of the mission gave a proper representation of what the objectives were supposed to be like. As mentioned above, that objective was supposed to be WAY easier. If the next version still has similar problems, then I will look into moving the objectives. Either way I'd still like to wait and see.
Image

Aqarius
Host
Posts: 413
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 9:28 am
Location: Hobbiton, The Shire

Re: Jolly Cooperation

Post by Aqarius »

The 'cooperative' (or rather PvE) part was the polar opposite of last time. Namely, there was some sort of a script failure, and roughly half the Ai was bunched up in the street, full on catatonic: http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/f ... =264339099 There were guys standing in a blob that would vanish and/or fly off in random directions.

The PvP part was exactly the same as last time: CSAT sent AAF in to go die, while they hang back and march in for the laptop. Only this time Ai borked and AAF took 2 of the 3 objectives before CSAT even bothered to enter the town. Then AAF turned out to be hamstrung by finishing the objective, as now CSAT had the control of when the laptop area would be open. Not to mention clearing the road grants no advantages, as both sides could reach the compound just by walking around the enemy.

I like the idea. I really do. But there has to be a way to disincentivise intentional inaction.
[/allegedly]

User avatar
Kefirz
Posts: 440
Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2012 11:44 am

Re: Jolly Cooperation

Post by Kefirz »

I agree with Aquarius, it was my first time playing this, but basically AAF was grinded to a halt, when they did their part and was waiting for CSAT to finish their objective. CSAT pretty much set up on the laptop first and then cleared the area, when the insertion team was ready.

To make the mission more enjoyable I would give each faction separate objectives, so:

AAF has to clear this part and CSAT has to clear this other part, before moving on the laptop

If CSAT clears their objective first, then they can start to retrieve the laptop and vice versa, in this way it encourages some competition between the teams and they don't have to stand around doing nothing and waiting for the other guys to catch up.
Essentially 3 objectives, 2 separate and 1 common.



I was playing as AAF liason, and I found myself making more distractions for CSAT then spying, because both factions knew the rough locations of the units and there is only one destination for all of us, and keeping it a ''secret'' is kind of silly if everyone knows it.

I was also toying with an idea of having mines or satchels, so I could deny movement in a particular direction.
Last edited by Kefirz on Wed May 28, 2014 12:19 am, edited 1 time in total.
''I am not going against tanks'' - Tryteyker, MAT gunner.
''Downboated so much, it's an u-boat now.'' - Boberro.
''Sorry, I meant hon hon hon baguette baguette Eiffel Tower'' - Mabbott

User avatar
pvtbones
Posts: 59
Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2013 12:09 am

Re: Jolly Cooperation

Post by pvtbones »

I'll give a run down of today's session from my perspective as aaf CO, kefirz the AAF adviser attached with Rook( CSAT CO), Head was Kefriz's counterpart.

Since we only need to clear 3 objectives, we both decided the ignore the furtherest from the pyrgos and concentrate our limited forces on the two objectives in the city and the only just outside.
My Plan from the get go was as follows:
1) have the aaf take the brunt of the first objective outside the city, so that way AAF "did their part" with CSAT supporting and it would be on CSAT to take the brunt of the city proper (remaining AAF forces would assist with the northern objective)
2) my 2 man squad would be specially tasked with getting to the laptop compound as quickly as possible. they we're supposed to be kept back from the thickest fighting in order to accomplish that.
3) as soon as the 3 objectives were clear the 2 man squad was supposed to cross the border into the final objective and get it.

there was a bit of confusion for me at the beginning just because I wasn't used to not being able to see all the forces in the area. so I got AAF into position to attack. We started the before CSAT was in place. surprisingly we only lost one man in the assault and clear it quickly. CSAT wanted to know our casualties, Kefirz lied and said we lost a fireteam. so that put the onus on me to try and keep one fire team out of sight for the rest of the mission which in hindsight I regret only because it put my in a position where I had to move things quickly lest they take a moment to count our numbers. Now it was CSAT's turn to do the fighting. I wanted them to move sound and away from my men but they kept on lingering around (no doubt distrust, fair enough) and my asl was slowly moving towards the city. I kept trying to push them south while kefirz slinked away and got into position to fake some gunfire at us, hopefully convincing CSAT to some dragging their heels. by the time CSAT went a bit southward AAF forces were starting to fight in the city proper. we practically took the northern city objective all by ourselves. We got chewed up for the effort.

I didn't notice this until much later but my ASL had ordered my A3, 2 man squad to go through the center of the city to get to the final objective :siiigh: they got killed and I had to change my plans. CSAT was still being sluggish in taking the 3rd objective (they took a loooooong time) while I ordered my units to (suicidally) push forward through the city with haste to get as close to the laptop as possible) during this the CSAT adviser Head, bumped his head on the stairs and died. which made this for me considerly less hectic, instead of three people to talk to at once, it was now two.

I ended up finding rook and hanging with him talking over direct, feeding as much misinformation as possible while I ordered kefirz to go around to the coastal side of laptop and be ready to rush for it. in the end CSAT got the objective moments after clearing their city sector.

There as still some kinks that need working out but this is a very interesting and fun mission with along of potiental :)

some of those issues were my own leadership problems (IE not keeping a better rein on things) and looking back I have a much better plan for next time.
One thing that comes to mind is the CO has along of different people taking to him, largely at the same time. (My men, My spy, and the other teams spy) I think the mission could be done with just the COs being forced to talk over direct and stick together at the back.

Post Reply