View Full Version : Multiplayer
_Assulter_
Apr 24 2003, 22:17
Ingame join ? And that dropped players dosent get exchanged by an AI. Atleast there should be an option for it.
SpeedyDonkey
Apr 25 2003, 12:40
<span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>YES, YES and YES</span> .. but there could be a option for the server admin or mission editor
[SZ]Vladimir
Apr 25 2003, 15:24
That can be great for persisting Battelfield http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif On bigger map, with more players...
Vladimir
Larger maps??
Why? Nogova is HUGE.
I do like hte idea of JIP and some sort of persistant world 'super mission' where people can come and go...and you strive to wrest control of the island from the other players.
Yeah..and support for a LOT of players (128 would be nice! )
Kegetys
Apr 25 2003, 20:57
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Warin @<hidden> April 25 2003,23:54)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yeah..and support for a LOT of players (128 would be nice! )[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
OFP1's max. 3024 isnt enough? http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif
MP Studio
Apr 25 2003, 21:05
No server supports so many http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
SpeedyDonkey
Apr 25 2003, 21:31
Once in ASE i saw a finnish server that took several thousand players (could be 3024 actually) but there were only like 10 players in there.
168GRN HPBT
Apr 26 2003, 11:26
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote ([SZ]Vladimir @<hidden> April 25 2003,17:24)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">That can be great for persisting Battelfield http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif On bigger map, with more players...
Vladimir[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
map size was never a prolem is getting a server with the bandwidth to handle over 30ppl and then theirs the problem of getting 30+ ppl i have played in one game ever, and i have been playing from day 1, where we had 64 from memory on NZ's Gameplanet as it was then run by LT Damage, and F@<hidden>#$ me the lag and de-sync was masive
Unatomber
Apr 26 2003, 11:38
So we need a better optimized netcode...
(which was already mentioned in the list) http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif
deathguy
Apr 27 2003, 21:22
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Warin @<hidden> 25 April 2003,16:54)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Larger maps??
Why? Nogova is HUGE.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
on foot ya....but in a chop or plane that's another story http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
Lt_Damage
Apr 28 2003, 02:51
When BIS were testing the 1.88 server patch on the server we had a heap of people joining and we reached well into the 40-50 mark but not 64.
Lag can be caused by the CPU simply unable to process that many network instructions for that many players, and also the server's available bandwidth would be stressed dramatically.
The facts are that OFP has a much larger play area, and more data needs to be sent from server to player, and back again.
Other games, that are more simple, that have a small play area, no vehicles etc, simply need to send a smaller ammount of data, e.g player location, what gun he has, what direction he is moving, etc. So they can support more players on less CPU and less bandwidth, but they compromise heavily for that privilege as you know.
Now BIS have reworked network code, I think they have done all they can with the existing engine, so if you have a powerful server, at least 2.4ghz, and a nice chunk of bandwidth for the server, 32players is not a problem, or indeed maybe you can get as high as 48.
OFP2 I think they are tackling it from another angle, with ideas like "terrain streaming" and stuff but I think we will need to wait and see what BIS come up with.
I trust whatever it is it'll be damn fun, can't wait http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Terrain streaminig, it they manag to get it work properly, will indeed be a major breakthrough, both for single-player and multi-player.
Or maybe if thy figure out a way to use multiple computer's in a server array ,like five computer's forming 1 128 players server.
I have absolutly no idea whatsoever if this would be possible.
Yes this would be possible.. the trick is to figure out the best combination. I know that a connection to a NT server takes up about 2 megs of memory initially to process the connection. The terminal server requires a min of 10 megs just for a person to login and get a screen. So if this was offset to (other) servers and they all talked to a central server that was processing the actual game and not the hundreds of Net connections they it would help in the processing of huge amounts of people. In fact this is how a main frame works. The mainframe actually talks with a FEP (front end processor) the FEP is the actual computer thaty processes connections and such so theta the mainframe can consentrate of only the application processing and not the user connections.
I wonder how RAT software did their online world. I know that they have many PC's processing there world but the exact configuration would be interesting to find out.
think the "join in progress" should be controlled like in the description.ext were you set it to true or something and then they spawn just like you do on mission with respawn.
Personally, I am against JIP...I mean a player will join the game w/o having briefed by teammates and etc - creates problems.
Although, if BIS decide to use JIP, make an option in server whether to let player JIP or not.
Necromancer-
May 3 2003, 23:48
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (NKVD @<hidden> 02 May 2003,17:06)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Personally, I am against JIP...I mean a player will join the game w/o having briefed by teammates and etc - creates problems.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Then I suggest players will be forced to read the briefing made by the teamleader before he can JIP.
Lets say he/she sees the briefing on his/her screen for minute before being able to join in?
I am 100% on favour of JIG. We could create realtime battles and players that drop or join while in game can join the game avoiding countless #reassign.
I suggest we leave this as an option to server and that can be controlled by server admin, authorizing or not each player that wants to join.
Also an option to disable this feature in case the maps require no JIG.
JIG feature alone would be like a 200% improvement of OFP playability
Anaconda
May 5 2003, 17:00
It could be very useful during a clanmatch, like when someone loses connection, he would be able to join back in.
Makaveli
May 5 2003, 22:59
No one has noticed the real problem with having JIP, in games like BF 1942 you run round, get your fix and leave. OFP is a lot more strategic and with people switching teams, joining mid game etc is gonna cause a lot of problems, more importantly JIP is the breeding ground for quitters, if some1 knows that they can join another game instantly then they'll just leave when things arent going there way. Even just having the option to do JIP will result in more games ending because of a lack of players rather than the clock running out.
Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX
May 6 2003, 01:13
It would be great (AND NOT IMPOSSIBLE) to let people who accidentally disconnected to rejoin....
their avatar is still in game.... their connection is still open.... there is no reason they cant rejoin but lack of ability to do so...
whisperFFW06
May 6 2003, 12:18
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX @<hidden> 06 May 2003,03:13)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It would be great (AND NOT IMPOSSIBLE) to let people who accidentally disconnected to rejoin....
their avatar is still in game.... their connection is still open.... there is no reason they cant rejoin but lack of ability to do so...[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Which would need 3 options we could have access when setting up server (Dho! EDIT : I did not see Furia proposition, that's 4 options) :
- no JIP
- full JIP
- JIP only for players who were present when the mission began. (use ID to check).
- Admin controlled JIP (needs an admin http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif ).
Excellent idea, Baron.
Whis'
Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX
May 6 2003, 18:10
Thank you http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
I'd like to see all those implemented if they do manage to get JIP working BUT IMO even if they dont it might still be possible to let disconnected people rejoin.
Yes that's certainly a great wish Baron! If your connection or system buggs out in a 1-x hour game, it would be nice if the spot was reserved for you to join back in. http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif Ahh, a dream is it not.
BTW: If you have JIP, enable MP saving and loading. http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
A very nice thing to add to multiplayer is to have some more parameters, then the missions would get more exiting and fun having more options how the mission works.
KaRRiLLioN
May 8 2003, 20:53
What OFP2 really needs to support more players comfortable is a multi-threaded server with up to 8-way support.
Now that would be most impressive!
It would be cool if the guy with the most skillz(leader for their side) in the game at the time can see everyone on the map except the enemy,Unless friendly units mark it on the map.So their can be plans.
Harley-Davidsen
May 9 2003, 09:05
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (whisperFFW06 @<hidden> 06 May 2003,14:18)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX @<hidden> 06 May 2003,03:13)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It would be great (AND NOT IMPOSSIBLE) to let people who accidentally disconnected to rejoin....
their avatar is still in game.... their connection is still open.... there is no reason they cant rejoin but lack of ability to do so...[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Which would need 3 options we could have access when setting up server (Dho! EDIT : I did not see Furia proposition, that's 4 options) :
- no JIP
- full JIP
- JIP only for players who were present when the mission began. (use ID to check).
- Admin controlled JIP (needs an admin http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif ).
Excellent idea, Baron.
Whis'[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I am Completely agree with u. GREATE IDEA http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Skunk Monkey
May 10 2003, 23:40
Well its announced now that JIP
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Marek Spanel: We're all the time working on improving the netcode. It's long-term effort and we're going to continue in it. We work on stability, performance and features; one particular thing is to introduce voice over net in the socket netcode. It's also possible we would dismiss DirectPlay netcode completely. Yes, we would like to introduce ability to join mp games in progress (optional depending on the design of each particular mission and depending on the server admin). [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Makaveli
May 11 2003, 01:48
Well thats multiplayer ruined then
Dubble0zero
May 11 2003, 15:44
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Makaveli @<hidden> 11 May 2003,03:48)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Well thats multiplayer ruined then[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Why, you just have to play on other servers, and I am sure that there will be less "CS type" players on the other servers, and that's a good thing... (I havent noticed soo many, but they exist)
And then if you some time wants to play on the JIP servers, you can choose to do that...
Options is allways a good thing... http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
WhoCares
May 12 2003, 14:19
Well, mission programmed JIP will only lead to copies of those missions with changed JIP setting.
I think server admins should be able to define JIP for each mission in the server setup file. Maybe with three or four levels, eg. No, Admin/vote selectable, Yes. Ingame, there would be a CheckButton, that indicates the setting and could be used to change it (if enabled).
Dubble0zero
May 12 2003, 15:11
The best would be if the misson designer would have to add the ability to have JIP, and if the misson have that ability the server admin can change it as he/she wants, otherwise there are no option, you can't have it...
Postduifje
May 12 2003, 15:59
I think it's the best option. JIP is an improvement in some cases, but certainly not all. Then it's the best way if the wisest decide. That is the mission maker at first, and the admin second (let's hope the admin does the right thing, and has the support of all (or at least the majority) of the players)
No JIP at all ruined the fun in many occasions, and causes frustration in serious games and wars if players drop-out. And if you've checked these forums in the past 2 years, there's quite some demand for JIP in the community.
Full JIP will have some serious drawbacks too, and it damaged the integrity of the game. The lack of JIP in OFP1 causes players to be dedicated and serious about the game, and it keeps away the so-called "CS-ratio"
Post
WhoCares
May 12 2003, 16:28
I think, I didn't made the problem clear, that I see with JIP setting in the mission, so I try it again. When the mission designer defines, that the mission should have no JIP and a server admin wants it to have JIP, then he will edit the mission and suddenly we have the same mission twice, with and without JIP...
So, as I see it, JIP in the mission makes only sense, if the admin can override this setting in a server setup file, no matter what the mission designer had defined.
Coded in the mission would be the designers preference, but the admin can still decide what happens on his server by overriding that default.
HellToupee
May 16 2003, 23:00
Its a great idea its going to open the door on whole new ways to play ofp, peobly with much larger amounts of players. Island wars etc, maps like the RTS sorta ones were never played or finshed because they took over an hour to beat the other team, by that stage people had dropped and others had joined. Things like spectators will be possible, and teams shouldnt become unbalanced, in organised events people would drop out and the game would have to be stopped for them, where in a JIP game a sub would jump in so the game could go on.
Also what keeps the CS crowd out is the game itself, CSers dont want realistic game play where u cant run and gun they wont be there with or without JIP. The biggest advantage i belive tho is no more waits, i hated those waits once i waited 74mins and 1min b4 the game ended my connection was lost and took me 5mins to get back when the next game was under way.
JIP as a Seagull option would be great but maybe the seagulls should not be visible as it could influence gameplay. I have enjoyed watching others fight while I was a seagull since you don't have to keep your head down and get a good view.
Also if there is the option for JIP then the less serious missions can have it to give enough people the chance to join the server before the more serious missions begin.
HellToupee
May 17 2003, 06:39
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Phleep @<hidden> 17 May 2003,18:36)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">JIP as a Seagull option would be great but maybe the seagulls should not be visible as it could influence gameplay. I have enjoyed watching others fight while I was a seagull since you don't have to keep your head down and get a good view.
Also if there is the option for JIP then the less serious missions can have it to give enough people the chance to join the server before the more serious missions begin.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
if u meaning serious as in coops JIP still gives u a spec option so u dont just sit at a boring screen waiting for the game to end, but i think ppl will find the players that join in the middle of the game will be no differnt to the ones that were at the start, if they dont read the breif then they wouldnt have bother when starting. OFPs lack of JIP amde it really hard for decent numbers to build up on servers apart from a few where everyone concentrated.
Getting away from the JIP topic....
I'd like the ability to dynamically join and leave a group during a MP mission. Maybe leave it up to the squad leader to detach/attach group members...but it'd be a nice option to have in any case.
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Lt_Damage @<hidden> 28 April 2003,04:51)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Now BIS have reworked network code, I think they have done all they can with the existing engine, so if you have a powerful server, at least 2.4ghz, and a nice chunk of bandwidth for the server, 32players is not a problem, or indeed maybe you can get as high as 48.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
In one word: WRONG!
We tested OFP 1.91 on a dual Xeon 2.4Ghz, 1GB DDR, 100MBit switch (and 100Mbit to i-net).
Most, if not all, players had DSL with an upload of at least 128 Mbit.
No ingame voice, TS2.2 at 6kbit.
Result:
Nice gaming till 20, maybe 24 ppl. terrible desync above that.
System was at 20%, maybe 25%.
Reason:
The dedicated server software is crap.
Hi all
I've been wondering why there is no such game type where campaigns could be played co-operatively on lan or net.
Another idea would be that solved campaign missions would be added to single missions list so that they could be replayed co-operatively later on.
or
Well ,if it's possible to balance to workload of the server by using multiple server's in an aray with a mainframe ,then that would provide for the posibilety to play with maybe hundred's of people.That ,although maybe hard to implement ,would mean one of the best addon abilety's of OFP ever and make Ofp definitly the best Multiplayer game at the moment.
I find that OFP really needs this possibilety to support so many people.Eventually ,the OFP map's can be pretty big ,but the server can't really support enough players to give that map the feeling of being pretty filled.The size of the maps rather fits to play with a number of about a few hundred players rather than a few dozen's.
It's what's making a game like WWII online somewhat popular ,since it's about the only MP game over the net that can be played by hundred's of people ,but at a high prize.
I think if BIS would add the posibilety to do this ,and maybe provide a first 300+ player server array for the community ,this game could get very popular early on.
So i wan't to put forward a motion to support me in demanding BIS to try to achieve this.
Please second and support me people in this motion so BIS knows that many people want this.
WhoCares
May 27 2003, 16:06
Ingame Voice support (also for Sockets Netcode) would also be quite nice. Together with some custom options, like client side shut off of the voice channel, mute individual players, maybe a server side option to open the voice channel on a different server (to reserve bandwidth on the game server)...
Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX
Jun 4 2003, 14:05
Well, join in progress is going to be implemented as a mission designers perogative.
JIP gives us alot of new options.... We could for example make a new kinda Online Capture the Island, where Islands of greater size than nogova needs to be taken.
A server will then realtime refresh current game results to a webserver, so people can see on the web how much 1 army have counqured the island. People can then join and leave as they want, making the world persistent.
I think Jip is needed. For instance ... I play several MP games.I like OFP alot but how come I hardly play OFP online anymore?
I play BF42 and still am in a Tribes 2 clan etc...
It has to be easy , I don't like simple games either.But OFP needs a nice ingame server browser and click and play type thing.There is no doubt about. SO we don't really want cs like players ruining games, well thats what pvt servers and such are for.
OFP needs to work on a decent server list (hopefully shows who is in the game too) and Jip if they want to get in on the MP games of choice.
Some thoughst are...we do like the long , suspense and preparation and thinking needed for a decent intense game.
Maybe 2 types of gameplay? Arcadish (disposable war gameplay like BF42 I call it) and maybe the serious type game like we are used to with OFP
Uziyahu--IDF
Jun 9 2003, 17:40
Quote[/b] ]Then I suggest players will be forced to read the briefing made by the teamleader before he can JIP.
Lets say he/she sees the briefing on his/her screen for minute before being able to join in?
Very good idea. Maybe they should have to scroll down, to show that they have interacted with the briefing, somehow?
Quote[/b] ]JIG feature alone would be like a 200% improvement of OFP playability
200%? Try 500%!
Quote[/b] ]more importantly JIP is the breeding ground for quitters, if some1 knows that they can join another game instantly then they'll just leave when things arent going there way. Even just having the option to do JIP will result in more games ending because of a lack of players rather than the clock running out.
If they quit, they lose. What's the problem?
Quote[/b] ]Which would need 3 options we could have access when setting up server (Dho! EDIT : I did not see Furia proposition, that's 4 options) :
- no JIP
- full JIP
- JIP only for players who were present when the mission began. (use ID to check).
- Admin controlled JIP (needs an admin ).
Excellent idea, Baron.
Yep, very good ideas.
Quote[/b] ]It would be cool if the guy with the most skillz(leader for their side) in the game at the time can see everyone on the map except the enemy,Unless friendly units mark it on the map.So their can be plans.
That would be mission designer's prerogative, but a Company Commander (100 troops?) would stay close to a vehicle radio and do things like coordinate attacks and call in artillery. The Commander should be a target. Give snipers something to shoot at.
Quote[/b] ]one particular thing is to introduce voice over net in the socket netcode.
This needs to be an option that can be toggled by the server admin.
Quote[/b] ]but i think ppl will find the players that join in the middle of the game will be no differnt to the ones that were at the start,
Not to mention that it would be realistic. Sometimes reinforcements arrive in the middle of a firefight and have to play catch-up, as far as situational-awareness goes.
Would be cool to have vehicular insertions (as Team Fortress 2 was supposed to) where the game waits for so many vehicle passengers before sending in the reinforcements for joining.
Quote[/b] ]I'd like the ability to dynamically join and leave a group during a MP mission. Maybe leave it up to the squad leader to detach/attach group members...but it'd be a nice option to have in any case.
I'm not sure, but I think that could already be done with add action menu commands.
Quote[/b] ]Result:
Nice gaming till 20, maybe 24 ppl. terrible desync above that.
System was at 20%, maybe 25%.
How much RAM did you have?
Quote[/b] ]I think if BIS would add the posibilety to do this ,and maybe provide a first 300+ player server array for the community ,this game could get very popular early on.
I've suggested publisher/developer-run dedicated servers since the beginning, as Novalogic had for DF1, DF2, DF:LW, etc.
Codemasters did not deliver this. Funny that when they released IGI2 they had dedicated servers offered by Codemasters. Codemasters has done some disappointing things with OFP since v1.00. They didn't even get the vehicle pictures right in one of the manuals.
Quote[/b] ]Ingame Voice support (also for Sockets Netcode) would also be quite nice. Together with some custom options, like client side shut off of the voice channel, mute individual players, maybe a server side option to open the voice channel on a different server (to reserve bandwidth on the game server)...
Definitely needs server-side option to open the voice channel, else the server could be bogged by voice.
Quote[/b] ]JIP gives us alot of new options.... We could for example make a new kinda Online Capture the Island, where Islands of greater size than nogova needs to be taken.
One thing that needs to be done is what Soldner is doing for its large maps... Playing zones that are unit-dependent... Jets need lots of room to have dog-fights, helos less room, and ground units even less room then that.
Quote[/b] ]A server will then realtime refresh current game results to a webserver, so people can see on the web how much 1 army have counqured the island. People can then join and leave as they want, making the world persistent.
This should depend on intel and recon provided by players/A.I. .
--Uziyahu-IDF
http://www.idfsquad.com/
Die Alive
Jun 9 2003, 18:29
How about being able to change sides (East-West-Res) while playing... is that the same as JIP or would the person have to disconnect and reconnect to change teams. Talking in CTFs, TDM, etc...
-=Die Alive=-
Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX
Jun 10 2003, 00:40
Joining groups etc is possible in game already with actions but each group has to be explicitly defined as well as who will be joining it. Very much a thing that people don't bother with. If it was implemented as a radio message type system it'd be better.
Baphomet
Jun 16 2003, 01:13
Hell I think there should be the ability to not only join but the ability to save MP games. That might not have much effect on the internet gaming community, but damn. I'd love to be able to play a coop multiplayer campaign and save and reload with my buddies.
Uziyahu--IDF
Jun 16 2003, 02:10
That IS a good idea... :-)
bigdog632
Jun 27 2003, 04:42
maybe have it that if there are ai present in the game you can spawn into the ai but the missions i saw didnt really seem practical to have in game joining
oth i HATE sitting in the lobby watching people's pings rise and fall
Uziyahu--IDF
Jun 30 2003, 00:03
maybe have it that if there are ai present in the game you can spawn into the ai but the missions i saw didnt really seem practical to have in game joining
oth i HATE sitting in the lobby watching people's pings rise and fall
Spawning into A.I. has been possible for some time, now.
Lack of in-game joining is the reason that Battlefield 1942 is more popular than OFP, right now; otherwise OFP would be the clear winner because of its larger maps and better simulation.
People won't buy OFP2 if it doesn't have mid-game joining. It would be seen as an insult to the fanbase.
Besides, it has already been said that mid-game joining will be dependent on how the mission designer sets his mission.
HellToupee
Jul 4 2003, 03:53
Quote[/b] ]I think if BIS would add the posibilety to do this ,and maybe provide a first 300+ player server array for the community ,this game could get very popular early on.
I've suggested publisher/developer-run dedicated servers since the beginning, as Novalogic had for DF1, DF2, DF:LW, etc.
Codemasters did not deliver this. Funny that when they released IGI2 they had dedicated servers offered by Codemasters. Codemasters has done some disappointing things with OFP since v1.00. They didn't even get the vehicle pictures right in one of the manuals.
that wouldnt make the slightest difference, whats the difference to playing on a local dedicated server to a offical one in ofp, if it was ofp2 and a server for a large amount of players like df2 and the 64 people ones then yes but for ofp it would of added nothing, without jip u cant expect large or long games, ofp2 with JIP should bring the element of dynamic battle fields and games that go all day, an quitters being a problem well no they wont i play other games to like wolfenstein and dose everyone quit no they dont, when one dose one takes his place in ofp one quits no one else takes his place. With JIP quitters arnt a problem without JIP quitters are because they uneven the sides and lower the player count.
SpeedyDonkey
Jul 4 2003, 09:00
Quote[/b] ]Lack of in-game joining is the reason that Battlefield 1942 is more popular than OFP, right now; otherwise OFP would be the clear winner because of its larger maps and better simulation.
Im gonna disagree with you here. I'm sure Bf42 would have more players then ofp1 wether ofp would have had JIP or not. It's the realism and the skill level that scares alot of CS people away. (even though waiting times is a big factor too)
Im very sure ofp2 will have JIP and it's a vital and a grate improvement that witch will attract more players.
The Sharpshooter
Jul 12 2003, 07:51
I´d like to see a chat interface improvement when OFP2 comes out. The channels are OK but the chat itself is uncontrollable. For example if you were away for 2mins you can´t catch up with what´s going on on the server because all the chat dissapears after few seconds. Moreover, an admin of a server told me that you can´t keep what has been chated on the server.
Also I´d like to see the clan system improved. The way it is right now you have to have a Webpage with the clans members player IDs and nicknames. It could be a little easier to do, especially for the clans that don´t have a Webpage(haven´t tried on Free Web Spaces) or don´t know how to do it. Also the clans logo apears on every vehicle the player gets in to, in CTFs this can get a little annoying because it makes you easier to spot an recognise. I mean if you have this clan system and get into a vehicle, it´s the same that if you went out screaming "I am an enemy shoot at me, you can´t miss !"
The voice over the net system should be also improved, reduce the lag and increase the system compatibility as some users complian the can´t get the voice system to work. I haven´t read the whole thread so forgive me if this was already suggested.
Thanks for your attention http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif
LT.Schaffer
Jul 12 2003, 18:58
if you press the front slash button "/" like when you chat,
and then press page down& page up you can cycle through whats been said http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif
SpecOp9
Jul 17 2003, 09:55
http://uploads.the-spectrum.org/Serverimg.JPG
Where the red boxes are, it would be cool to have small Icons, created by the Server owner http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif
Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX
Jul 18 2003, 00:10
It would be nice for mission makers to be able to set some units as 'reinforcements' for MP missions, that people could spawn into - after a certain objective has been done, EG the bridge is secure. So that would be a good way of allowing people to join in game.
It would be nice for mission makers to be able to set some units as 'reinforcements' for MP missions, that people could spawn into - after a certain objective has been done, EG the bridge is secure. So that would be a good way of allowing people to join in game.
That is a good idea. It also would allow for MP saving to be implemented since there is less information to save. No one would care if their position was different when reloading if they were not under enemy fire.
The Sharpshooter
Jul 18 2003, 08:37
if you press the front slash button "/" like when you chat,
and then press page down& page up you can cycle through whats been said http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif
Didn´t know that one, I´ll have to try it. My apologies.
Thanks.
Heatseeker
Aug 1 2003, 09:43
Aint we forgeting something...
Respawn with primary weapon maybe!!!
No more respawn with M16/AK74 and 30 rounds of ammo, that feature makes the sniper character useless no? Aint you guys tired of ressuplying ammo and gear after respawn? I think this should be implemented in OPF2 http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif .
[WKK]-SkyQuake
Aug 9 2003, 12:15
Without reading the full thread.
One shuld not be able to turn off cloudlets (fog) in MP. Like viewdistance is fixed or set by mapeditor, same shuld fog be. Smokeshells is one of the small tactical advantages in ladder-ctf's.
Right now they are useless.
SQ
Franz_Schall [SWAF]
Aug 10 2003, 11:40
OFP needs something like HLTV with the possibility to stream the action from the Server to people outside, who want to look how it's going.
This will surely support the Community, and would help to grow the interest in Multiplayer Gaming.
In our virtual military command, I have seen a desire of the "younger" members to see what a Ladder game is like or simply to watch the game.
Would be cool to have something like this, but there should be the ability to restrict it, of course. We don't want to give our tactics away ;)
SpeedyDonkey
Aug 10 2003, 11:48
@<hidden> Aug. 10 2003,13:40)]OFP needs something like HLTV with the possibility to stream the action from the Server to people outside, who want to look how it's going.
This will surely support the Community, and would help to grow the interest in Multiplayer Gaming.
In our virtual military command, I have seen a desire of the "younger" members to see what a Ladder game is like or simply to watch the game.
Would be cool to have something like this, but there should be the ability to restrict it, of course. We don't want to give our tactics away ;)
Yea that would be really cool!
I'M of an Opposite meaning.
You are getting away from a main subject here:
I say that for some gametypes like CTI; Strategy like command and conquer etc. There should be no "Join in the game". Have you seen any strategy games with ingame join?!
Maybe if someone disconnects, that someone could get his place.
CTI is a big element of OFP nowadays and it should not be removed.
What goes for other game modes, you can have auto join but not FOR CTI.
haunted
Aug 12 2003, 20:09
as with the HLTV like feature. If your going to let people watch games, they should only be able to see certain players/ teams, and people playing the game should know who is looking at which team, after all, its not hard for someone to look at a teams position, then relay back to the other team where they all are using teamspeak.
I'M of an Opposite meaning.
You are getting away from a main subject here:
I say that for some gametypes like CTI; Strategy like command and conquer etc. There should be no "Join in the game". Have you seen any strategy games with ingame join?!
Maybe if someone disconnects, that someone could get his place.
CTI is a big element of OFP nowadays and it should not be removed.
What goes for other game modes, you can have auto join but not FOR CTI.
I honestly don't see any problem there? Wouldn't CTI-games be a lot more fair if they didn't keep ending up with half of one team disconnecting/ loosing connection.
I can imagine that the problem you think of is something like:
"I don't want guys disconnecting, joining the other side on reconnect and giving away our base position".
This could be solved by creating a playerlist.log (based on players id's) everytime ctigame starts. In this playerlist.log u could log players id, time of connection and side. On reconnecting the server could forbid that you join the other side. This idea would also greatly enhance possibilties for serveradmins to ban gamewreckers, not only in ctigames, but in every multiplay gamemode.
http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif
Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX
Aug 16 2003, 15:50
as with the HLTV like feature. If your going to let people watch games, they should only be able to see certain players/ teams, and people playing the game should know who is looking at which team, after all, its not hard for someone to look at a teams position, then relay back to the other team where they all are using teamspeak.
The playback should be delayed by at least 10 minutes, maybe to be controlled by server.
That message which appears when you kill somebody (player x killed by player y) should be removable or removed, because you can't be sure if the enemy you shot is dead or not if you can't see him well.
SpecOp9
Aug 26 2003, 20:55
Personally everything that was done in Counter-Strike should be done with OFP2
-Spectator view
-Join games in progress
BIStudio, I think, should look at all the other Multiplayer games, see what made them so popular, and find ways to use those ideas and implement them into OFP2.
Timesplitters 2 for example.
You had a huge amount of game modes.
(however very unrealistic)
But they could make something like paintballing or laser tag.
The Army used those little gizmos for practice.
If you played Americas Army, you probably remember those.
But, I should'nt have to worry.
There will be a big addition to scripting, which means Maps will be exactly the way you want to make them.
(SpecOp9 = Blahhh Blahh Blahhh Blahhh Blahhh)
Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX
Aug 27 2003, 18:58
Minus the making the game based 90% on luck, pandering to the lowest common denominator, and simplifying the gameplay so much that there is no depth to it at all.
This is only a brifing of my idea. Read it and comment it.
The idea is: starting a online war, you know a big server whit many players on two sides fighting against each other.
You would join the game by getting into army. You will get a name like for example "Privat Jones" If you are a good soldier wou will get higher ranks. You are becoming Corpral and then Sergeant and becomming a groupleader.
It would be one leader that leads the whole side like PapaBear. He would plan strategic moves and try to beat the enemy.
If the players ar not playing at he moment, a bot would substitute him.
If the player die he have to wait a few days befor he can rejoin the server.
If you are intrested in my idea and want me to tell more, mail me at mathias.sundholm@<hidden> http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif
Noodles067
Nov 26 2003, 11:58
http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/rock.gif
LBGS_Stewart
Nov 28 2003, 22:33
i like Nevbin's idea. but i think it would be better more at a squad type level of comand. i mean manny people join squads to play as a team, it would be nice if "so and so squad" is likes say on the US for example. and the people who join there squad would be placed under the squad comand. and while one guy is off, another guy of that squad team, can come on and take his place for him to have R and R and such. kinda like reinforcment i guess. i think this would be better then having each person composed of being controled by say "papa bear" so its more then just two sides fighting agents each other, but each squad on a side fighting agenst each squad on the opposing team Side.
Berghoff
Dec 30 2003, 19:15
I would still like to see the waiting room, rather that 1-3 guys already start a mission. So that you have filled all slots and then you can start the game. So that all players start at the same time and then when some1 d/c, players can join in-game.
http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif
colossus
Dec 31 2003, 21:15
STOP THIS FREAKING BANNING !!
I have been banned by a few servers by no reason. No cheating, hacking, chracking, no sounds !!
STOP THIS FREAKING BANNING !!
I have been banned by a few servers by no reason. No cheating, hacking, chracking, no sounds !!
You are using a warez ID? http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif
But seriously, is this something that OFP2 could stop in a sane way?
colossus
Jan 1 2004, 16:45
You are using a warez ID? http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif
I really dont know http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/rock.gif
OmniMax
Jan 23 2004, 03:48
If it wasn't mentioned or already featured...
Make the linux dedicated server work on a beowulf cluster.
(yay for distributed computing!)
http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/crazy_o.gif
sicilian
Jan 27 2004, 20:50
A accessible list would be a nice feature!
Such like the ban.txt but even for IDs able to connect to the server!
Lt_Damage
Jan 27 2004, 22:04
Multi-mission capability.
If server admins do not wish to have join-in-progress enabled for some missions, it would be good if players do not wait in the lobby but can simply choose a mission for themselves, a small coop to tide them over until the main mission in progress completes.
Also, just in the mission selection list, if file sizes could be shown so that an admin can make a wise decision if he happens to have a few 56k players around. That is if missions are done in a similar way at all.
bardamu
Mar 18 2004, 17:40
A spectator mode when you join a server would be nice too:
instead of seeing a black screen with players names.
A flying camera would be great if its a mission you can't "join in progress".
@<hidden> it may be disabled by the server owner and your secrets tatics could be saved this way http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif
Im thinking about this mainly for coop missions.
Zemskii
Mar 31 2004, 17:41
Nah.. bad idea, if there is a clanwar, ppl could check what the other team's strategy/style is (and who is defending and all, and where he is)
Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX
Apr 1 2004, 09:58
...Unless you put a delay on it, or turn it off for clan games.
darkpeace
Apr 3 2004, 10:36
http://www.flashpoint1985.com/cgi-bin/ikonboard311/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=57;t=38516;st=0;r=1;&#entry527576
See the bit on pseudo shoutcast at the bottom of the post.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Also has anyone mentioned letting players 'join' into a AI player, during a battle ?, so an AI slot can become a human player (sort of like the Matrix)
Think outside the box,
-Psuedo shoutcast the netcode = more bandwidth
-Perhaps have clients act as sub-servers and shoutcast what they can to other players
-Warn if someone is capping their upload speed to screw the shoutcast (after a 2-5min check) and kick or ban repeat offenders (long story short: it would let them cheat, and become harder to hit)
Having a central server handle everything is so, 1985 (pun intended - lol)
I think it's how to JIP that's controversial.
I propose a couple modes for the admin to choose from:
-join into a playable character (defined by mission-maker)
-join into a playable or non-playable character (defined by mission-maker)
-join as a new character in a reinforcement zone (defined by mission-maker)
Also let the admin update the "Estimated time till next game" because it's not very informative reading 15 minutes when the game is likely to go on for 2 hours.
I guess the only way to implement JIP into OFP, is to give the missionmakers the option to do this.
Because of the structure of scripting in OFP.
For example:
You can run scripts on the server as well as on clients. Some of the Scripts interact with each other. So if someone joins when the game has started, you has to tell some server-scripts, that a new player has joined, and that they has to interact with the scripts on the new client.
Sorry for my bad english, but i hope you understand what i tried to express.
Previous players data would all have to be saved on the server somehow. That includes his entire gamestate when it comes to scripts I guess? This could get messy. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif
Previous players data would all have to be saved on the server somehow. That includes his entire gamestate when it comes to scripts I guess? This could get messy. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif
There is nothing to save left if the client lost its connection or it crashed.
Or all changes on client has to be sent persistently to the server as a backup. I'm getting afraid...
I assume that when JiP is introduced, there will be a number of commands following that will enable scriptors to include the neccessary routines and deal with new players in an appropriate way.
But yes, if JiP will make it in, it will most likely be a setting the mapper can choose to use or not use, like for example respawn.
I think that it might be interesting to be able to join in for example a running coop game by taking over an AI controlled soldier. If there ain't any left, then there simply is no chance to join in later on. Of course this again would require the mission maker to enable a setting that allows JiP for that particular mission in beforehand.
)a)( @<hidden> April 20 2004,14:18)]
Previous players data would all have to be saved on the server somehow. That includes his entire gamestate when it comes to scripts I guess? This could get messy. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif
There is nothing to save left if the client lost its connection or it crashed.
Or all changes on client has to be sent persistently to the server as a backup. I'm getting afraid...
IMHO all scripting should be done on the server. Most of the mp problems in ofp come from the fact that clients are allowed to do their own stuff. I can't think of any other mp game right now that does this, and there are several reasons for this...
awdougherty
Apr 28 2004, 17:24
I second the thought of only server side scripting. My friend made some missions with the editor and he said the scripting, especially when it comes to multiplayer, just gets ugly.
I also support saving mid-mission in multiplayer. Along with that, I wish there was a way to respawn in co-op multiplayer. Maybe if surviving players get to a check point, all dead players get to respawn (would make it full to pull for your squadmate even after you were out). Something, I don't really know.
I know this would take away from some of the hard core feel, but a lot of these types of games offer co-op but then not offer options that could make co-op more fun and playable. Ever try to do a really long mission in co-op, you get 75% of the way through and then get killed? Ever had to do that 10 times in a row? It stinks and there should be a way around it.
My friend made a fun mission for us in co-op and really made it a challenge. That was fun, but we hated having to constantly redo the first 5 challenges to get to the big finish. So now we don't play long missions which often offer more interesting objectives.
BravoBill
Apr 28 2004, 22:33
I like the idea of JIP or even respawn. I've dropped connection a lot of times only to have to wait for the current game to end. After about 10 minutes of waiting I simply go play something else. It's gotten to the point that I don't play OFP online much because of the hassle of finding a game. I don't feel JIP or respawn is going to take away from the tactical style of the game itself. I think their should be a countdown to allow players back in the game. This could be set by the server. So if you join a mission while it's on going or die you have to wait a certain amount of time before you can enter the battle. Reinforcements are a fact of warfare. I personally have served in the military and there were times where I was dropped into a situation where I had no clue about what was going on. I think that would only add to the element of tactical play because those that join in will be at a disadvantage. Besides, if a person doesn't read the briefing before joining they wouldn't have read it anyway.
You could still have respawn and tactical game play. Of course if the respawn counter is too low then it might cause some problems. However, on a public server usually the main idea is to have fun. Not to go over hardcore tactics. That's what private servers are for. Fact is, not everybody has time to sit and wait. I love OFP but I just don't have the time to wait 20 minutes before playing. Then spend 30 to 60 minutes playing. In a lot of cases you could complete an entire mission in the time you spend waiting. I know a lot of people want absolute realism but their comes a point between realism and playability. OFP has great realism and game play. But the MP playability is very lackluster.
PAPABEAR_1985
Apr 29 2004, 12:14
Ofp2 should have some kind of punkbuter for MP mod.
that would help 2 stop cheaters . http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif banlist (http://www.pbbans.com/test/bans/generate.php?action=1&game_id=2)
I hope to see better AI-multiplayer in OFP2.
Sometimes it's fun to be able to play with the AI some COOP, CTF, or TDM. Maybe I compare it too much with UT2004 but in that way it's possible to train on the MP maps before commencing real battle on the net.
They should have ability to understand the tasks that are at hand in MP-missions, e.g. Ou Kov is captured by the enemy, some AI should go and try to retake the city.
It would also still allow to play MP-missions in OFP2 after 10 years because I will not be able to buy a new comp very because soon my family will be 3 persons rich instead of 2 and I want to spend most of my time and money on him/her???. Rest of the money goes to beer http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif , rest of time to OFP2 (which will be so enriched due to more 3rd party addons http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/tounge_o.gif ).
Hoping some people also would enjoy this extra AI.
I like the idea of JIP or even respawn. I've dropped connection a lot of times only to have to wait for the current game to end. After about 10 minutes of waiting I simply go play something else. It's gotten to the point that I don't play OFP online much because of the hassle of finding a game. I don't feel JIP or respawn is going to take away from the tactical style of the game itself. I think their should be a countdown to allow players back in the game. This could be set by the server. So if you join a mission while it's on going or die you have to wait a certain amount of time before you can enter the battle...
You could still have respawn and tactical game play. Of course if the respawn counter is too low then it might cause some problems.
Hey, All OFP MP I have played has involved respawn except for the more serious coops. Maybe the server you used had some of the older missions.
One thing I actually like about OFP multiplayer is the variety of play styles without the server having to be set up for a special gametype. I enjoy the revive style respawn where your body has to be contacted by a live player to respawn you. It discourages suicide tactics as you won't find anyone to revive you if you are in a vulnerable position but you do get a chance to recover from early misfortune.
This was on the OGN server in Aussie. If you check out the missions people play now you'd be surprised by the online playability.
As for JIP, it should be implemented in the same way BIS has implemented everything else - with no exact way you are required to use it. All it needs to do is insert a new player into the player list and have some serverside scripts available so they can be either updated with player positions and spawn, placed in spectator mode, or possibly put in a separate area where there is a firing range or simple deathmatch to keep them busy.
I think JIP is definiately a good thing in most situations. It would reduce the waiting, not only for the person who is joining, but everyone else as well, since you wouldn't have to restart a mission when someone else comes. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif
Dino [freelance]
Jul 10 2004, 21:16
One of the advantages as stated here before is, that when joining a game that's already in progress, it would make it possible to have a persistent world(that is until the server crashes ;). This would mean that your actions actually would have consequences and would influence the rest of the game, hours or even days later. Unlike now, after the map is played, its all over and you restart with a new map.
OFP 1 online is more waiting then playing.
sicilian
Jul 20 2004, 14:57
Some server side wishes:
- better logging functions (number of files to be set or filesize to be set)
- admin must be able to kick people even if he's not on the server (with a script or something else as frontend to ofpserver)
- server debugging should be shown in mpchat only for the admin or in a extra debug.log file and not in debugoutputstream
- commonly more (flexible) options for admins to interact with their servers
- server should have an scripting end which could be expanded to give more options or possiblitys to the server regarding to checkfile, so you could secure up your server with own written routines or something like that
- server has to do most of the work and should be as editable as it can to provide that comming cheats could be broken by the community itself
- take away as much as you can from the client side preventing hacks and other stuff which modifies your work
thx
EDIT
I've forgotten one
- there HAVE TO be a routine which is able to verify the clients exe
Allstar
Jul 27 2004, 12:54
Sorry i think yer all full of sh*t about that ingame join progress
If BIS is gonna change the join progress of this game,
then this game will change into a cs-game. Players come
and go, and that's just something that's boring the shit out of the real Flashpoint gamers.
If y'all want to have ingame progress go bother other games with these problems but please leave it like the old flashpoint.
that was what drew so many patient and honest gamers.
Engine needs a big make-over. Graphical and Physical.
But the gameplay itself was good. CTF/TDM and DM.
Waiting at lobby/game in progress al those things were brilliant. Good way to keep those shitty cs-gamers out.
Also a way to create a good sphere on the servers,
Instead of UNKNOWN players all around the place.
Love the new ideas that y'all wrote about the engine and some gameplay options but the ingameprogress NO! leave it the way it was..
Actually I tend to agree with Allstar ;-) IMHO one of the things that makes OFP CTF games so great is that you know that you are committed for 30 minutes and can't just quit and rejoin on the winning side. I've played a bit of BFV but just couldn't see the point - people joining half-way through a game and then quitting after 5 minutes when they get killed for the second time. It made the results at the end of the game completely meaningless.
OTOH, I can see that JIP for coops might be useful, or even JIP for players who may have dropped out due to connection problems.
From all that has been said JIP will be implemented on a per mission basis, ie the missionmaker can put it in or leave it out. And as everyone running a server a knows, you sometimes have to modify missions to make them work on your server or fit them to the "flair" of your server. So when there is JIP there will be enough servers supporting it and equally much that will not use it. Also, there are some missions that simply will not work with jip, at least from what we know about it yet.
Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX
Jul 28 2004, 20:00
Yep. Theres no point throwing away JIP when it will be very useful for some missions. And, TBH, I don't really care about DM. Thats for the CS players :P
TZ Andersson
Aug 4 2004, 12:19
Maps maps maps http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/tounge_o.gif
HUUUUGE maps, that allows two airstrips
and air to air battles, DOGFIGHTS.
Today, NOT. To small Islands, you get
HIT before takeof.
How about if you could link maps together.
Like Everon, Malden and Nogojev as one map.
IF you fly past Everonborders the next map
loads instantly and you fly over Malden or
Nogojev.
Or if you are mapmakinmonster, u can link up
maps like MAD, i dont know the MAX size now,
but imagine 50x50Km and link 4 of them up.
That would be 200x200Km or something.
Awsome
http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif
Waterman
Aug 4 2004, 22:10
What about having JIP, but also that admins have the option to lock the server (during game too) to prevent people joining mid game etc. Dunno if you "catch my drift"... http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/tounge_o.gif
Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX
Aug 5 2004, 01:16
What about using the search tool, or looking in the big thread at the top of this forum with the same name as this, which has dealt with this exact topic exhaustingly?
TZ Andersson
Aug 5 2004, 10:41
It says loud and clear: "MULTIPLAYER"
That contains all aspects of multiplayer.
Even JIP, Maps, AI, Tanks, grass, wind and whatever
http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/tounge_o.gif
PainDealer
Feb 16 2005, 10:06
has anyone thought about silent kills in MP? now there's this text "X was killed by Y" but how about silent kills with this text not appearing. also there could be the same chat system as in CS: dead players can only chat with each other. of course it doesn't have much significance if players are using external voice comms but it could be nice in A&D maps for example. the A&D matches that I've been part of had this unwritten law that the dead don't talk.
Sniperwolf572
Feb 25 2005, 18:57
I would suggest an separate non-cdkey dependable exe for LAN play. That way we can play with our friends on one copy of OFP2 without worry of Fade. This was demonstrated in Delta Force: Black Hawk Down and was a very nice addition, as I work in Games Club (Not sure if you call it that way, it's a place with lots of PC's where alot of ppl play games) this would largely decrase my bosses expenses on one game, as OFP can be found in BiH for $30 and counting 16 PC's that are in service (30x16=$480) it's not an option.
PLEASE!!!!! http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/sad_o.gif http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/sad_o.gif http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/sad_o.gif
funnyguy1
Apr 3 2005, 11:08
Just look at the BF2s multiplayer system...
here (http://www.eagames.com/official/battlefield/battlefield2/us/features.jsp)
"Commander Mode"....sounds quite interesting
There`s more about it in the movies/interview.
hardrock
Apr 4 2005, 21:41
Since many people suggested more possible players like 64 or 128 (which is possible now, but lagging much) I don't think that this is really necessary. OFP is a strategic game, and I find it always easier to play with only few people like <10. It's very hard to get more dedicated people together to play coops with, which all listen to the leader and enable team work.
Everytime I play on servers with 20+ players it finally degenerates in kill, kill, kill. No-one is following any tactics, no-one listens to anyone, just everybody tries to stay alive and kill as many enemies as possible. But that's not the real fun in OFP IMO. I find it much more fun when you play a coop with a small team, all doing their job and covering each other, forming a perfect base for tactics in a tactical shooter which OFP is.
Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX
Apr 5 2005, 20:03
Since many people suggested more possible players like 64 or 128 (which is possible now, but lagging much) I don't think that this is really necessary. OFP is a strategic game, and I find it always easier to play with only few people like <10. It's very hard to get more dedicated people together to play coops with, which all listen to the leader and enable team work.
Everytime I play on servers with 20+ players it finally degenerates in kill, kill, kill. No-one is following any tactics, no-one listens to anyone, just everybody tries to stay alive and kill as many enemies as possible. But that's not the real fun in OFP IMO. I find it much more fun when you play a coop with a small team, all doing their job and covering each other, forming a perfect base for tactics in a tactical shooter which OFP is.
Well yes, but if you do find a server with more people who WILL cooperate like that, it is better! Try the Zeus server!
StealthTiger
Apr 5 2005, 20:40
I agree it is hard to get people to play together instead of being in the 'DooM' mindset - 'LOL' (http://www.nakedsquid.com) server is a good place to start however http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif
JIP is a great idea. But I dont reckon you should be able to play. Just spectate. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/tounge_o.gif http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif
JIP ist really a GOOD Thing BUT:
It must be as a Param
Because coop games most against AI.
Player wait until some things done in a running MAP and join then when they have their fun...
"Let the others do the work and i join when action comes"
So we make a DOOR for Battlefield-CS Players wide open.
If the Mission maker can choose this in Mission ...it will be a great Feature
SpecOp9
May 13 2005, 10:10
Some of you probably remember Marek's Stats Server, which people could be ranked on a website based on their performance in-game.
When the map ended, the OFP server would send everything to the web server, and we could view stats and all that stuff.
From Kills, to deaths, etc.
I would really, really like seeing something like this for OFP2, only made 'official".
We could earn badges, awards, and all this other fun stuff.
It would be a great addition to help support OFP2 squads and leagues. Placebo, tell them to concider it ;) haha
Heatseeker
May 14 2005, 15:21
Stats only lead to more individual and less team play, not to mention cheats and the so called stat whores, i think that stuff would do more harm than good to the game, my opinion.
Some oficial servers would be good though, so we get some neutral places to play decent missions at, i would like that http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif .
Commando84
May 22 2005, 01:33
freedom of choose! http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/unclesam.gif
i don't want it to be narrowed down to only coop even though im making mostly coop missions right now http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/tounge_o.gif
in ofp 2 i want to feel that nothing is impossible great feeling http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/xmas_o.gif oh one thing i would like to see if that when you show the stats with I key if they have that in ofp 2 , they should also be able to show peoples pings , instead of doing the guessing game http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/tounge_o.gif
i want the abiltiy as a mission maker to do missions that could have 64 or 128 players http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif or sometimes make mission that just have 10 players http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif
one of the things i feel that slows my mission making abilities is the 63 groups per side rule anyways and my lack of scripting sometimes too http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif but thats another side of the coin http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif
Sovietzug
May 23 2005, 08:53
Since many people suggested more possible players like 64 or 128 (which is possible now, but lagging much) I don't think that this is really necessary. OFP is a strategic game, and I find it always easier to play with only few people like <10. It's very hard to get more dedicated people together to play coops with, which all listen to the leader and enable team work.
Everytime I play on servers with 20+ players it finally degenerates in kill, kill, kill. No-one is following any tactics, no-one listens to anyone, just everybody tries to stay alive and kill as many enemies as possible. But that's not the real fun in OFP IMO. I find it much more fun when you play a coop with a small team, all doing their job and covering each other, forming a perfect base for tactics in a tactical shooter which OFP is.
it 's possible
try the wwiionline.com game
In this mass online game the players play at Squads, spawns are choosen and armies have a production or stock of weapons limited.
We uses the teamspeak with chanels to squads.
It's is possible http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif
Another option i think is the spawn system of "comanche vs hokun enemy enganched" :
There are a mission of list to complete and you choose 1 to spawn at game and your option need 1 unit of inf or vehicle selection to disccount of your army.
The spawn system of BF is an error to OFP2, it's no real.
Pierrot
Jun 16 2005, 08:06
I guess communication between pilot and gunner is difficult in OFP1. It is hard to guess what the pilot sees. In OFP1, the pilot orders a target suddenly and it takes some time for me to confirm it. If I could know the pilot's gazing point in real time, I would be able to respond to targets immediately.
I think multiplayer coop missions only, would be a great way to erradicate the trigger happy cheats http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/rofl.gif
How about adding an option for a commander of a unit to assign members of his/her squad to selected towns. If a soilder moves away from that town then he/she is automatically respawned back into the town.
Should prevent the Rambo's and vehicle theives http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/rofl.gif
Baphomet
Jul 21 2005, 04:23
GAME 2 needs JIP, at least as an optional feature, it also needs a savegame feature for multiplayer.
Saving an MP co-op game seems like a very very fundamental and obvious choice in my opinion.
TheBladeRoden
Aug 3 2005, 07:45
I think there needs to be an option for you to auto download required addons for multi games from the hosting servers.
I hated being told one of 10 addons I was missing, then googling the name of the addon hoping I would get a hit. Download that and install it. Try joining the server again and get the name of another addon I'm missing etc.
ninjatek
Aug 15 2005, 01:53
I think there needs to be an option for you to auto download required addons for multi games from the hosting servers.
I hated being told one of 10 addons I was missing, then googling the name of the addon hoping I would get a hit. Download that and install it. Try joining the server again and get the name of another addon I'm missing etc.
Definantly, there is so much random spread mods for OPF it is insane and turns new players away when they have to go dig for these add ons. Also some of these addons can be very difficult to get now as many modders have closed their websites where they were once available. There needs to be a way for users to acquire the mod addons when joining (if they haven't already gotten them) or see what mods a game requires before joining.
Automatically downloading mods when joining could be a security risk so BIS needs to look into reducing such a risk for users.
As far as JIP or not to JIP, this needs to be a server admin option and leave it out of missions building completely. No reason to create two versions of all the games just to satisfy both.
Server admin options should also include ping rate filtering, where the admin can say that pings greater then # can not join. Maybe even some filtering script options similar to apf and/or chain rules to block certain ips or ip blocks as well as player IDs so the community can do their own policing against cheaters and trouble makers.
In JO the NA server list that usually had 150 players and good ping rate for me there was one clown who was on almost every night that did nothing but crash TK his own teams helicopters into ones that spawn. So he got no real TK but denied that team the use of helicopters, which was huge dissadvantage and would cost that team the game. Such abusive players need to have some way of being blocked. And votes need to be a % of the team the TKer is on not both teams. Because when we initiated a kick against that player the other team usually would not vote to kick him because he was actually helping them out by his actions.
JO offered 150 player support and usually was usually lag free, I don't see why Game2 could not do the same, especially if the ideas of server arrays was implimented. And if players could control squads of up to 10 NPC each that could offer some mega battles. That would bring the scope of the game truely into feeling like a massive comflict.
I've played in some JO Advance and Capture games with no time limits that lasted more then 12 hours for one session. In those sessions pretty much from the time I started to the time I quit everyone else had left and new players had taken their place, but the battle continued on, Game 2 could easily be the same way.
How many people can play on multiplayer at once?,It would be cool to have say 100 man servers,Mainly for clan battles.Like this 25 man clan is allies with this clan and they want to fight it out with 2 25 man clans.
Would be fun and you get points for capturing airports and ports.If they capture too many of them the other side looses.
Also if you die,You will spawn back in all the way in the rear,So they will have to have 2 helo's flying troops back and forfth from the staging area to there positions which could take 5-10 minutes.
What ya say? http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/notworthy.gif http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/notworthy.gif http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/notworthy.gif
Fork122
Aug 28 2005, 15:14
How many people can play on multiplayer at once?,It would be cool to have say 100 man servers,Mainly for clan battles.Like this 25 man clan is allies with this clan and they want to fight it out with 2 25 man clans.
Well at the moment we can have over 100 people on a server, but the lag would be pretty horrible. But the mission editor allows it to be done.
Hopefully with improved multiplayer we can support more players than OFP could.
Also if you die,You will spawn back in all the way in the rear,So they will have to have 2 helo's flying troops back and forfth from the staging area to there positions which could take 5-10 minutes.
Hmm, it'd be fun for the helicopter pilots, but it would suck to ride on a helicopter for 10 minutes just to get shot 30 seconds after landing. It's realistic, sure, but I just don't see the fun in it. There's a fine line between realism and gameplay.
Quote[/b] ]Hmm, it'd be fun for the helicopter pilots, but it would suck to ride on a helicopter for 10 minutes just to get shot 30 seconds after landing. It's realistic, sure, but I just don't see the fun in it. There's a fine line between realism and gameplay.
Yes I see your point,Maybe it will be possible that after a peson is killed in a huge clan battle they spawn in say in a forward base close to the action,To get to there position lets say a city that is being hit hard they can take Humvee's and or helicopters in a 3-4 minute drive or flight,Then they are dropped off hunker down in buildings and begin repelling the attack,Sure you may get show after landing or even your convoy of helicopters gets attacked but some times you will come in uder fire take out 5 guys and hold the city.It depends on your skill and also were your clan or leader tell you to depart,Like if you depart in back of the enemy you can wipe them out and link up with the guys in the city etc etc. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif
DBR_ONIX
Aug 28 2005, 19:59
That's not really a "feature" in MP, it's an idea for a mission.. Quite a good idea acctualy http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/tounge2.gif
As for the number of players, if OFP's campagin is a large map, with lots fo enemys, civillians you can talk to etc, this could be translated into MP as a Joint-Ops style gameplay (Lots of people, possibly more than joint-ops), by the sound of it, the game engine can handle lots of people (by streaming, say), the netcode is all that would limit it, if it's good, then there can be lots of people
One idea that I don't think will have been mentioed.. Instead of the cilent/server system OFP uses, wouldn't a P2P server be a better idea? That would mean, 1, the game wouldn't die if the server crashes, 2, less bandwidth used by the server (when a dedicated server is used), it would be quicker, instead of everyone sending/reciving data from a single server, the person could get it from the fastest player(s), and the server at the same time. If theres 100 players, the bandwidth from the server could be then be used primarily for sending the missions out (One a player has the full map, it can be taken from this player, or the server), or addons, this could be only from the server, so if a player has a modifed version for what-ever-reason, the player will only get the original addon (Imagine accidnely downloading a modified-for-cheating addon on a unadministered server, and going on to a tightly adminstered server.. Not great http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/tounge2.gif)
A dedicated server, if it has fast interent connection would still be good, as the players would get most of the information from it. But if the ded'server had a slower interenet, it could(/would) be used only for administrating (Kicking players) and holding missions, and keeping the server avalible when there are no players.
It's enteriely possible, several Xbox Live games do this (MotoGP2 or something I have the demo of uses P2P servers I'm certain). It'd solve a lot of problems, espically with many players on a map (So the players nearby send data to eachother, and ALL data for ANY palyer on the map doesn't have to get proded though the server, to all the rest of the players..)
Reasonable idea?
- Ben
http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif Another idea I had is a peace keeping mission were 30 soldiers online against 40 soldiers that look like civilians,There can be 100 civilians spread across the map and the Peace keeping force has to secure water ways,highways and airports for food and aide to come in.The other guys are pretty much the terrorist and they can set IED's and ambushes.Once an attack occurs the Peace keeping force will have to search houses to look for the terrorist.If a peace keeper dies he re-spawns in at an airport and can be brought in the action rather quickly.If the terrorist take over the airport the peace keepers cannot bring in aide and cannot spawn in.
Just an idea,Would be rather fun especially if it was like Iraq.An idea for any mod teams out there http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif,Or even Bohemia..I would pay 80 bux for a game like that with Civies,cities,IED's and all that stuff.
http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/thumbs-up.gif
I would like to see better network code all around. I would like to see 100+ players on a server with no lag. Islands as huge as these almost need it.
Maybe adding more to the editor as far as built in scripts for creating simple dynamic spawn points, capture zones, etc. Anything to spice up mission making for multiplayer. Hopefully with these simple options part of the editor instead of user made scripts will lower the overhead and chances of a script not always triggering in multiplayer.
schmerzbringer
Sep 8 2005, 15:46
http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wow_o.gif some "wishes" are very strange.
About JIP: JIP makes sense that´s clear.
On the other side, each new player rejects the current tactic.
My suggestion is a player-pool. Each new connected player gets in this pool. and the commander of each team can select his next "joiner". And the join-process starts when both teams has one player to join. (I mean also both commanders has selected 1) http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif
I love my suggestions. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif
DBR_ONIX
Sep 8 2005, 18:59
I would like to see better network code all around. I would like to see 100+ players on a server with no lag. Islands as huge as these almost need it.
Like I said, a P2P server setup would mean you could have as many people on the island as you can fit, techically..
It wouldn't melt the server, as the server's job is distrubuted
http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/icon_rolleyes.gif
- Ben
xnodunitx
Sep 8 2005, 19:51
yeah but if its P2P (if you mean pay to play) then one might as well get xbox live for OFP Elite
DBR_ONIX
Sep 9 2005, 13:03
Err, by P2P i mean Peer To Peer http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/tounge2.gif (I.e all trafic that would normaly be going though the server, then getting redirected to all other players would be trasnfered around client to client, thus saving the server bandwidth, and allow the server to use a slower connection, thus lower running costs = good)
Pay to play = Baaaaaaaaad idea http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/crazy_o.gif
- Ben
Err, by P2P i mean Peer To Peer http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/tounge2.gif (I.e all trafic that would normaly be going though the server, then getting redirected to all other players would be trasnfered around client to client, thus saving the server bandwidth, and allow the server to use a slower connection, thus lower running costs = good)
Pay to play = Baaaaaaaaad idea http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/crazy_o.gif
- Ben
That might work for smaller battles with very few people in a game but once you get to huge battles I dont know how well that would work. Considering most internet connections (where I live at least) only have around 64k outbound. You almost need a dedicated server with huge inbound and outbound traffic limits, that way only one system updates everyone with player position, ect. Instead of 50 systems telling each other where everyone is at. Hence 50 packets just to update your position on all systems in p2p, to just one packet that is needed to tell a server where you are at and the server tells everyone else where you are at in a server client configuration.
Im no network guru but I dont think P2P is the answer. But I could be wrong.
jafarin
Sep 25 2005, 08:03
Improved JIP:
Can JIP made configurated so that configuration happens in different level.
1) Server level (server configuration)
2) Mission level (mission maker make JIP conf)
3) Game level (players / admin select JIP conf)
JIP configurations :
JIP to spectator
JIP to brief and then to game when admin allows
JIP to playable units
JIP to spawn area as default unit
JIP to any compination of previous selection
Then something new:
It should be possible to create trigger which move player(s) one server to other. E.g. player(s) in server A get helicopter and fly to A1. Then script move player(s) with helicopter to server B.
Some one maybe ask why? Use your imagination what possibilities this gives. I been thinking little while and I see fully new kind way to play. WAR with 5 server. RST with 2 server. Huge coop at 3 server.
DBR_ONIX
Sep 25 2005, 12:02
That might work for smaller battles with very few people in a game but once you get to huge battles I dont know how well that would work. Considering most internet connections (where I live at least) only have around 64k outbound. You almost need a dedicated server with huge inbound and outbound traffic limits, that way only one system updates everyone with player position, ect. Instead of 50 systems telling each other where everyone is at. Hence 50 packets just to update your position on all systems in p2p, to just one packet that is needed to tell a server where you are at and the server tells everyone else where you are at in a server client configuration.
Im no network guru but I dont think P2P is the answer. But I could be wrong.
In huge battles, the clients would only send information to people near them
It's the oposite, for small games, using only the dedicated server would be better, as your not limiting the game to only using 64kb/s upload from both the clients, instead using the ded' server's upstream..
Hmm... In a huge level, a server recieving all the data (for 200 players) would use a massive ammount of bandwidth, thus slowing the server down for everyone.. But, if the clients could work out which players are near-by, and send data to them, and the other clients do the same, when theres a group of 10 players here, and 5 here, and 10 here, you get 3 mini-servers almost.. Where very little data is getting sent between them (Chat messages and kills, but no position/stance/when-I-fired into)
Then, when they are close enough (1/2 km?), you start seeing position updates, then the closer you get, the more information you get
..okay thats hard-as-trying-to-eat-ice-cream-in-hell to code, but it would mean your not limited by the servers connection speed, you can have a slow server and the the clients do most of the data-sending, or a fast server, and do some of the data transfer (So let just the server, and the clients with faster connections send most of the positions etc about)
I'm probobaly making this sound extremly complicated... But, theres games that already do this.. as I said, Moto GP2 or something on Xbox Live has a P2P server thing, and works really well, and it means that if the person hosting the game accidently switches the xbox of, or their internet dies etc, the game doesn't stop (I can't remeber if the main-hosting duties switches to the person with the fastest connection)
- Ben
in Multiplayer, the biggest issue i think off is better server log possibilitys, to provent from cheaters
Perhaps also Chat log ( all messages loged and IDs of the writers)
another thing is it would be realy cool if in the mission setup screen should not only be seen what mission and island, there should also be the SERVER NAME seen! (many times i had to reconect to check on wich server i am to tell friends)
Also server Command #servername to check this in game would be cool too
and MOST WANTET:
new function in Multiplayer Scripting: something like a File handler (for example: print "blabla" > missionscore.txt)
it should always just write just to game server in a default dump path (creating sub folder with datetimeand and perhaps missionname to provent from overwriting files, like /operationflashpoint/dumps/200512082155/dump.txt)
if it just writes under default names in default folders it provents from missusing it to make cheats or viruses.
** what do you think of this guys?? **
CrashDome
Dec 8 2005, 06:29
That might work for smaller battles with very few people in a game but once you get to huge battles I dont know how well that would work. Considering most internet connections (where I live at least) only have around 64k outbound. You almost need a dedicated server with huge inbound and outbound traffic limits, that way only one system updates everyone with player position, ect. Instead of 50 systems telling each other where everyone is at. Hence 50 packets just to update your position on all systems in p2p, to just one packet that is needed to tell a server where you are at and the server tells everyone else where you are at in a server client configuration.
Im no network guru but I dont think P2P is the answer. But I could be wrong.
In huge battles, the clients would only send information to people near them
It's the oposite, for small games, using only the dedicated server would be better, as your not limiting the game to only using 64kb/s upload from both the clients, instead using the ded' server's upstream..
Hmm... In a huge level, a server recieving all the data (for 200 players) would use a massive ammount of bandwidth, thus slowing the server down for everyone.. But, if the clients could work out which players are near-by, and send data to them, and the other clients do the same, when theres a group of 10 players here, and 5 here, and 10 here, you get 3 mini-servers almost.. Where very little data is getting sent between them (Chat messages and kills, but no position/stance/when-I-fired into)
Then, when they are close enough (1/2 km?), you start seeing position updates, then the closer you get, the more information you get
..okay thats hard-as-trying-to-eat-ice-cream-in-hell to code, but it would mean your not limited by the servers connection speed, you can have a slow server and the the clients do most of the data-sending, or a fast server, and do some of the data transfer (So let just the server, and the clients with faster connections send most of the positions etc about)
I'm probobaly making this sound extremly complicated... But, theres games that already do this.. as I said, Moto GP2 or something on Xbox Live has a P2P server thing, and works really well, and it means that if the person hosting the game accidently switches the xbox of, or their internet dies etc, the game doesn't stop (I can't remeber if the main-hosting duties switches to the person with the fastest connection)
- Ben
That sounds goodand all, but every game I have played that was P2P net-code sucked big-time.
1) You need to worry about connecting not only to the server, but to a bunch of other people (i.e. they have good route to server but get 500ms ping to you - then multiply this by 128 for worse case)
2) Forget about playing with 2 machines behind a NAT unless you have external IPs for each machine (and still it's a nightmare) usually requires many many ports to be open
3) One small hiccup on your data and you affect EVERYONE.
4) Crashes often when someone disconnects
Your thoughts are sound and I wish there was something newer out (hardware-wise) that allowed for better ways to handle distribution of processing without the need to hand it off to the clients.
With the way things are going, I believe that one day mobos will come with the GPU seated directly on the mobo and the CPU in bus slots http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif
When you currently ban a cheater from a server, do you use the cheaters IP address, or product ID code, or some-other semi-permanent ID?
Just thinking of making it an absolute ban, so they can't change names and come back like in so many other games.
It's a player ID assigned to each copy of OFP.
Not 100% sure if someone said this but, I think when this game comes out there will be technology that can support massive battles. I would like to see that in Game 2. And some Co-op. So in other words
Very little - MASSIVE battles
Maximus_G
Dec 18 2007, 00:25
The server should be able to remember player and his stats. That's one of the basic functions allowing to build such a gameplay that inspires players to come back.
LtCmdrBoon
Dec 19 2007, 06:08
Couple of things:-
Having spent many hours days and weeks as revolving admin, our clan all has spoken about bans which is a problem. Yes it's just a txt file, and can be edited live now sinec 1.08, but some sort of time ban option would be a real plus. If a guy logs in and blows base, rather than the outright ban, (it might of been a kid brother with a proper players PID for eg) some sort of box for a number of hours would be a real plus.
0 = infinite, 1-9999 = hours, or whatever
2ndly
Being logical guy, I've often thought about the best way to get all the changing data in sync asap, and I agree the best way is generally a 100mbit dedi, however, while p2p is out of question, what's the possibility of adding some sort of bit torrent type thing within the game its self, so for eg, all battle like movements are handled by the server, but less time sensitive traffic is shared around the torrent aspect (eg I have a custom face and 100kb of sounds. When I connect, this info is passed from the server to all players, when another player connects, rather than server lagspiking 5-10 seconds on 40 players+, the other 39 players all chip in and send a KB or 2 to the new guy joining)
jezpops
Dec 22 2007, 06:47
Build a group, get your own dedicated server and have a password !
..problem solved,
or play evo for the rest of your life !!!
(There are over 14,000 coop mp missions made and played by dedicated, tactical players. Join their groups, make your own - this is the only way to keep hackers and cheaters out)
The Tactical Gaming Group (http://www.phoenixsoldier.com)
Paul-Hewson
Jan 19 2008, 14:11
I don't know why this post still here (look at the starts year.. it was for better for ArmA 1 suggestion ^^), but if the developer look at these post better have a new one dedicated to the amelioration for the transition ArmA 1 -> ArmA 2.
No ?
benreeper
Jan 20 2008, 03:57
I have no idea what you just said.
--Ben
Hi, i miss a better Server Info system; that displays more info about
the server, the players, the mission, required addons or not.
In the AAO the server info was very good i think, you could know
which players were playing in each server, you had the Server IP
and name Info and also a "Favourite Servers List", the ping display
was also faster than in the current ArmA; the players list was just
a vertical box with all the players names that you could scroll down
to read the name of all the players in the server. The mission info,
may not be a bad idea to diplay more info like: Required Addons,
Empty Slots, Kind of game (CTF, COOP, etc..), and well... an AAO
style server info screen. Let's C ya
SpaceReverend
Apr 8 2008, 20:42
What I would like to see in ArmAII is samekind of point/rank system like in Battlefield. Of course this sounds like utopia but this is my suggestion and dont take it personally. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/huh.gif
Evolution mp missions are good example what i seek but in larger scale. It would be more than nice to get new weapons when going up in ranks etc.
Of course this kind of global ranking system would need a lot of resources and manpower, but personally it could bring something more to the mp. At least thats the only reason why i ever (quite seldom) play BF.
In my vision there is one or more mp missions made by BIS that are "ranked". From other missions you wont get any "official" points. After every match all the points are saved in some database which is accesable to all to see.
Maybe this kind of a system can be developed by group of ArmA community?
kindly yours -SR- http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/yay.gif
dale0404
Jun 6 2008, 06:37
What I would like to see in ArmAII is samekind of point/rank system like in Battlefield. Of course this sounds like utopia but this is my suggestion and dont take it personally. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/huh.gif
Evolution mp missions are good example what i seek but in larger scale. It would be more than nice to get new weapons when going up in ranks etc.
Of course this kind of global ranking system would need a lot of resources and manpower, but personally it could bring something more to the mp. At least thats the only reason why i ever (quite seldom) play BF.
In my vision there is one or more mp missions made by BIS that are "ranked". From other missions you wont get any "official" points. After every match all the points are saved in some database which is accesable to all to see.
Maybe this kind of a system can be developed by group of ArmA community?
kindly yours -SR- http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/yay.gif
Please dont impliment this!
You'll get people after points and looking at their ranking rather than working as a team. It'll turn into another BF2 clone abeit a more realistic one! http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/rofl.gif
If you need this then join / create a clan and do the system yourself.
Andersson[SWEC]
Jun 30 2008, 06:27
Multiplayer... Serversettings...
We need more info on the server you play on.
Its nice to be able to see whos on and their info.
But we need ALOT more info on the server itself.
Name, IP, Whos the owner, Server Site (Webpage),
And if you get kicked/banned that info should be
displayed for a longer time...So you can write it down..
And if you arent alowed to enter server for Missing Addons
the info about the server website were you can download
these should also be shown alot longer...
When ingame you press P to find some info and in that
section there could be two sections, one for persons playing
and one for server info.
What I would like to see in ArmAII is samekind of point/rank system like in Battlefield. Of course this sounds like utopia but this is my suggestion and dont take it personally. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/huh.gif
Evolution mp missions are good example what i seek but in larger scale. It would be more than nice to get new weapons when going up in ranks etc.
Of course this kind of global ranking system would need a lot of resources and manpower, but personally it could bring something more to the mp. At least thats the only reason why i ever (quite seldom) play BF.
In my vision there is one or more mp missions made by BIS that are "ranked". From other missions you wont get any "official" points. After every match all the points are saved in some database which is accesable to all to see.
Maybe this kind of a system can be developed by group of ArmA community?
kindly yours -SR- http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/yay.gif
wow....hello!!! wake up! missions are made by the community in 99% of the cases. I don't want not to be able to restrict some weapons, or to allow them all based one what i want to achieve. Plus all this kind of gimmicks do feck up the team-play, and you got kids running around score-whoring for that "nice looking GOLD Svd"....
I prefer servers with no kill messages, and no score boards
A Favourites List for Missions you play would be nice... Having to trawl through 100's of missions is always annoying.. in a good sort of way.. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif
Make there be an option when joining an MP Server to download the mod/PBO it is using. Or impement somthing close to this atleast. Its a pain in the ass getting a missing "youl_never_find_me" message.
Also, you should have 2 islands to start off with. have a woodland and then a seperate desert/middle eastern so people might not bitch as much.
It seems impracticle, but those are some reasons I know why people didnt buy ArmA original, was because BIS didnt finish the job.
What I would like to see in ArmAII is samekind of point/rank system like in Battlefield. Of course this sounds like utopia but this is my suggestion and dont take it personally. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/huh.gif
Evolution mp missions are good example what i seek but in larger scale. It would be more than nice to get new weapons when going up in ranks etc.
Of course this kind of global ranking system would need a lot of resources and manpower, but personally it could bring something more to the mp. At least thats the only reason why i ever (quite seldom) play BF.
In my vision there is one or more mp missions made by BIS that are "ranked". From other missions you wont get any "official" points. After every match all the points are saved in some database which is accesable to all to see.
Maybe this kind of a system can be developed by group of ArmA community?
kindly yours -SR- http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/yay.gif
Please dont impliment this!
You'll get people after points and looking at their ranking rather than working as a team. It'll turn into another BF2 clone abeit a more realistic one! http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/rofl.gif
If you need this then join / create a clan and do the system yourself.
On the other hand, you will be able to join a server full of like skilled players.
You will be able to appraise whether you as anoob will be able to compete with other noobs, or can expect to be insta gibbed by uber vets.
You will also be able to ascertain whether the server you are joining is full of noobs or is likely to challenge your skills if you are a vet.
In America's Army, you can even restrict server access to people with either too high or too low a rank.
If those ranks were actually worn as insignia, you might then be able to spot whether or not the pilot can fly before you get in.
For clan recruitment, ranks such as fighter ace, helicopter ace and tank ace will give you a great insight into the talents of the player you are looking into.
To stop people from ranking farming, all you have to do is set low requisites. So they achieve their proficiency badges quickly.
I see no point in that. If you play with noobs, you will never learn anything....i see no point in having gimmicks improve the gameplay, as they never do...And one more thing, in AA, you play the same god damn mission over and over and over again. In arma, i never got to play the same mission twice one after the other...it's not tha same type of game anyways
Praelium
Jul 27 2008, 22:54
Personally, I think the even the point system should be reuvaliated. Take Capture the Flag for example: Instead of counting kills and deaths, your score should be based just off of your deaths and the number of flags returned.
However, I think the scoring should be the same for all gamemodes, or at least make the special changes optional.
NZDF CRASH
Aug 6 2008, 00:25
What I would like to see in ArmAII is samekind of point/rank system like in Battlefield. Of course this sounds like utopia but this is my suggestion and dont take it personally. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/huh.gif
Evolution mp missions are good example what i seek but in larger scale. It would be more than nice to get new weapons when going up in ranks etc.
Of course this kind of global ranking system would need a lot of resources and manpower, but personally it could bring something more to the mp. At least thats the only reason why i ever (quite seldom) play BF.
In my vision there is one or more mp missions made by BIS that are "ranked". From other missions you wont get any "official" points. After every match all the points are saved in some database which is accesable to all to see.
Maybe this kind of a system can be developed by group of ArmA community?
kindly yours -SR- http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/yay.gif
wow....hello!!! wake up! missions are made by the community in 99% of the cases. I don't want not to be able to restrict some weapons, or to allow them all based one what i want to achieve. Plus all this kind of gimmicks do feck up the team-play, and you got kids running around score-whoring for that "nice looking GOLD Svd"....
I prefer servers with no kill messages, and no score boards
Very valid point totally agree with you as it just loses all sense of realism when u see whos been killed or a rank based on number of kills.
The_Captain
Aug 6 2008, 06:26
No global ranking, please.
Also, give us a simple player vs. player mode that isn't warfare (not replacing it, just alongside), that focuses on real players shooting each other and trying to capture flags or sectors... Perhaps something that feels realistic, appealing to people who like PvP as well as a less-gamey and more realistic gametype.
[FRL]Myke
Aug 7 2008, 12:50
Well, i think a ranking system can easily split the community....one side loves/wants it, the other side hates it. Count me to the second side.
However, i think generally refuse a ranking system isn't the way to go. Also i think it's indiscutable to have a permanent ranking system.
I guess the best way is to find an optional way through all this. Server owners may decide if they enable rankings or not. Mission makers may decide if they build in ranking options into theyr mission (rewards for kills, goodies they can get) and players should be able to choose by them self if they want their stats stored or not.
At first it looks as this would end up with a mess, but i think it will balance itself. Some serverowners might decide to deactivate ranking, therefor no ranks and stats are shown/stored. Some Missionmakers might decide to not restrict things for lower skilled (whatever that means) players.
I guess at the end all will benefit from an open system where everyone may choose by himself. If you like a ranking system, enable it at your side, look for ranked servers and for ranked missions. If you dislike it, then just keep away from ranked servers.
The problem about storing the ranks and stats is then a technically problem. I'm no IT specialist so i wont give any comments about it besides this one: right now it is already possible to have a squad.xml....why not developing something based on this?
Praelium
Aug 20 2008, 20:43
This is kind of minor, but I hope that if we open up the chat box to type something, we can scroll up and read past messages. I think CSS has it and it's kind of usefull.
NeMeSiS
Aug 20 2008, 21:49
This is kind of minor, but I hope that if we open up the chat box to type something, we can scroll up and read past messages. I think CSS has it and it's kind of usefull.
You can, open up the type console thingy and press pageup/down to scroll.
Praelium
Aug 20 2008, 22:14
This is kind of minor, but I hope that if we open up the chat box to type something, we can scroll up and read past messages. I think CSS has it and it's kind of usefull.
You can, open up the type console thingy and press pageup/down to scroll.
Oh really? Thanks.
ArMoGaDoN
Aug 27 2008, 08:53
Totally agree with the concept of the game itself downloading addons from *somewhere* (cloud of designated servers?) automatically as addon-based missions are a pain to host successfully - which is a problem when one of the OFP line's greatest strengths is the addons...
Finer-grained control from and by the server on addon allowing/disabling would be VERY good to have IMO:-
After seeing many great mods with multiple PBO's (The TrueMods and Sight Adjusters for example) there are some of these PBO's that would be good to allow on MP, but some that a server admin might prefer to disable in-game.
Some way of the clients (optionally) auto-downloading missing addons (Approved and SIGNED only!) and some way of the server checking the SIGNED addon maker and each of the addons are allowed, BUT allowing specific PBOs while denying (or better: temporarily disabling!) other PBOs would allow community addons and the game itself to flourish much better I feel.
I think that this would mean some hard work as ALL addons are loaded at startup currently - a better way may be to have a 'DISABLED' flag for each addon that is set dynamically at server connection time? The disabled/enabled status to be dictated by the server itself.
This lack of granularity, combined with lack of simple download, has been one of the reasons why the signed addons method has not been so widely adopted.
dentist guba
Aug 27 2008, 16:51
heres my ideas.
Spectating
1. how about some new spectating modes, i'm fond of the seagull but i would welcome the addition of some new ones. the main new thing i want is the ability to snap on to any soldier and watch them (like the guy did in the demo vid), it could get quite boring at times flying around and not being able to see anything because you didn't know where the other people were or they were in a jet. you could use a modified teamswitch thing for this.
2. host option whether spectators can speak to living players
3. maybe allow people to specate from the start rather than having to die (could be fun to watch while eating lunch LOL
4. maybe make use of bullet follow scriots e.t.c.
mission editing
1. there should be a simple way to download other peoples maps (including on XBOX live), this would allow people to co-operatively make maps by merging.
2. hopefully this will be covered by the script database but we should be able to make things spawn more easily.
Stats
1. the leaderboard for ofp elite was quite good but i would like to be able to see a more detailed breakdown e.g. total no of tanks killed or men lost.
also the host should be able to kick a player without them returning to a game and possibly warn first.
Option suggestion in difficulties...
- In-vehicle sound suppression on/off
allows sound effect dampening for MP sessions when using VON / TS.
http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif
Boborish
Aug 29 2008, 19:19
Scripting command that allows missionmaker to turn off the scoreboard for the specific mission so people finally stop the stupid rallying in frags and care more about their own survival and overall mission success. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif
jerryhopper
Sep 8 2008, 13:16
What I would like to see in ArmAII is samekind of point/rank system like in Battlefield. Of course this sounds like utopia but this is my suggestion and dont take it personally. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/huh.gif
Evolution mp missions are good example what i seek but in larger scale. It would be more than nice to get new weapons when going up in ranks etc.
Of course this kind of global ranking system would need a lot of resources and manpower, but personally it could bring something more to the mp. At least thats the only reason why i ever (quite seldom) play BF.
In my vision there is one or more mp missions made by BIS that are "ranked". From other missions you wont get any "official" points. After every match all the points are saved in some database which is accesable to all to see.
Maybe this kind of a system can be developed by group of ArmA community?
kindly yours -SR- http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/yay.gif
Funny to read this http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif
i actually BUILD this system for BF2 ( its called: Alternative Battlefield Ranking )
What is needed, is a way to interface with the internal scoreboard of the engine. it should be able to read & write data to somewhere.
This functionality would allow people to do things as suggested by you.
This would give 'modding the game' a new dimension http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif
yea, i think its time that the scripting language in ArmA needs some nonblocking http-class.
I would actually like to have multiplayer templates built into the game, for example, team death match, death match and king of the hill and all the other gametypes. It would be much better for those of us mortals who can't script or anything.
Also - and this is the big one - I would like better respawn ... ah ... thingies. I want to be able to spawn with my starting equipment or equipment I've set for a soldier, eg, AT has rocket launcher, mg has mg etc. I don't like spawning with a single magazine of the standard rifle every time. I know it can be done, but it seems all these sort of things require complex scripting, which as I've already stated, I know absolutely nothing about.
By templates I mean things we can edit or modify, not the ArmA "templates". I want to put respawning into my own missions.
-Total-
Sep 15 2008, 07:08
Spawning with your equipment is possible already. Just depends on the mission scripting.
I disgree with the deathmatch game types tho. Far too many other titles out there with those game types already.
Spawning with your equipment is possible already. Just depends on the mission scripting.
I disgree with the deathmatch game types tho. Far too many other titles out there with those game types already.
I don't know much scripting though, that is the problem.
Also, many games do have DM/TDM/KOTH but that is no reason NOT to include them in the first place. Sure, they are not realistic, but so are most of the game types for ArmA at the moment, the thing is, they are also fun, so why not? If people don't want to play them they won't. People will make them anyway, it just means they will be of a high quality.
Commando84
Sep 28 2008, 19:04
You know the templates that you can edit fast while in multiplayer as a server? what about adding a warefare template? http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif
This is probably suggested before, but now that i have spend lot of time to get our dediserver to work, i would like see all server configs just one .cfg and and it would be nice if one could control mods with it too. I have no problems to set dediserver at home, but serverhosting companys way to control gamesettings is very limited http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/banghead.gif
Mandrake5
Oct 28 2008, 11:32
apologies if this has already been discussed elsewhere in this thread:
Integrated support for 3rd party Addons.
- ARMA2 MP browser needs to link to a BIS-moderated central database of quality-checked user addons.
- EVERY ARMA2 mission should contain information about required mods included in the description.
- Whenever you join a server, a client should help you to download and install the addons required for the mission currently being played.
I think this is vital for the health of the community. At the moment, hundreds (thousands?) of fantastic ARMA mods exist which are barely used during online play because the process of finding out which mods you need/where to get them is too piecemeal and confusing.
The result? Maps like Evo/Domination/Warfare/Bezerk, which provide most of the online games, and which could be kept forever fresh with new units, are instead becoming tired. This in turn will surely result in the number of players slowly dropping off....
Just my 2cents.
Mandrake
According to the search the word "favorite" is here somewhere, but I can't find the page and see which context it is mentioned in, so here goes.
The option to select "Add as favorite" in the MP list.
Also a release of a real stand alone server.
Not as it is now with a brick weighing in at 7GB.
Mandrake5
Nov 13 2008, 07:15
Oh yeah, and the multiplayer screen should show HOW LONG each mission has been in progress -- it's soooo frustrating to join a game with only 1 minute left!
sparks50
Nov 13 2008, 09:54
Where is this thread from anyway, seems like a old Arma-anticipation thread that has been moved to the Arma 2 section
Call911-AGE-
Nov 21 2008, 09:18
I was readin it thinkin they were talkin about JIP for ArmA til I saw the date an seen it was for OFP http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/whistle.gif http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/rofl.gif
CarlGustaffa
Dec 8 2008, 09:39
Request: A multiline notes section in the multiplayer server screen. When you select a server a notes section will download and update with certain notes from the server.
Typical usage: Show what rules the server is running under (what will cause an autokick).
Why: Now I can spend a whole evening looking for a Domination server that will accept me. I will get "kicked off" but no reasoning given. I know running ECS is now disallowed on many servers (due to causing possible server crashes?), and many of our addons are modified to suit our own clans desires (missing entries in i.e. True addons etc, color tweaks for flares and whatnot [and yes, could be possible cheats]). If certain things are not allowed, I would like to find out before trying to join a server insted of spending too much time on watching the server list update for each failed try.
hugo2020
Jan 31 2009, 13:00
Hey ho,
ofp public gaming:
I can say that "no JIP" like current in OFP 1.96 is cool and should be still there. The rounds are closed and gets a closer tighter dynamik with fixed teams.
It is cool to spend diziplin and anticipation for the upcoming 30minutes.
I would like a button or *.ini Parameter for such function.
SASrecon
Feb 2 2009, 18:24
One thing that should be in ARMA2's multiplayer warfare mode is the uav predator!(to replace the sat cam) that would be amazing to fly it remote controlled in the air looking for the enemy base!
Stuff which has been implemented into ARMA1 warfare which i also loved are nukes and carpet bombs etc.
maybe if ARMA2 expanded on the realistic possibilities the multiplayer would become so much more fun!
Steve JA
Feb 4 2009, 17:08
Join in sounds good, it takes away problems with quiters (because people will join int their place making it fair again) and acutualy getin into a game. however there is the problem with people unfortunatly joining to ruin the game but i guess there would be a way of kicking them so i think it would be a nice feature
NoBrainer
Feb 8 2009, 23:09
In multiplayer:
For admins - ability to "throw away" missions. Lets say a mission that has scripting errors and the admin wants it taken away. A commando for a logged in admin would put that mission i a named catalog.
For admins - ability to "load" missions. A given mission in a named catalog could be moved to MPMissions, so that the mission could be played. Thus to have the opportunity to load just one and one mission and not all missions into MPMissions. This might give the admin a opportunity to find errors in missions when they are loaded.
For players - after a mission is finished, a vote should appear, so all the players can vote how they liked the mission. This would then again be saved in some kind of html or txt-file for later use. It might even be used so that you can find the most liked mission or even a mission that has never been played.
In editor:
For editing - better sorting of name standard. In the editor it should be drop-down boxes for "co", "c&H" etc etc and the editor should calculate for how many players, then the editing guy should only give the mission a name. Then when "you" save your game, the game type and for how many players are automatically put into its name. Thus giving us an name standard like "co12_missionName.island.pbo", where "co" and "12" are not something you type in.
New respawn option "DM" or "SAFE" with parameters
It would be very helpful in deathmatches and the likes if you respawned out of sight and/or at a certain distance away from the nearest enemy if possible within the spawn marker. It would reduce the number of respawn kills and make deathmatches more enjoyable even when it gets crowded. It could be done halfway with scripts but there are no commands for checking possible line of sight or to prevent you from getting stuck inside an object (building or rock) when you get randomly setpos'd.
The_Captain
Feb 20 2009, 16:02
(Re: scripting: You can use the boundingbox command to see if a point is within the bounding box of another object (which itself is slightly outside the actual boundaries). This way you can prevent spawning inside something else.) A "safe" option could be useful however.
CarlGustaffa
Feb 20 2009, 22:51
A score penalty to getting killed, increases with the 'cost' of the vehicle you get killed in. I.e. getting killed as:
Infantry, -2 points
Team Leader, -3 points
Squad Leader, -4 points
HMMWV/Light vehicle, -5 points
Sniper/Recon style units , -8 points
Armored Vehicles, -10 points
Heavy Armor/MBTs, -15 points
Air Transport Vehicles, -20 points
Air Attack Vehicles, -25 points
Finding the best balance here would need trial and error, I'm sure.
I would also expand this to a positive score depending on on the 'value' or 'threat' on what you kill. I.e. killing a sniper or machinegunner gives better score than a rifleman. Killing (including mobility kills) a MBT gives a greater score than killing a D30 (same score now...).
The idea is that the scoreboard currently doesn't reward good players. I think the scoreboard should reflect those who wants to stay alive and those who play ArmA like a regular shooter. Personally I'm no fan of the scoreboard at all, but since its there it should do a better job.
A score penalty to getting killed, increases with the 'cost' of the vehicle you get killed in.
You wouldn't believe how much a hardcoded score penalty for dying would mess up the stats in some pvp missions with respawn, especially because there are times when your death can be completely out of your hand. I'm all for tweaking the score values for different vehicles and maybe even actions but penalties are best left for scripts to handle in missions that need such a feature.
Which reminds me, I think that the score board should include every player and not just the top 10. Debriefings and after action reports can get very vague when you don't know the stats of everyone in the game.
CarlGustaffa
Feb 21 2009, 03:17
My bad, really didn't think of that http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif Maybe not a 'hardcoded' scoreboard as such, but maybe setup the engine scoring system in description.ext easily to suit whatever scoring was going to be supported. One system for coop, one for PvP infantry, one for PvP Tank battles where infantry kills didn't matter etc -- but on a per mission basis. Just brainstorming the possibilities here, but custom scores today are a bit hard to do.
Agreed on a scrollable scoreboard. Makes it possible to identify those just messing up the game for those who actually enjoys the game.
To expand this idea further, how about this? Setup in description.ext a 'limit' you have to be above in order to play the 'next round', and one limit you have to be above in order to remain in the 'current round'. If below you get automatically kicked or can't join the next session as a 'punishment' for playing badly.
It is then up to the mission designers discression to set these at reasonable levels depending on the missions nature. People who run a strictly serious gaiming server can then set this differently from those running a more open server. These 'rules' should also be visible to the joining player somewhere. This suggestion is ment to try to discourage team killers as early as possible while attracting serious players. Not too heavily considered, so it is easy to overlook important aspects like I did above http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif
My bad, really didn't think of that http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif Maybe not a 'hardcoded' scoreboard as such, but maybe setup the engine scoring system in description.ext easily to suit whatever scoring was going to be supported. One system for coop, one for PvP infantry, one for PvP Tank battles where infantry kills didn't matter etc -- but on a per mission basis. Just brainstorming the possibilities here, but custom scores today are a bit hard to do.
It might actually be quite nice to have a customisable scoring system. Getting extra points for armored targets or eliminating vehicle bonus altogether as an option would make it easier to have the right players on top in certain missions. I did make a script in my vehicle deathmatches where you only get points for killing a player, not his vehicle, but that was quite a hassle.
Dwarden
Feb 21 2009, 23:10
i would like to point out one suggestion / poll which may help improve multiplayer experience even more
http://www.flashpoint1985.com/cgi-bin....t=77288 (http://www.flashpoint1985.com/cgi-bin/ikonboard311/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=57;t=77288)
Londoner
Feb 23 2009, 18:15
The ability to join a squad a la battlefield 2 series
Currently in ArmA any bush obstructs sound propagation when using direct voice chat, making communication difficult in forest areas; perhaps this can be fixed with ArmA 2?
Also, I really hope some sort of scripting access is implementing for voip channel access/restriction, allowing separation of command comms from regular channels and restricting use of side channel.
Hi, i think that allow the JIP for some kind of MP missions, like the
Warfare missions, the EVO style, Domination, CTFs and DM will be
good; but in more serious (coops focused on the realism and squad
tactics) there should be an option to disable the JIP, that's a big
impediment for developt a strategy between all the players etc.
The JIP is a good feature for missions not that focused on the
realism or the tactics. I think that the JIP should be enabled by the
mission maker in the mission, not made as a game's feature. Let's C ya
Currently in ArmA any bush obstructs sound propagation when using direct voice chat, making communication difficult in forest areas; perhaps this can be fixed with ArmA 2?
Also, I really hope some sort of scripting access is implementing for voip channel access/restriction, allowing separation of command comms from regular channels and restricting use of side channel.
Yes thats important for me too...
For your second point, i suggested it here already.
http://www.flashpoint1985.com/cgi-bin....t=77490 (http://www.flashpoint1985.com/cgi-bin/ikonboard311/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=57;t=77490)
Eclipse4349
Mar 3 2009, 15:33
edited out my post here, just saw how old the thread is! Apparently JIP and enabling or disabling the AI has been added in a patch, bc I just bought ARMA and have 1.14, and those features are there.
EvilNate
Mar 22 2009, 13:23
I don't know if this has already been requested but...
Please have tag/revive respawn as part of the game engine!
0 or "NONE"
1 or "BIRD"
2 or "INSTANT"
3 or "BASE"
4 or "GROUP"
5 or "SIDE"
6 or "REVIVE"
hyster41
Apr 3 2009, 14:28
the ability to have co-op of more than 4 players on campaign mission would be nice.
CarlGustaffa
Apr 5 2009, 14:40
A possibility to force people into being JIP clients. I.e. while mission is being setup, it waits for a signal from the mission before players actually join as players.
Or even better, have the mission turn this signal on and off, preventing people to join in certain stages of the mission. Would really be helpful for coding dynamic missions where everything is setup on the fly.
Taran [5SM]
Apr 11 2009, 11:20
Yes please...coop multiplayer campaigns :bounce3:
dunedain
Apr 11 2009, 20:50
I really hope that Bis top priority for the mp part right now is to improve the netcode. :rolleyes:
chehotela
Apr 24 2009, 11:54
how many players on the server will be? how many cards will be? when do the game on the market?
I really hope that Bis top priority for the mp part right now is to improve the netcode. :rolleyes:
Agree! So far the netcode is one of the most worse parts of MP.
BIS should have this as priority 1
Redkid Joker
Apr 24 2009, 17:27
I really don't see how the netcode is that bad? I regularly play 60+ player missions with no desync at all. If there is some, it is usually due to the mission being too heavy on the server.
sidhellfire
Apr 24 2009, 18:17
The worst thing are servers hosted by players ;-)
S!fkaIaC
Apr 29 2009, 15:41
I really don't see how the netcode is that bad? I regularly play 60+ player missions with no desync at all. If there is some, it is usually due to the mission being too heavy on the server.
Well, it depends on so many factors at server HW, client(s)HW, objects in mission, common VD, changes per second at any moment, .......
.....to state it works with 60+ without desync. If you would have proper stats at server for all clients you would see that there is ALWAYS desync, but how big matters.
BIS could improve it of course, no doubt about that, especially the treatment of clients causing lag.
One thing I'd like to see is an advanced browser filter. For example I really want to keep my list clean of missions that include the words "evolution", "domination", "ace", or "warfare". I know the list will look empty after that but oh well.
Paul-Hewson
May 2 2009, 20:01
The worst part of ArmA multiplayer is the joining players synchronizing with the server that slowdown the network transmissions for players in-game. (oftenly yellow/red chain when you are playing and this on many many servers i've tried)
Nb : Even if you got a strong hardware/network broadband.
The worst part of ArmA multiplayer is the joining players synchronizing with the server that slowdown the network transmissions for players in-game. (oftenly yellow/red chain when you are playing and this on many many servers i've tried)
Nb : Even if you got a strong hardware/network broadband.
That's pretty much been fixed as of v1.15b.
Paul-Hewson
May 3 2009, 10:11
I don't play beta, not enough server on it. And i think ArmA 2 will be out before we got the 1.17 final patch :p
Thanks anyway to inform me ^^
toloquta
Jun 4 2009, 17:29
I would suggest an separate non-cdkey dependable exe for LAN play. That way we can play with our friends on one copy of OFP2 without worry of Fade. This was demonstrated in Delta Force: Black Hawk Down and was a very nice addition, as I work in Games Club (Not sure if you call it that way, it's a place with lots of PC's where alot of ppl play games) this would largely decrase my bosses expenses on one game, as OFP can be found in BiH for $30 and counting 16 PC's that are in service (30x16=$480) it's not an option.
PLEASE!!!!! http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/sad_o.gif http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/sad_o.gif http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/sad_o.gif
I missed quite a few opportunities to get people hooked on ARMA at LAN parties because of this. Most people had never heard of it and weren't about to go drop $40-50. With other games that had no CD-key check or disc requirement for LAN play people would run out and buy a copy of the game after the LAN party because they had so much fun and wanted to play online.
simio7331
Jun 4 2009, 17:58
This would then open the game to all vpn pirates, a lot of illegal servers running through Hamachi etc.
Mandrake5
Jun 5 2009, 07:21
Enjoying Arma2 immensely, but disappointed with the 'new' MP menu and the 'P' screen in MP games.
IMHO, they need the following improvements:
MP menu:
- ability to see ALL currently connected players (scroll through), not just a few
- game duration - how long has the game been in progress? Saves me joining with only a few minutes left.
'P' screen in MP games:
- why is the game duration info missing? Now we have no idea how long the mission has been running, or at least I can't find it ;)
- players in the list on the left are now all the same colour! That means you can't quickly see if the teams are balanced, or work out which players are your team-mates/enemies. I really don't understand this decision, as both OPF and ARMA had red/green players in the list - please bring this back!
Not major issues, but quite important :D
This is probably mentioned in other threads too...
I wish there was some way to play campaign as coop on dedicated servers (which would take off CPU load from host player). I mean proper campaign, not just separate missions sliced off from the campaign.
Saving campaign progress might be tricky but I hope BIS will find a solution.
Enjoying Arma2 immensely, but disappointed with the 'new' MP menu and the 'P' screen in MP games.
IMHO, they need the following improvements:
MP menu:
- ability to see ALL currently connected players (scroll through), not just a few
- game duration - how long has the game been in progress? Saves me joining with only a few minutes left.
'P' screen in MP games:
- why is the game duration info missing? Now we have no idea how long the mission has been running, or at least I can't find it ;)
- players in the list on the left are now all the same colour! That means you can't quickly see if the teams are balanced, or work out which players are your team-mates/enemies. I really don't understand this decision, as both OPF and ARMA had red/green players in the list - please bring this back!
Not major issues, but quite important :D
I totally agree with the GUI. It's poorly designed.
No map timer
If admin you can't tell if a player is ready on breifing, as they just look the same. You have to keep clicking continue until it stops popping up players are not ready.
Who is on what side? Not all servers use a scoreboard, and that only shows top 10 players.
Bring back the ArmA1 P menu if you have to.
It's nice to see the server console already for ArmA2, but I would still love to see more options to do something with it rather than it just a read only log.
Having a basic way to kick/ban players through it and to send messages to everyone or inviduals would be great. Many times as a server admin I have seen someone with a bad ID or people are contacting me saying a hacker is playing on the server, and I have to go and start the game up to just go kick and ban him - I could do it in the console within about 10 seconds.
Good work so far though :)
UKWF-Mental
Jun 19 2009, 08:33
I would love to have seen more buildings that you could go into, go upstairs etc for somewhere to go/hide. It wouldnt bother me if they build a huge town on repeatable buildings/ lots of the same, would mean there are other places you or the opposition could go to. I know the likes of the hotel you can go into the front door and into the lobby, but it would be cool if you could then go upstairs to say the roof and snipe etc.
Mikobiko
Jun 19 2009, 17:21
I would love to be able to assign dedicated servers ip on a multi-ip server.
DFA_Graywo1f
Jun 21 2009, 21:44
i remember seeing a "grayed" out button for "Friends" is this going to be activated some time? because a friends list is a must have in todays games! :)
commiekiller
Jul 2 2009, 05:53
a list of how many dumbasses are doing team kills and how much time is left:mad:
PurpleXVI
Jul 2 2009, 21:26
The one thing that would lift this game from a 9 out of 10 to a 15 out of 10 for me would be simple: Multiplayer Armory Mode.
Let people join, pick their favourite animal, vehicle, weapon or character, and then just randomly generate challenges as usual. Some could be competetive: Who gets the most skeet shooting hits, who gets to the assassination target or steals the item first(but they also have to deliver it first, have fun running from your friends' sniper rifles!), races, etc.
Others could be cooperative: Attacking positions, defending positions, maybe an enlarged Kill House, so forth.
I have a much simpler suggestion that is nonetheless highly important:
Please, please for god's sake let people still be able to join the server if it has a 15 player mission running with all slots filled, but the actual maximum slots in the server config is set to 48.
It's such a simple thing but it's one of the most annoying things when you are trying to run a server.
LockDOwn
Jul 7 2009, 00:37
1. Please improve MP performance. This game has some of the worst lag of any online game.
2. Please allow PvP to be a filter option. Playing AI all the time is horrible game play.
3. Please improve MP performance. This game has some of the worst lag of any online game.
My request is pretty straight forward, a x64 version of the dedicated server and a ban option in the admin's player UI
Please Guys do something against Teamkillers in MP.
OK there is already a cool Feature that marks TKs as Enemys on the Map, but could you somehow highlight them visually, so that you don´t need to look at the Map to indentify this Idiot? Maybe paint him red or something?
spirit6
Jul 10 2009, 10:34
Please Guys do something against Teamkillers in MP.
OK there is already a cool Feature that marks TKs as Enemys on the Map, but could you somehow highlight them visually, so that you don´t need to look at the Map to indentify this Idiot? Maybe paint him red or something?
I think here the answer is not a system but your choice of server. If you play with idiots it will be a mess no matter what system you go define.
Eclipse4349
Jul 10 2009, 20:09
A better turtorial is a MUST for this game. Everyone, and I mean EVERYONE, that I get to try the game is completely lost as to how to navigate and play gametypes like CTI/ Warfare. They have no idea that they even have a compass, how to give grid positions, that the map is divided into 1000m or 100m squares depending on zoom level, they have no idea how to play CTI or Warfare, what the map symbols mean, how it works, what to do, NOTHING. This translates into either me spending a LONG time explaining the same things to every person over and over again, or they just lose interest very quickly and give up on it. You can't make a game this different than everything else and NOT tell people how it works!
There needs to be an in depth tutorial for how to navigate, and for gametypes like Superpowers/Capture the Island/Warfare/ all other gametypes taht ship with the game! I know for a fact that the interest just within the group of guys I game with would easily double if this issue was well addressed. I would imagine putting it in the demo as well would help the game sell a LOT.
Lima-14
Jul 14 2009, 09:59
** Some suggestions for MP **
- In Server selection - add a favourite Server button / screen. So you can build up a list of your favourite servers. Instead of plouging through a long list, trying to remember what server you played on.
- Friends - Always greyed out? (how do you add friends?) Manual doesnt explain!!
- Player search.. so you can see where your buddies are playing and join them on that server.
- Expand or allow scrollable player field - when highlighting a server in the server browser, you can see the players, but their names get truncated on the right hand side of the table, how about text wrap or scroll field? so you can see whos playing.
Regards
Lima-14
{SAS}Silentkiller
Jul 15 2009, 09:14
** Some suggestions for MP **
- In Server selection - add a favourite Server button / screen. So you can build up a list of your favourite servers. Instead of plouging through a long list, trying to remember what server you played on.
- Friends - Always greyed out? (how do you add friends?) Manual doesnt explain!!
- Player search.. so you can see where your buddies are playing and join them on that server.
- Expand or allow scrollable player field - when highlighting a server in the server browser, you can see the players, but their names get truncated on the right hand side of the table, how about text wrap or scroll field? so you can see whos playing.
Regards
Lima-14
+1 :) Developers seem to completely ignore the server browser friends list, an example of an excelent server browser is in Enemy Territory Quake Wars. They have a friends list where you can join the server that they are in, if it's full you have an option to wait for the next slot to be available.
-Sorting out the warping that happens when scoped would be good :)
-Official bug free co-op & PvP maps would be nice.
-reserve named slot so admin can join the game if no other admin is currently on.
in the filter settings to make checkbox a choice of several modes of game
[-DST-] Anth
Jul 15 2009, 12:48
Standing is quicker to kill people than crouching as the accuracy is around the same. (Takes ages to crouch anyway so your dead before you can crouch)
After a running a little while your aim is all over the place even after a short distance. Takes to long to get breat back also??
Also after running I depress my key to stop the character and the character keeps running which gives me the player no contol over what im doing really.
Is it possible to but in an option like you have with removing head bobbing you could change anims lets say sim/arcade or arma 2/ofp for players that with to use it.
You can probably see that the community is pretty much a joke atm Well put it this way theres more people playing ofp ctf than arma 2 that tells you how well its doing. Its not like I havent tried its just not possible. I dont think anything wil come of this post but will put it in anyway.
Eclipse4349
Jul 15 2009, 18:29
Anth;1364837']After a running a little while your aim is all over the place even after a short distance. Takes to long to get breat back also??.
Try running a few hundred meters with 60 pounds of gear on your back, then stopping and trying to aim carefully. I guarantee you will be breathing pretty hard for quite a while, and your aim will be shaky, too!
Anth;1364837']Also after running I depress my key to stop the character and the character keeps running which gives me the player no contol over what im doing really.
Let go of "w", or whatever key you have mapped to "move forward", and you will stop moving forward. It's pretty easy to control.
Anth;1364837']Is it possible to but in an option like you have with removing head bobbing you could change anims lets say sim/arcade or arma 2/ofp for players that with to use it.
This is ARMA 2! It's a milsim, not an arcadey COD/BF clone!
Anth;1364837']You can probably see that the community is pretty much a joke atm Well put it this way theres more people playing ofp ctf than arma 2 that tells you how well its doing. Its not like I havent tried its just not possible. I dont think anything wil come of this post but will put it in anyway.
What poll did you take to prove this? MAybe people are playing the campaign and not online? It may take some time for people to get comfortable enough with the game to venture online, too. Especially since the documentation on things such as how the gametypes work, and how to navigate are overwhelming for most new players. Give it time though.
[-DST-] Anth
Jul 15 2009, 22:31
i played ofp arma and arma 2 dont lecture me on what I know about th is game and dont answer what ive told you is broken for me and many others just because you think its right does not mean I think it right. It may be good for co-op although ive even seen co-op players complaining about it and its definatly no good for pvp.
what poll??? I play ever other night I dont need silly polls that arnt even acurate to tell me whats going on.
T.S.C.Plage
Jul 16 2009, 11:11
I just was pointed to a little problem related to the use of aircrafts with "pilot" and "gunner" positions in MP. I've tested this with a Cobra only but assume it's the same for all other aircrafts of that type.
At first assigned targets (via Tab) are not shown to the other crewmember which makes it difficult to act as a real crew.
Besides that it seems like it's not possible that the gunner seperatly operates a weapon besides the pilot and visavers. In OFP for example the gunner could operate the "gun" while the pilot could use the FFARs. Why isn't that possible anymore? I mean this is a necessary feature for MP and should be reworked asap!
-------------------
Besides that I'm missing an option to report my position to group- and sidemembers. Was this option just turned off on the servers I played or is there really none?
=SF=Hyrax
Jul 16 2009, 16:08
Webhosting for file/mission redirect . Save the serveralot of bandwidth by implmenting this
David1054
Jul 17 2009, 04:23
more Team Death Match and other game modes.
CO OP is horrible with all the lag =/
Its frustrating that you shoot enemys and they dont die then you get blown up for no reason and tank you shoot over 20 times blows up.
Spike 21
Jul 18 2009, 02:18
I would like to see a empty car in ever town,so if your shot down or what ever you can still get around...
Allow saves in campaign co-op to be used more than once. (ie, you get an autosave, you die, the resume button only works once, then the mission restarts unless you get another autosave).
Kremator
Jul 29 2009, 09:17
Webhosting for file/mission redirect . Save the serveralot of bandwidth by implmenting this
+1 for this .... would make perfect sense.
I'm not sure how much extra programming it would take for BIS to do this, but it would be VERY welcome.
please make this dialog useable :)
http://crowe2extreme.net/pictures/xbox/xbox2.jpg
Rowdy426
Aug 26 2009, 17:31
I'd like to see GD HACKERS GONE!!!!!!
Flash Thunder
Oct 14 2009, 21:00
BIS please give us an option to increase the AI player count in *ALL* Gamemodes. Why can I only do 6v6 on Capture the Sections???
There should be a ticker bar below the Perameters window just before loading the game.
Also it would be really cool if you can change it so it loads until every player is completely loaded unless downloading stuff I dont get how im able to move around for almost 30 seconds by the time my friend is done *RECIEVING*. Always forget since im host.
More options without having to screw around with scripts please, fix the AI in Objectives they never capture flags and never capture points from my experience, no more sit a spawn and spawn kill in Team Deathmatch and No more spawning right in front of somebodies face in Deathmatch perhaps make bigger areas to accomendate the size. LMAO
Anways BIS if you improve this, "you" hands down got a stellar MP component. :yay:
BIS please give us an option to increase the AI player count in *ALL* Gamemodes. Why can I only do 6v6 on Capture the Sections???
There should be a ticker bar below the Perameters window just before loading the game.
More options without having to screw around with scripts please, fix the AI in Objectives they never capture flags and never capture points from my experience, no more sit a spawn and spawn kill in Team Deathmatch and No more spawning right in front of somebodies face in Deathmatch perhaps make bigger areas to accomendate the size. LMAO
Those things are mission related, even if BIS fixes its own (rather mediocre) MP missions, it will not affect any other missions out there because every feature and option in a mission is decided by its maker. C&H and DM aren't supposed to be played with AI btw, no matter how they are scripted they just aren't cut out for pvp modes.
If you want to play proper pvp missions (lots of player slots, spawn protection etc.), check out some of the servers that have them. :)
Flash Thunder
Oct 15 2009, 00:45
Those things are mission related, even if BIS fixes its own (rather mediocre) MP missions, it will not affect any other missions out there because every feature and option in a mission is decided by its maker. C&H and DM aren't supposed to be played with AI btw, no matter how they are scripted they just aren't cut out for pvp modes.
If you want to play proper pvp missions (lots of player slots, spawn protection etc.), check out some of the servers that have them. :)
Well at the current state yes the AI isn't cut out for PVP but I want BIS to put effort into the AI anyways, I didn't have good experiences offline people tend to be retards and have idiotic rules for the noobies me at the time so I just play with my close friends and forum members usually and we like killing AI. :D
BUILT IN SYNCHRONIZATION OF ADDONS:
The game server doesn't have to send them.. let us put a hosting url in the server cfg!
Nuff said, I can deal with all the other issues.. This will really improve things. Pubbers can join ANY server without messing with addons and mods.
Humvee28
Nov 9 2009, 09:21
It would be nice if there were made an Option or Menu so that you could give quick new Ammo to an Team-member next to you instead dropping all the stuff on the ground and your mate have to search for it.Especially in Firefights it would be a great help.Got the Idea for a Team of Machine Gunner and Ammo Bearer e.g.
And Sorry for my Bad English,but School is so long ago..:D
It would be nice if there were made an Option or Menu so that you could give quick new Ammo to an Team-member next to you instead dropping all the stuff on the ground and your mate have to search for it.Especially in Firefights it would be a great help.Got the Idea for a Team of Machine Gunner and Ammo Bearer e.g.
I second that.
A kind of item exchage dialog would be very helpful.
Flash Thunder
Apr 22 2010, 03:11
It would be awesome if we could get an official mode like
Island war for that Other game, having AI spawn randomly around the island, being able to edit alot of its settings add mods to it extra scripts.
Allow respawning and reviving
Have checkpoints set up after objectives completed.
I really like that mode for DR so I think it should be a real official mode for the Better game. :)
Coop is great fun, the only thing is AI needs to be improved.
Eclipse4349
May 27 2010, 16:54
Haven't read all the posts bc there are far too many, but my suggestions for multiplayer are:
more out of the box multiplayer content already available and ready to load and play, and the mission wizard needs to have a tutorial or something similar to the boot camp missions so the average person knows it is there and how to use it!
---------- Post added at 12:54 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:48 PM ----------
One big suggestion I have is to make the Superpowers game mode (CTI) able to be resized to include fewer towns and a smaller play area. This would allow small groups of players hosting their own games to be able to go against each other with more intense warfare, in a shorter amount of time. Making it able to be edited in this way in the mission wizard would be great!
Emerald 8
Jul 16 2010, 16:37
I don't know how long of a gap there is between them. But I would like to see one soon, so I can get Domination back on my server. Xeno said that BI fixed the ammo box crashes with the latest beta update.
Emerald 8
Aug 27 2010, 10:42
Thanks for the update.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.0 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.