Co-ops - The Adventures We Love to Hate

Reading through the feedback about the weekly quests, one of the biggest, most consistent objections is to having to do co-ops. Sifting through the various comments about co-ops themselves it's interesting to note that while some people object to having to round up four people for Whirlwind others have no problem whatsoever with rounding up four people for a Tomb Raider and suggest changing to it as a fix.

So what's the difference and more importantly… why does it matter?

Tomb Raider is the one co-op adventure I know of that doesn't require walls or some other obstacle to be overcome before everyone can continue. In other words, for all players in Tomb Raider, it's like a loot spot with a multiple attack tag. There's no waiting on anyone else to be able to finish your part of it. Whoever is the slowest finishes the final attacks, ends the adventure, and everyone's done.

With Whirlwind (and other co-ops), there are multiple choke points where a player has to wait around (more than once) for other players to complete their part before being able to continue.

If Whirlwind were to be structured like Tomb Raider, where each player can do their entire section from start to finish would there be as much objection? If all co-ops were structured like Tomb Raider, where all players could finish their part independently of all the other players, would more people run them? Just wondering……..

exactly.. .. during the event where ww was double loot ( i think it was xmas) i was stranded in WW no less than 4 times for hours on end when new to the adv players didn't know how to do the adventure and took forever to get their walls down.. theres nothing you can do ... you have to just sit there and try to coach them thru (which is not always doable - language barriers, some abandon the adv, some don't realize the troops they need.. you get the idea). its painful torture.

After that event i'm still not interested in running ww again.. i was talked into a month or so ago by a guildie for his #stupidweekly . and he couldn't find another 2 guildies (ours is a very active guild - so that shows how much ww is hated) .. .. he went to t/o . we were once again stuck there for 2 hrs having inadvertently invited someone who not only never adv before but never co-op'd. that was the last ww i will run.

however the others are not so bad ... even the few that still have walls - don't have as many as WW. In fact TR and Siege we ran back to back for the last events, easily.

This was my idea woohoo, although it appears someone deleted my post because I replied to your https://forum.thesettlersonline.net/...l=1#post290161 in the change log feedback thread and well my post is no longer there. Hmmmm. I think I said something about being a free player that must have crossed the money line.

Perwyn - you will note Siege also has no walls and can be run straight through and only requires 2 players. I wish this was an option...

Didn't realize that about Siege. Thanks King Homer!

I have a theory that BB's original intention was for multi-player adventures to be run cooperatively with each player completing 1/3 or 1/2 of the map, but since it didn't work out that way, co-ops were an attempt to sorta force the issue and they failed spectacularly.

Later that same morning.........

It would be interesting if:

<1> Co-ops could be run solo. In other words a person could complete their section and the last boss, then end the adventure, basically burning the other spots like is possible with loot spots in normal adventures.

<2> Each additional person that completes their section of a co-op increases the loot drop xx% and raises the chance of a building xx%.

Wouldn't this make them much more attractive?? Lose the choke points, add incentives for multiplayer. All carrot, no stick.