Useless 9vs9 Co op: easy demontration

[RedOnly]

As I asked already, I'm pushing again for a come back of "old" Co op 6x6 or 7x7 as there is no meaning to have 9 bots. For what reason? To make Co op lasting 5 min or less?

As in the final result of last co op I played for ribbons below, 3 bots remained alive but in the middle of the fight battle was over by points.

Just do and easy math: 9 - 3 = 6 !  So WG please step back to 6x6 or 7x7 Co ops. Txs!

 

p.s.

If you need 9vs9 for lower Tiers just do it for lower Tiers, no?! Or change points math for Co ops... Txs!

 

[bigdoguk]

It's good for doing directives and when you don't feel 100%  and at the moment the games player Base is very bad.

[Lebedjev]

TX coop ?

That kinda a waste of ressource.

[IanH755]

Either reduce human numbers to 6 vs 9 bots (if the team can't make 6 humans the fill the team with bots to make 9 vs 9) and/or remove "enemy hits 0 points" as a win condition (or double the bots starting points) as 95% of quick games are caused by this awful win mechanic! 

[Cambera_1]

The current format of Coop is ridiculous.

Too many Bots on the player's team to make up numbers.

Too short matches. In many the battleships rarely get to shoot before the Red team hits Zero points.

Please return to 7v7 teams.

Thank you 

[A_useless_noob]

Usually 3 enemy bots left at end of match.  9 man team means damage is spread between 9 players, most of which will be bots.

6 / 9 = 0.666666666 damage per player.  Most will be lost to bots.

[Yedwy]

Much worse when you get bots as "filers" thy usually just go for ram, its basically impossible to properly farm stuff in coop as unless its a torp execution from a DD you need the bots will just ram each other before you have time to do anything, ie in a CV I tend to do more damage in randoms then in coop

[Ruth_clifton]

THAT   GO  4    RANDON   2  DO  IT

[MementoMori_6030]

Vor 1 Stunde, Lebedjev sagte:

TX coop ?

That kinda a waste of ressource.

It's a Puerto Rico safe zone.

[Sargento_YO]

if Co-op would have high rewards nobody would play Random.

[Afghanicus]

We do have many threads about the issue.

 

 

 

9 vs 9 has not much to do with it but I wrote more than enough in the other threads so I won't repeat myself.

 

WG doesn't care and won't care. Period.

 

[Kiwi1960]

CoOp is really for new players learning the game.

 

I could say you should have known that, but what would be the point.

 

As I do not play wows anymore... all I'll say is Co-Op is ALL I did play... because in random, you get players on the other team trying to prove they have the bigger .... organ.... with insults and god know what. Its the main reason I made my stats private... I had a rest from random which turned into a permanent move... I went to play... not trade insults....

[Karasu_Browarszky]

29 minutes ago, Kiwi1960 said:

CoOp is really for new players learning the game.

 

I could say you should have known that, but what would be the point.

 

As I do not play wows anymore... all I'll say is Co-Op is ALL I did play... because in random, you get players on the other team trying to prove they have the bigger .... organ.... with insults and god know what. Its the main reason I made my stats private... I had a rest from random which turned into a permanent move... I went to play... not trade insults....

 

Don't know how to break this to you but... if you learn the game in coops and go to randoms and ranked...

 

... Coop quickness depends on why you go there. For a quick win, you want it end quickly, for damage etc., you want it to last long enough to sink, cap, defend or do some damage.

[A_useless_noob]

7 minutes ago, Karasu_Hidesuke said:

 

Don't know how to break this to you but... if you learn the game in coops and go to randoms and ranked...

 

... Coop quickness depends on why you go there. For a quick win, you want it end quickly, for damage etc., you want it to last long enough to sink, cap, defend or do some damage.

Agreed people go to do directives ETC.

But the change to 9 on each team was a stealth nerf.

I've been in battles, as the only live player.

Whats the point.

 

 

 

[Karasu_Browarszky]

5 minutes ago, A_useless_noob said:

Agreed people go to do directives ETC.

But the change to 9 on each team was a stealth nerf.

I've been in battles, as the only live player.

Whats the point.

 

 

 

 

Been there too. Actually, it works i two opposite ways. If you are the only human player, winning the coop falls on you, but you get possibly more farming done. And vice versa.

[hellhound666]

4 hours ago, RedAnark said:

As I asked already, I'm pushing again for a come back of "old" Co op 6x6 or 7x7 as there is no meaning to have 9 bots. For what reason? To make Co op lasting 5 min or less?

As in the final result of last co op I played for ribbons below, 3 bots remained alive but in the middle of the fight battle was over by points.

Just do and easy math: 9 - 3 = 6 !  So WG please step back to 6x6 or 7x7 Co ops. Txs!

 

p.s.

If you need 9vs9 for lower Tiers just do it for lower Tiers, no?! Or change points math for Co ops... Txs!

 

but 6+3=9, what about that`?

[Deckeru_Maiku]

CoOp has been a joke before and still is...

Some missions are easier to do with 9 bots, some are not.

In the end, it all depends on being fast and ignoring the wish to win against the bots... just do your mission targets, get rekt and use another ship to go on... fastest way to do (some) missions... even with 9 bots ;)

[MRGTB]

COOP is a good way to do some of the directives easier and faster. But at the expense, you're not making much money in the process (grinding credits) as COOP doesn't pay well.

[Afghanicus]

Well, WG spreadsheets say the co-op battles are longer now than they used to be. I'm not joking. (check my thread to see the reply from MrConway)

 

While that doesn't make any sense at all... they still try to convince players that their data is saying so.

 

When I tried to explain him that, he just chose to ignore the facts and focus on the naive ones who he can convince easier.

 

 

[ZoidFile]

15 minutes ago, Palubarac said:

Well, WG spreadsheets say the co-op battles are longer now than they used to be. I'm not joking. (check my thread to see the reply from MrConway)

 

While that doesn't make any sense at all... they still try to convince players that their data is saying so.

 

When I tried to explain him that, he just chose to ignore the facts and focus on the naive ones who he can convince easier.

 

 

Might have to do with the re-introduction of carriers into Co-Op. Some games can get really drawn out, because you have to hunt down that one carrier. That might skew the average game-time a little. Well either that or thy are lust lying.

[Afghanicus]

5 minutes ago, ZoidFile said:

Might have to do with the re-introduction of carriers into Co-Op. Some games can get really drawn out, because you have to hunt down that one carrier. That might skew the average game-time a little. Well either that or thy are lust lying.

Exactly.

 

The only co-op battles that last longer are the ones when you're hunting the carrier who is always kiting in it's spawn.

 

The usual ones, when you sink all (or almost all) last about 4-5 minutes (at best) with some games (more often than not) where the bot team simply gets "zeroed" and you leave 2-3 bots alive, finishing in battle in about 3 minutes or less.

 

 

 

[anonym_mlJIAFnOwMVb]

my biggest gripe in coops is that the bots will ram each other sometimes leaving you hoplessly outnumbered if you don't have any human friendlies.  What in the hell kind of programming is that?

[Sir_Grzegorz]

I must be playing different co-op than you people.

I do not do it often, and only if mission says it will be easier.

 

It never happened to me I was only human player.

Some games do last short time (very good), but I hate it when bots do not ram each other, and you are stuck in the mode for ages.

I have to admit that with games with CV I just go for CV to end things quicker.

 

For me co-op is reliable source of wins/fires/torp hits/etc. in randoms you are never sure.

[xRSxrs]

6 hours ago, NipplesTheClown said:

my biggest gripe in coops is that the bots will ram each other sometimes leaving you hoplessly outnumbered if you don't have any human friendlies.  What in the hell kind of programming is that?

How can you be outnumbered if bots ram each other. You only have to kill one. I dont like this bcs you cant farm dmg then.

 

I think the number of bots on the enemy team should be higher than the number of human players. Like someone said BBs sometimes get one salvo off while good players sloughter the bots in seconds.

 

And it would be nice if they wouldnt yolo like a madman. I play more coop latelly to do the missions because random is not the same as it was. Randoms are a shitshow and overall horrible experience for some time now. If there wasnt Operations and coop i would not be playing any more. From time to time i go to play random match and with every try it gets worse.

 

[The_Pillager]

6 hours ago, NipplesTheClown said:

my biggest gripe in coops is that the bots will ram each other sometimes leaving you hoplessly outnumbered if you don't have any human friendlies.  What in the hell kind of programming is that?

Well, its kind of weird sometimes, i admit, but I see so many human players much worse than bots ... 

 

Last night i was farming fire ribbons for the BB-directive and i could not believe it: after 7 minutes I ended up alone vs 3 bots.

The rest of my team - dunno if you can call that a team ... - had been killed by the bots. Really.

To win the game was indeed a challenge with an ARP Kongo without any modules and a screaming 3-skill Manga girl at the helm 

 

No, i dont think its useful to change the actual PvE / coop mode. 

At least not if you dont want to lose players who ragequit because they lose vs the bots ...