Why do most people prefer coop, not cti?

[elvinjones 10]

First of all, I can't play multiplayer because I only have 4g access and can't get multiplayer to work despite a good ping. But back when I could play, I always noticed that *way* more people were playing COOP instead of CTI >95% of servers and >90% of players, probably. For me, any game type where the goal is to beat AI is just not rewarding.

Which do you prefer, and is it due to game type or practical issues like lack of players?

<edit>...mistakenly posted in Arma 3 forum...

Edited October 5, 2012 by elvinjones

[agent556 5]

Practical issues like lack of players, and one side is generally highly stacked against the other. The playstyle is too different between two sides due to their equipment and most people prefer to play on the side with the shiny toys ala blufor. Also, ArmA3 isnt out yet if I recall correctly so this is the wrong section.

[elvinjones 10]

Yeah I meant to post on Arma 2, hopefully it can be moved.

I noticed that a lot of people who play with consistently high scores in many games always choose the most out of balance team, I am a proponent of very strict game balancing for that very reason.

[agent556 5]

To be honest it depends on the map. On the community made MP map called insurgency, I love harassing the US team and stealing their rifles and applying insurgent tactics with superior equipment after acquiring it against their almost completely traditional "STORM IN WITH A HUMVEE, JUMP OFF, AND GET TO THE BUILDINGS GAIZ" tactics. Also fun is the RPG to the humvee full of the other team event.

[-=seany=- 5]

I prefer coop, less stressful, easier to pick up and join in. Unless you bother with proper team work, PVP is just frustrating. The most PVP I have played in Arma has been DayZ, which I enjoyed a lot and found it quite a refreshing take on Arma pvp.

I also think the AI in Arma (for all it's flaws) is the best AI I have played against. They do put up a real challenge. It's not like BF2 humans vs bots etc, that really is a turkey shoot.

[maturin 12]

Co-op missions always work. PvP, not so much. You need a really tight community or it's pretty mediocre.

[katipo66 94]

I love harassing the US team and stealing their rifles and applying insurgent tactics with superior equipment after acquiring it against their almost completely traditional "STORM IN WITH A HUMVEE, JUMP OFF, AND GET TO THE BUILDINGS GAIZ" tactics. Also fun is the RPG to the humvee full of the other team event.

Yeah, i loved doing that also till i gots banned for doing it too well! actually i think insurgency would make a great PVP game if opfor had more of an objective role like defending the crate, or the ability to hide the crate themselves... the idea off 1 - 4 ratio makes opfor players want to even things up by grabbing abandoned vehicles and better rifles etc anyway they can, of course when you do that then people get upset.

I never really tried coop in arma or another game... But the great thing is that the game can cater for both :)

Edited October 6, 2012 by Katipo66

[agent556 5]

Yeah, i loved doing that also till i gots banned for doing it too well! actually i think insurgency would make a great PVP game if opfor had more of an objective role like defending the crate, or the ability to hide the crate themselves... the idea off 1 - 4 ratio makes opfor players want to even things up by grabbing abandoned vehicles and better rifles etc, of course when you do that then people get upset.

And with your post, we answer the question of "why do most people prefer coop, not cti?" haha

[ddeo 10]

From what I remember in CTI players could lead the AI, this is a little stupid when you think about MP. MP should be about players vs players only, no AI. Also players should be FORCED to work together more. I'm playing Project Reality for BF2, but I heard PR for ArmA2 is good as well, if BI will aim for such gamestyle the MP could be more popular. It was discussed here anyway: http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?136343-Multiplayer-Balancing-Will-Arma3-s-MP-be-balanced

[chortles 263]

Also players should be FORCED to work together more.

This doesn't actually work... games can incentivize player behavior but none can actually force it.

I'm playing Project Reality for BF2, but I heard PR for ArmA2 is good as well, if BI will aim for such gamestyle the MP could be more popular.

This won't happen, simply because not everyone will agree with the specifics of how such a gamestyle works and, if still PVP inclined, gravitate to other player versus player match types.

[wipman 1]

HI, i preffer the coop over the CTI because the coops are worked missions made with an objective where the people use to work together instead go alone, behave like suckers, stealing vehicles and blowing up things and then leave; the CTI missions are random without specific objectives but repetitive goals. I miss coops without Joint In Progress with a good intro to put you in situation, then you talk with the team to agree on whats the strong point of each one, pick up the equipment... and go for it; then a good outro to show your victory (or defeat), this doesnt happen on the CTIs... i've alot of good memories of the BAS coops back in the OFP times when i'd step with some random players that i didn't knew 'til then and we went together after an objective, working together and not behaving like dumb suckers. Those times are over. Let's C ya

[ddeo 10]

It works in PR. Forcing players to work together, or atleast incentivize players as you said to work together will make game more interesting. There will be always somebody who will say "no" and will not agree with something. PVP in ArmA is not as popular as in other games, because it's not fun and satisfying for most people picking up the game, people are mostly quiet on the servers, so new players don't feel their teams, they just run around. COOP is more popular because you know you can stand against AI with few friends, what if you play MP against clan? Especially on public server. It's happening often in PR, but people, even if they are not in the clan they work as a team, they listen to the leader mostly, because it's not only more fun, but it is always better if you're new into game and somebody can tell you what to do, that way you enjoy game even more because you know you're actually helping your team. Hope you get what I mean. :)

[Debo 0]

I have been noticing in warfare that it has been mostly dayz players, they are trying to get used to it though.

[metalcraze 290]

My take is because coop is fun and varied and CTI is always the same

[onlyrazor 11]

My take is because coop is fun and varied and CTI is always the same

Indeed, I only played Arma's MP once or twice, always in coop and it was great fun. Never tried CTI, though, so I'm not really sure about it.

And what the hell is CTI?

[NeuroFunker 11]

most popular missions after coop, are role play missions ala. chernarus/takistan/whatever life. I was enjoying chernarus life last year, just check arma 2 free/vanilla servers, most played are life missions.

[-Coulum- 35]

I think a huge advantage of coop is nobody has to be the guard patrolling around an air field without night-vision, pretending he doesn't know the base is going to be infiltrated, for half an hour, only to get head shotted by some sniper 500 metres away without even seeing the enemy or hearing the shot let alone fighting him. This would be extremely frustrating for that player in PVP, but in coop it is an ai who doesn't care, so no-one gets upset, yet the infiltrators still can have a semi realistic experience. Also in coop, the type of enemy you fight is a bit more structured and predictable, but in a good way. In coop, when you go against some poorly trained militia you know they are indeed poorly trained militia. In PVP That militia could be a super soldier or a team killer - you just don't know, and even if you do (because you know the player already), it doesn't usually match up with the situation. I mean, unless your role playing, not many players will fire off rapid inaccurate fire or hip fire like a real milita soldier would. The ai, with mod of course, will do that to a certain extent.

So all these things add up to a more immersive feeling playing coop. There is more freedom for mission makers to make the mission as realistic and immersive as possible, without getting one side upset or telling one side to act a certain way to enhance the experience of the other team.

But...

Coop obviously has its pitfall. The ai are dead stupid, and for some people this can ruin the immersion totally. PVP opens up windows for more advanced tactics. For example in PVP it is always good to hide your silhouette, and this could mean the difference between life and death, as a player may not see in time and miss his opportunity to kill you. but against an ai it doesn't matter at all. And in urban combat, PVP is much more demanding than coop. you might think you are being all professional in coop when you are killing the ai in swathes because of your tactics, but really the tactics you use don't matter much against ai. you could pretty much run and gun with as much success - Where as against human players, your skills and techniques will really be tested. Because of the ai poor cover taking ability, fire-fights in pvp tend to last longer and involve more suppression plus flanking - if they "get off their feet" sort of speak - many pvp firefights are much shorter than coop ones because a player misses much less than an ai (with certain mods that is).

Anyway, in summary, the reason I play coop is because it allows for more immersive, structured game-play, where everyone still has fun. It's also more flexible even with small amounts of player (I only play with 6 or 7 because our internet is to crap too play with people further away). I play PVP with these guys occasionally as well, but its a different experience, that is not as immersive, and much more competetive and mentally demanding - which is good too, but everyone really has to be "in the mood" for it to be fun, and when we play we know that we are just playing a game and we often utilize unrealistic tactics because of that.

Never tried CTI, though, so I'm not really sure about it.

And what the hell is CTI?

Capture the island

[froggyluv 2136]

Agree 100% with the above summary. Co-op better sets the immersion in terms of enemys being caught in a relaxed state doing mundane things as in reality -not everone is running around in the ready position 100% of the time. Negatives are obviously the limited nature of AI in that you generally don't have to watch out for occupied buildings and every window being a threat.

Any modes that combine AI and PVP?

[NeuroFunker 11]

rostov ace domination does. It works like normal ace domination, but got 2 teams, rus and us.

[metalcraze 290]

Agree 100% with the above summary. Co-op better sets the immersion in terms of enemys being caught in a relaxed state doing mundane things as in reality -not everone is running around in the ready position 100% of the time. Negatives are obviously the limited nature of AI in that you generally don't have to watch out for occupied buildings and every window being a threat.

That was so years ago. But with the current selection of garrison scripts it isn't so anymore. I got shot by AIs firing at me from windows and roofs multiple times.

Of course up close inside buildings they still lack reactions, hopefully ArmA3 improves on this.

AI in ArmA2 is good overall. Meaning in coop it gets the job done - e.g. providing the required level of challenge.

Again it all depends on a mission maker. If a mission maker is lazy and just puts a bunch of squads in default formation with no orders around - instead of cunningly using scripts made by the community - then it's boring of course.

Any modes that combine AI and PVP?

CTI lol

Edited October 6, 2012 by metalcraze

[froggyluv 2136]

That was so years ago. But with the current selection of garrison scripts it isn't so anymore. I got shot by AIs firing at me from windows and roofs multiple times.

Of course up close inside buildings they still lack reactions, hopefully ArmA3 improves on this.

AI in ArmA2 is good overall. Meaning in coop it gets the job done - e.g. providing the required level of challenge.

Again it all depends on a mission maker. If a mission maker is lazy and just puts a bunch of squads in default formation with no orders around - instead of cunningly using scripts made by the community - then it's boring of course.

Yeah your right in terms of proper mission design and AI are supremely better in this regard then say -Arma 1.

CTI lol

LOL! Guess I haven't played that proper yet :D

[chortles 263]

It works in PR. Forcing players to work together, or atleast incentivize players as you said to work together will make game more interesting. There will be always somebody who will say "no" and will not agree with something.

Heavily incentivize, yes, but NO game can actually FORCE players to work together... not even Project Reality, since "There will be always somebody who will say "no" and will not agree with something", and ARMA allows them to simply find a different PVP server or match type. :p Note that PR: ARMA is apparently "tumbleweeds and crickets" (in terms of who's playing) compared to the BF2 version, I'm guessing for the reason that I previously described (not everyone agrees with its rules)... and there's already ACE for people who must have their "realism" with their PVP.

Then again, as can probably be seen from the previous PVP thread in this subforum... forums are divided over the definition of PVP, so how are we any good guidance to BI? :rolleyes:

For what it's worth, Black Ops II's revised Combat Training has some interesting ideas on how to do player vs. player/AI, though they only work because of level progression so they're not completely applicable to ARMA:

1. The Combat Training version of deathmatch (6v6, except it's now 3 players + 3 AI per team) can be played until level 10, after which you're barred from deathmatch, but before that you get full EXP as if it were an entirely player vs. player match.

2. From then you can only play objective-based match types (same 6v6 half-player/half-AI arrangement as deathmatch) in Combat Training and still gain EXP, and that EXP is halved... so you could actually theoretically "max out your level" entirely on these matches, but half the players, half the EXP! :D

3. It also introduces "full" co-op in the sense of adding entirely-player team versus entirely-AI team, any match type but with no EXP progression at all... though ARMA already has this.

I have been noticing in warfare that it has been mostly dayz players, they are trying to get used to it though.

That's a good sign -- as long as they're sincerely trying to learn then they've got the right mind for this, but to help them transition to "proper" ARMA you'll need both the patience (for when they make mistakes) and clarity of explanation (of what they're doing wrong and how to do things right)... they've already had to endure the frustrations that come with the DayZ mod, no need to make it worse! :p

[kylania 568]

PvP is entirely about ruining the experience for others. Often your own team because the kind of people that enjoy PvP are often the kind of people that just don't care about the game they are playing or who they are playing it with. This is why EVERY PvP mission requires crap like anti-teamkill and base defense and spawn camping prevention measures. CTI is just PvP with AI recruitment that turns things into single player cat herding instead of teamwork with psychopaths trying to ruin the game for you at every turn. Never have understood why people would prefer to play that instead of something nice like Hello Kitty Online Island Adventure or a good co-op mission.

[Mr. Charles 22]

Agree 100% with the above summary. Co-op better sets the immersion in terms of enemys being caught in a relaxed state doing mundane things as in reality -not everone is running around in the ready position 100% of the time. Negatives are obviously the limited nature of AI in that you generally don't have to watch out for occupied buildings and every window being a threat.

Yeah, that's the fact why i love COOP. The AI doesn't expect enemies, if you are not seen by them. In PVP, everybody knows there has to be at least one enemy and is therefore always looking out for you. This just doesn't happen in COOP ;)

[dekster 1]

CTI

+opponents are human players

-constant pressure to rush things

COOP

+you can play at your own pace

-gets boring after while cause you know what's comming(if you play domination for instance) and the ai isn't perfect

The ideal would be a combination of both. (2/3 teams from opposite sides completing objectives that flow into eachother)