Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 50 battles to post in this section.
Lord0

No Campaigns for COOP?

23 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

[ANV]
[ANV]
Players
277 posts
3,449 battles

Am I right in thinking that there are no Campaigns that can be completed in COOP? (other than "New Year Raid" for which you need to BUY the Duke of York or complete previous, PVP/Ranked, "Battle of the North Cape")?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ANV]
[ANV]
Players
277 posts
3,449 battles
2 minutes ago, Profilus said:

You are right:cap_popcorn:

 

That is kinda...disappointing.

 

I realise us COOP players are 2nd class citizens but a few crumbs would be nice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[WJDE]
Beta Tester
555 posts
8,741 battles

Let's start an uprising! Gib gibs to coop players too or we send you our poo!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ANV]
[ANV]
Players
277 posts
3,449 battles
6 minutes ago, orzel286 said:

Let's start an uprising! Gib gibs to coop players too or we send you our poo!

Preach brother!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
[SCRUB]
Beta Tester
1,647 posts
8,132 battles

You are playing a game with an online multiplayer only to play against bots so naturally there have to be some drawbacks right?

Playing against Bots is too easy, so if it were to be rewarded too much everyone would just play coop.

It is cool that you have fun with playing only against bots but please don't try to drag the rewards and with it the active playing players into coop.

WG already made those cool coop missions with rewards for every star you get, but you get those rewards only once for a reason....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ANV]
[ANV]
Players
277 posts
3,449 battles
7 minutes ago, Miessa3 said:

You are playing a game with an online multiplayer only to play against bots so naturally there have to be some drawbacks right?

Playing against Bots is too easy, so if it were to be rewarded too much everyone would just play coop.

It is cool that you have fun with playing only against bots but please don't try to drag the rewards and with it the active playing players into coop.

WG already made those cool coop missions with rewards for every star you get, but you get those rewards only once for a reason....

Do COOP only players pay less money into the game? Why should they get less content?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[B0TS]
Beta Tester
1,781 posts
6,319 battles
52 minutes ago, Lord0 said:

 

That is kinda...disappointing.

 

I realise us COOP players are 2nd class citizens but a few crumbs would be nice.

Memes, ?, and Awl: Bwess awl de crumbs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,502 posts
5,803 battles

What was wrong with the way the previous campaigns dealt with Co-Op?

 

The previous Bismarck/Yamamoto campaigns had a single low star value Co-Op mission (usually 1 star) at each Level so you could either play PvP and earn upto 3 sets of "1-4 Star" missions per game (meaning you get through each Level very quickly with lots of mission rewards) or play the single low star co-op mission multiple times which obviously takes much longer to complete and you can only get 1 set of mission rewards. ]

 

However if you persisted you could still grind your way to the end of the campaign and that grind earned you the full campaign reward the same as PvP players got. This felt like a good balance between the ease of Co-Op vs the rewards of PvP and, TBF the Duke of York campaign (the new one once you have the DoY) does have this set-up, it was only the "earn the DoY" campaign which didn't.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
237 posts
17,758 battles
37 minutes ago, Miessa3 said:

You are playing a game with an online multiplayer only to play against bots so naturally there have to be some drawbacks right?

Playing against Bots is too easy, so if it were to be rewarded too much everyone would just play coop.

It is cool that you have fun with playing only against bots but please don't try to drag the rewards and with it the active playing players into coop.

WG already made those cool coop missions with rewards for every star you get, but you get those rewards only once for a reason....

WOWS is not confined to a PVP game. WG has been doing well on developing PVE mode and making it quite successful. I will not be surprised if PVE mode is becoming more attractive than PVP some day.

 

Personally, if without those new things in PVE I could have stopped paying or even given up this game for years.

 

Maybe a good PVE mode is beyond some peoples expectation. But all in all, if it is really a problem, it is the one of WG, not us players.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[DAVY]
Players
2,609 posts
3 minutes ago, Acetessigester said:

I will not be surprised if PVE mode is becoming more attractive than PVP some day.

Only if the majority of players decide they want to play an online game without much of a challenge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ANV]
[ANV]
Players
277 posts
3,449 battles
19 minutes ago, IanH755 said:

What was wrong with the way the previous campaigns dealt with Co-Op?

 

The previous Bismarck/Yamamoto campaigns had a single low star value Co-Op mission (usually 1 star) at each Level so you could either play PvP and earn upto 3 sets of "1-4 Star" missions per game (meaning you get through each Level very quickly with lots of mission rewards) or play the single low star co-op mission multiple times which obviously takes much longer to complete and you can only get 1 set of mission rewards. ]

 

However if you persisted you could still grind your way to the end of the campaign and that grind earned you the full campaign reward the same as PvP players got. This felt like a good balance between the ease of Co-Op vs the rewards of PvP and, TBF the Duke of York campaign (the new one once you have the DoY) does have this set-up, it was only the "earn the DoY" campaign which didn't.

Yep I agree

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ANV]
[ANV]
Players
277 posts
3,449 battles
14 minutes ago, bushwacker001 said:

Only if the majority of players decide they want to play an online game without much of a challenge.

There is no reason COOP cannot be made more challenging...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
237 posts
17,758 battles
49 minutes ago, bushwacker001 said:

Only if the majority of players decide they want to play an online game without much of a challenge.

If struggle together with tons of potatoes can be called a challenge. :cap_haloween:

No thanks, I am fed up. I prefer the way with less potatoes on it for much more fun. :cap_tea:

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
[SCRUB]
Beta Tester
1,647 posts
8,132 battles
1 hour ago, IanH755 said:

What was wrong with the way the previous campaigns dealt with Co-Op?

 

The previous Bismarck/Yamamoto campaigns had a single low star value Co-Op mission (usually 1 star) at each Level so you could either play PvP and earn upto 3 sets of "1-4 Star" missions per game (meaning you get through each Level very quickly with lots of mission rewards) or play the single low star co-op mission multiple times which obviously takes much longer to complete and you can only get 1 set of mission rewards. ]

 

However if you persisted you could still grind your way to the end of the campaign and that grind earned you the full campaign reward the same as PvP players got. This felt like a good balance between the ease of Co-Op vs the rewards of PvP and, TBF the Duke of York campaign (the new one once you have the DoY) does have this set-up, it was only the "earn the DoY" campaign which didn't.

Well fair enough. I forgot that little detail as i am so rarely playing PvE. (only when some stupid mission comes up with requirements hard to do in random or that require playing cv and i rather not ruin random battles with my cv "skills")

This is indeed a good solution but I guess WG decided to not do it like this this time. :Smile_sceptic:

 

38 minutes ago, Lord0 said:

There is no reason COOP cannot be made more challenging...

It is actualy rather hard to program an enemy bot that is neither too easy nor unfair, because computers react so much faster than humans.

You can see what i mean when you try to torpedo a bot while you are spotted (by ship). They will take evasive action immediatly even if they couldn't possibly seen your torpedos yet, which is kind of unfair if you think about it, but it is balanced out by them being so easy to defeat because of the deaf "charge at all costs" tactic they use.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[H_FAN]
Players
2,222 posts
30,592 battles

Somewhat interesting, but the challenge is to play other humans. You can not sneak against a bot f.e.. The way to make it more of a challenge is the scenarios where you are at a numerical disadvange and also with massive numbers of diverse ships in waves, and some task. I think that WG is doing a great job with the scenarios, apart from the replay value. With some limited rewards you might want to try more times, but co-op is for most a training arena, new ship , learning strafing in CVs, manual drops etc..

 

In terms of map construction I think that PvP has suffered, very few if any new maps lately.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[PUPSI]
Privateer
8,163 posts
Vor 1 Stunde, IanH755 sagte:

The previous Bismarck/Yamamoto campaigns had a single low star value Co-Op mission (usually 1 star) at each Level

 

according to wiki Bismarck was PvP-only, and Yamamoto is PvP-only...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
Players
3,617 posts
12,058 battles
3 hours ago, Miessa3 said:

You are playing a game with an online multiplayer only to play against bots so naturally there have to be some drawbacks right?

Playing against Bots is too easy, so if it were to be rewarded too much everyone would just play coop.

It is cool that you have fun with playing only against bots but please don't try to drag the rewards and with it the active playing players into coop.

WG already made those cool coop missions with rewards for every star you get, but you get those rewards only once for a reason....

 

Though, imagine trying to get 75k XP in COOP alone :cap_book:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,502 posts
5,803 battles
2 hours ago, Klopirat said:

 

according to wiki Bismarck was PvP-only, and Yamamoto is PvP-only...

 

My mistake, it was the first Science of Victory I was thinking about, doh!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[PORT]
Modder
1,738 posts
12,362 battles

Yeah, I expected the campaigns as nice in coop as last year with Graf-Spee.

In the end the current campaigns turned out totally unmotivating.

Hell, what were they thinking, such campaigns that only frustrate the ones who try to do it, promoting bad playstyle so hurting everyone playing..

Making a one-star-task in coop per stage would have hurt noone. :/

 

Quote

It would be TOO Easy if campaigns allow to do in co-op matches

 

And who would hurt this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[UNICS]
Beta Tester
4,778 posts
8,909 battles
2 hours ago, Smeggo said:

And who would hurt this?

 

WG if the requirements were unchanged.

Us if the requirements were to be raised to fit the challenge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
914 posts
11,130 battles
2 hours ago, Smeggo said:

And who would hurt this?

 

You know, I always get a good laugh when sometimes, according to the posts, the same folk immediately switch to PvE by the instant usually some low-tier reward ship or something like the far earlier "hit a carrier with a deck-launched torp" anniversary achievement is achievable that way too who talk about "the need for challenge." :Smile_trollface:

Regardless of the fact that I do not mind the differentiation between rewards at all as long as something gets down to PvE too, and it usually does ...or did. Take for example the DoY mission chain, hell, if someone had the time and nerves to grind it out in the holidays, then for all I care, he can have two! (Can't decide who are crazier, the ones who grinded it out, or the ones who bought it...) Along the same lines if someone fails himself up to rank 1, sure, let them have ships; same with CW! (Though why give OP ships with assumedly already above average players, beats me). So - equal treatment? Nah, I don't feel like so. But some treatment? Yes, certainly. If for nothing else, then for the same reason the pan-asian lolboats are in the game.

Because our money draws a nice hill onto the radar screen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×