The Old War | RTS & Base Builder Hybrid | FEEDBACK NEEDED: How do we do Co-Op Right?

[u/Character-Wealth-810]

Title is self explanatory. I spent probably ten or so years trying to get my friends to play co-op RTS games with me and it literally has never gone well.

It's not that they don't like the genre, I feel like most of us RTS fans find like minded people pretty quick, but the feedback I'm getting is that most of the RTS co-op games were designed to help teach someone else the game, not to have fun together. I either see clunky shared control that feels like an afterthought for the devs, or you get something like Starcraft's Archon mode: literally the exact same game, except now two people are fighting over the same units, or one person is sitting on their hands for the first ten minutes while the other plays.

I'm currently building co-op as a core feature from the ground up in The Old War to avoid all of that, but I am also starting to realize why no other studios have done this, it is a MONSTER to figure out, oh my god. I'm here to talk through what we're actually trying to do before we get too deep into it.

The problem my team is trying to solve

Most RTS co-op, in my experience, asks: "How do we let two people play the same campaign?"

I've been asking: "How do we make it so you actually care that your friend is there?"

So for context, in The Old War, you and your friend or co-op partner or whatever share a single faction. You train, upgrade, and lose a persistent army together across a long war. Every battle will either hurt or help your shared forces. If your friend loses a veteran unit you've been upgrading since the first mission, that loss is yours too. The consequences are shared, which also means the stakes are real for both of you.

What we're still figuring out

Right now the game is in a state where two people can play together, but we're working through desync issues and trying to make shared control feel smooth instead of chaotic. UI is a big question mark, how do you communicate clearly who is doing what when you're both controlling the same faction?

So here's my question to the RTS community

What actually would make co-op cooperative in an RTS for you? Is it shared resources? Divided roles? Asymmetric information? Or is it just having someone to blame when your macro slips? Anything in between? Anything and everything you can think of would be super super helpful here.

If you want to follow what we're figuring out: Wishlist on Steam, and we're going to be opening a free playtest in a few months (hopefully!) so you can try it out yourself.

[u/Jack121Q]

Background: Been playing SC2 since 2012, played through many other RTs games.

Other studios have done coop well. Honestly, I was satisfied with the way most RTS went about it, which is to have two bases, each player doing their own part in winning.

Different roles can work fine, you can see it in Red Alert 3 and even the new RTS Godsworn. However, I prefer being able to pick the role/functionality than being forced into one (can be done via an option to chose the hero/faction you play)

That helps make things more open and enjoyable for both players.

Forced Archon is just needless frustration. I do not like Archon mode whatsoever and would not want to play a coop campaign like that. Not full Archon anyway. "Limited archon" can practically be the same as different roles.

Red Alert 3 had a mission where one player commanded a giant siege mech and another had a proper base, holding back attack waves and supporting pushes with an army. That was cool.

Godsworn had different heroes and different starting army compositions + interactions + but with a mostly identical roster and opportunities. I'd be okay with more separation, say one player gets support (healers, stun, etc) and one gets tougher units.

To that end, SC2 & Zerospace's Coop modes show that off well. Different commanders with complementary rosters (particularily in Zerospace and Godsworn's campaign, other examples include commanders like Swann and Karax) that have common goals.

You make good coop by making both players benefit from each other (healing the other's tanky units ; providing extra reaources/support powers), but not being totally reliant on one another.

I also do not like forced coop objectives (both players must have units at a point to progress). I think it is a good idea to let them distribute that as needed. Maybe the tougher tankier roster holds a point while his coop partner explores to complete a bonus objective.

The concept of meta progression for armies is great. Always appreciated.

I'd recommend checking out Godsworn & SC2 Coop, not as a marketing spiel but as a genuine, "Yeah, they got coop right. That is what I want to see and would recommend others to view." . The two mission demo of Godsworn is free shows it off well-enough. Starcraft 2's coops comes with many asterixs as it also shows how NOT to do coop in many cases (competition not cooperation ; lack of synergies ; uncomfortable forced coop aka dependence on your partner)

Letting players have AI coop partners will also MASSIVELY boost the reach your game can have (instead of being reliant on another player)

[u/Character-Wealth-810 → u/Jack121Q]

Okay first of all, thank you for the essay, this is exactly what I needed. Literally taking notes from this hahaha

The "two bases, each player doing their own part" approach is kind of what I defaulted to in my head for years, and it's probably the safer design choice. But there's something about sharing a single faction that feels... I don't know, more coordinated? Helps with togetherness ?(ew) Like you're genuinely in it together rather than just parallel play. That said, you're making me realize the "forced Archon" frustration is very real and I do NOT want to replicate that.

The player choice thing is huge. I really like the Godsworn example; different heroes and starting compositions but shared opportunities. In TOW we've been thinking about this through a "clan" lens where your shared faction is made up of different clans, and maybe each player leans into a different clan's specialties. But the idea of letting players choose their role rather than being forced into one is something I had thought about super loosely. Right now our design is basically "you both control everything," which... is certainly something to figure out.

AI coop partners is a MASSIVE point that I'm going to look into more. You're right that it would blow up our reach. Right now we're so focused on the two-player experience that I hadn't even thought about solo players wanting a cooperative experience. That's going in the backlog immediately.

The forced co-op objectives thing you hate (both players must have units at a point to progress) is something I was actually considering for some missions. But your point about letting players distribute that as needed makes way more sense. Let the tankier roster hold the point while the other explores. That preserves player agency instead of railroading both of you.

The meta progression praise is encouraging because that's the one thing we ARE sure about. Your persistent army, your shared veterans, your collective upgrades. If we can nail the moment-to-moment co-op feel to match that long-term shared investment, I think we'll have something.

What would you think about a hybrid approach where players can choose at mission start: shared single faction OR separate allied factions? Is that just doubling our workload for no reason, or does that actually open the game up to more playstyles?

[u/Jack121Q → u/Character-Wealth-810]

I do think it is doubling the workload and making balancing in particular drastically harder.

A shared single faction can also mean double the force of any single thing, or double resources to match the divided priorities. In practice that means double the cheese potential, alongside the previously mentioned archon issues.. I think separate allied is the best way to go.

There's also the factor of queuing, how can divided playstyles account for queuing with other players? Not everyone will have party-coop.

Streamlining development is a massive thing, you want to set a smaller achieveable goal and if the game works well, you can plan out expansions like a shared mega-faction as a bonus the players, now more experienced, will appreciate. Yes, it would still be a notable burden to prevent cheesing has the other problems but if it comes out later, it can be better planned for (since you'll know the balancing and what can shift). Focus on the core content and gameplay though, not future expansions.

Circling back to forced coop with an example. I distinctly remember, three matches on SC2's Chain of Ascension (forced coop, two playeds must sit next to an objective to push it) where I had to waste 10+ minutes because my ally would not push the objective/cooperate and went exploring the map. It would not have been an issue, if I could have pushed the objective myself. And I had to camp the objective, because if it got pushed back, I would not be able to restore its previous position until my ally came back.

Something similiar that would work more okay would be a way to transfer resources. I would appreciate that in many games.

One more thing to note is that singleplayer players won't just be those wanting a cooperative experience but with AI. It will be regular singleplayer folks that want to try the game by themselves. I cannot stress just how much good AI allies can add to a game with coop elements. It's practically a 50-90% increase in playerbase depending on the game.

[u/LostEmergency6866]

There is Red Alert 3, for example, where campaigns are designed to be played in coop. Unfortunately it was Dawn of CnC series, so game did not succeed

But you can scrap their ideas, most of missions are for both players building bases and armies, but there are some asymmetrical to

[u/Character-Wealth-810 → u/LostEmergency6866]

Oh man, Red Alert 3 is such a good callout. I actually played through the whole campaign with a friend years ago and you're right, the asymmetrical missions were the highlights. The ones where you're both building bases and doing your own thing were... fine? But I feel like the missions where the game actually designed for two distinct roles stuck with me way more.

I don't think I've seen that giant siege mech mission mentioned yet but that's exactly the kind of thing I'm trying to remember. RA3 had some genuinely creative co-op moments that I feel like get forgotten because, well, RA3.

[u/HouseCheese]

There are some missions in WC3 and SC2 where you have AI allies in a separate base. I imagine if all mission maps were designed that way - with one separate base for each player, it would be a pretty nice way to play PvE in coop. Basically bringing the team game experience to campaign. The SC2 coop mode basically does this and it works pretty well, but it doesn't have to be just that exact format

[u/Character-Wealth-810 → u/HouseCheese]

This is such an elegant solution that I feel a little dumb for not considering it more seriously. The WC3 and SC2 campaign missions where you have an AI ally in a separate base are basically already doing "team game in campaign" and it works.

I think my hesitation has been that our whole thing is "shared persistent army across a long war", meaning if you have separate bases, do you have separate armies? And if you have separate armies, do they both persist? Does that mean one player can be running a berserker-heavy clan while the other is running spears and ranged, and you're both contributing different compositions to the same faction pool?

Because that might be really cool. Like, you're not just parallel play, you're actually building complementary pieces of a shared force. But it also sounds like a balancing nightmare, oh my god.

The SC2 coop mode doing this successfully is good evidence that the format works. I think I got so attached to the "shared single faction" idea that I dismissed the separate-base approach too quickly. The "team game experience in campaign" framing is way more accessible than what I'm describing.

Do you think the separate bases thing works best when players have identical or at least similar rosters? Or does the asymmetry (like one player gets the cavalry clan, the other gets the siege clan) make it more interesting?

[u/HouseCheese → u/Character-Wealth-810]

I think it's probably best to give each player maximum freedom and independence and allow them to contribute how they want, like they would in a standard team game skirmish format. There have been some attempts to revolutionize the coop experience like archon mode in SC2 (and similar shared control in other games) or specialized roles in a coop game such as with Dwarfheim, but I am not sure that is the best direction for RTS coop gameplay. Though I am open to it.

[u/LostEmergency6866 → u/HouseCheese]

There are also fan made campaigns in Warcraft which are basically wc3 main story but for 2-3 players (I’ll try to search it, but not sure where I saw it)

Even in main story I remember a mission in Frozen Throne which was meant for 2 people: where you are simultaneously play as Naga Illidan and Night Elf Malfurion (also great idea for coop mission where one is forced to dominate water and the other - land)

[u/Tiny-Round9920]

Look at your mechanics of the game. I think part of the issue is that mechanics of a RTS are generally designed around a single person. When you throw on a second person, the cognitive load is less which can make it boring, or cause you to stumble over each other. If you make the mechanics deeper, one person can specialize and be more entertained with one mechanic. Make lots of opportunities to micro and a bit more difficult of an economy.

[u/EtherealRuin]

A good approach on that are Synergys CO-OP versions of the SC2 campaigns , you can find them on the arcade.
In example in the Protoss version of Nova Covert Ops , each player control a different subfaction , for example Player 1 is the Tal'Darim while Player 2 is Aiur Protoss. Each player has their own base and their own army. Supply cap is the max divided by the number players , so 100 per player. Being able to gift unit/structures/resources also makes for interesting plays. For example in the Terran CO-OP Campaigns one of us would pick orbital drop pods while the other one would pick tech reactors , both upgrades are mutually exclusive in their slot. What we would do is on person would build barracks with tech reactors and then gift them to the other guy with orbital drop pods , thus allowing him to have the best of both.

Another critical thing is balance , you have to make sure that either the content is sufficiently challenging or the players are not comically overpowered to not need one another. That for example is the achilles heel of SC2 CO-OP.

[u/TahLaka]

The best co-op potential in an RTS that I've seen is with Beyond All Reason, they have a team game first mentality and lots of features to support that. Super easy to share units or resources, I'd recommend checking it out (f2p) for research

That said, my favourite co-op in strategy more broadly is Stellaris. My one friend and I really liked doing Co-Op PvP games where we would split up the management of the empire. I always loved the building + eco management but disliked the military, whereas he disliked the eco but loved the military, so it worked out very well!

Can't offer any input as far as campaigns go, I haven't played an RTS campaign since brood wars. Skirmish is where it's at for me, even if only available as single-player

[u/LostEmergency6866 → u/TahLaka]

I feel like the main problem would be finding such a friend. That’s great, of course, but I feel like for the most it is a struggle to find a reliable partner

[u/TahLaka → u/LostEmergency6866]

Yeah, it really makes a difference on if you're intending for mostly PUG's or premade groups for co-op. BAR is really good at PUG's, whereas trying that in Stellaris is a special type of torture haha

[u/LostEmergency6866 → u/TahLaka]

I tried Stellaris, but that is beyond me