force on force would be great... IF the human gamer element didn't come in, force on force usually turns into who's got quicker reaction... theres no proper suppression or threat of life, and thats why I prefer and mostly play co-op... for the human teamwork, while the AI can be programmed for tactical responses... not human, Rambo behavior.

Quicker reactions can be countered by solid teamwork and training!...

A well trained team of 50 year old gents knowing each others would beat a team of 25 years old hooligans on an unknown map to everyone, for a first time mission. The youngs are fast because they play the same mission on the same map all over again, on that point I agree with you Magnum. A 25 years old will do a repetitive task faster than a 50 years old, yet they dont have the creative power and adaptaion given by experience, and that's why they play the same maps, same mission all over again.

Then if everyone on both side -in Force on Force- agreed before hand to plays only tactically there is no "Rambo" behaviors expressed covertly or overtly!...It is about the selection process of the players involved!...It is not a matter of numbers of players involved but a matter of quality of players involved.

A hand picked group of players, all wanting the same things out of that game!...Not an heterogeneous decheveled swearing mob of Week-End Warriors gathered for different reasons!...

If we don't define a goal we will never reach it!...

Requiring the effort to organize a game night instead of just hopping on with a couple of friends limits the usefulness of the game (any game, not singling out GB by any means). This has been the problem for years now with most games discouraging private rooms and forcing a party system and playing with the public.
Playing co-op, you immediately reduce the issue by half, since the game runs the other "team" which can be counted on to play in the spirit of the game. There won't be someone running solo experimenting to see what they can get away with in the game.

I want to be able to get on the game at any time to play it, not just when I can get a group together. Having co-op means you can at least get on with fewer friends, or even the public, and know that at least the other team is playing correctly.

Then there's the issue of 99% of MP games being somewhat idiotic game types. TDM, CTF, Conquest. In co-op, you play *missions*. Rarely does MP give you a system of attack/defend or recon...whatever...that mimics something realistic.
IMO, a solid MP game of attack/defend would have the defenders working on tasks OTHER than just waiting for the attackers to hit. They need realistic duties (objectives) of some sort just like the attackers do. Somehow you need to build in surprise and the need to plan for defenders duties other than just killing attackers. Co-op mimics that much more easily, I have yet to see a MP game that does that at all.

Completly agree with Magnum and Raw Kryptonite.

IMO, MP TvT games have a big limitation which is like Raw Kryptonite said, the lack of "real missions". Take for instance a "simple" SpecOp team assault (by surprise) an enemy base scenario which is guarded by soldiers that aren't expecting an enemy SpecOp assault:
1- In a MP TvT game you have one team (of humans) playing as the SpecOp team and the other team (of humans) defending the base but the defenders as opposed to the real life ARE ALREADY expecting the assault and ALREADY KNOW that the enemy team in comming NOW and instead of simply patroling/guarding the base those defencers will find the best "sniping spot" within the base or base limits and basically snipe the incoming attacker team. This completly ruins the feeling and REALISM for this sort of mission.
2- In the Co-op game (just like in Single Player) you have one team (of humans) playing as the SpecOp team and AIs defending the base and these AIs can be programmed just like real guards/soldiers guarding a base with real behaviour like not expecting the enemy (at least right NOW!) and patroling the base "normally" and only reacting when the enemy attackers are detected which makes this kind of mission much more realistic in the end!
The only way to model this kind of mission REALISTICALLY would be to force the human defender team to be in the game playing for days, weeks or even months with nothing happening (in order to model "boredom" associated with guard duty) and the attacker SpecOp team would choose a hour/day of their like to attack within that day/week/month timeframe! As you can easily understand this is simply NOT viable in any game (to have players playing a game continously for days/weeks/months).

Thanks for the reply.

For those interested in our project, or those that want to find out more about it, we are currently having our reddit AMA:

http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/vjam4/indie_game_developer_ground_branch_by_blackfoot/

We'll be there from 4pm EST to 5pm EST, or there abouts. :-)

Nice... thx John, looks good.

You can discuss multiplayer TvT/Co-op till the cows come home, and great points from everyone who have already posted.

I’m personally really happy that the initial release of Ground Branch seems to be shaping up like the original Rainbow Six/Ghost Recon series ... a solid TvT platform with some nice randomized AI adversaries for co-op play.

What sets Ground Branch apart from the Rainbow Six/Ghost Recon series are the jaw dropping shooting and movement mechanics, sound design and graphics that I’m seeing from the walk through videos that are being released.

Bottom line ... if you’re at all a FPS fan, you HAVE to pledge some Dollars/Euros/Pounds/whatever on this baby RIGHT NOW!

In case you haven't heard some really awesome sound design yet ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rS5fuz-Z4fs

Back this project HERE ...

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/670743543/ground-branch

But the problem is what really made the original Ghost Recon/Rainbow Six games true classics and what set them apart from many other "similar" games was exactly the opposite of what you posted -> What made the original GR/R6 so great was their great and immersive single player campaigns with lots of diferent, original, immersive and realistic looking MISSIONS. The TvT MP games modes and even the Co-Op game mode were always secondary features for both the original Ghost Recon and Rainbow Six games.

But I agree with you in one thing: We could "discuss multiplayer TvT/Co-op till the cows come home" with lots of pros and cons arguments...

Well, to be fair R6 and GR's AI wasn't that sophisticated and what John has said seems to be exactly what they offered...simple guarding/patrolling/searching AI, nothing complex. You assaulted a building, a compound, a room, an airfield...some AI stayed put and waited for you in ambush while others ran out to reinforce the first ones you engage. Conversely in GR there was the possibility of defending against an assault where the AI ran to predetermined objectives, only altering when they encountered the player(s).

The most complex they got was in titles like GRAW2 and R6 Vegas 2, and many people disliked them for many reasons, not least was with the more complicated it got the more choices were usually taken from the player in order not to "break" the mission.

If GB delivers what John is claiming in the initial release, that would be enough for me to commit to buying it at the lower end of the spectrum. Lacking an SP campaign, not to mention the ability to fight it co-op, would make me say it's not worth "full price" ($50+), but it still seems to offer hours of good gameplay for those of us not interested in playing against other humans.

Unfortunately, Gunny's "dream game" can never exist because what game would have enough variety in missions that a significant number of the players would never have played it before? As our missions makers attest, it takes quite awhile to make a good one, and infinity is a large number! Aside from a fixed map like Arma's with some sort of random MP mission generator (which I've never seen work too well aside from Evo/War/whatever they call it now for Arma), the idea of being forced to play like it's "for real" really only lasts until the newness of the game wears off. By two-three days after release there are already people who've played each map several times.



The Jedi Master