Join in progress.

[Swoop]

BIS,

I mean why FFS?


OFP coulda been bigger than CS if it wasnt sooooo much bleedin hassle getting an online game going. You wait, wait, wait, wait some more, finally get going and some sod dumps cos he doesnt have the editor upgrade......so his squaddies HAVE to wait for him to download it and come back. Then some other sod dumps in the middle of the game so again.....back we all go.

OMG, no wonder player numbers online are dropping daily.

With the possibility of joining a game in progress sooo much more coulda been done by us, the players. We coulda had persistant worlds (well, islands anyway) online 24 hours a day with a constant battle going on.......but noooooooo.


Just gimme a good reason why not.

It would be too much trouble to re-write the netcode? Bollocks, thats not a good reason. A competant programmer wouldnt exactly have too hard a time doing this, it's been done before.....and we all know that OFPs programmers are among the best in the world.....after all, they came up with OFP. So get your fingers out and get a move on, start now and you'll be done in a month.


Swoop

[Placebo]

Hmm more like old topic old whine, but anyways, everyone has the right to their opinion of course

Moving to MP

After playing WW2ol's free trial for nearly 2 days straight I am starting to agree with JIP.

BUT, not HL mod style JIP. If it was to be implemented I would MUCH rather see it in a WW2ol constant battle environment where the map only gets reset after one side has claimed full victory.

Though this would never be possible with the current netcode. For example in 1 hour of playing ww2ol my connection had recieved about 2.5MB's and sent only 1.2MB's. In one hour of OFP play I normally recieve about 7-8MB's and sent 3,4-5MB's. Clearly WW2ol's packet size is much smaller, possibly because the position update on units is much less frequent.

I think a combination of OFP's amazing infantry combat, WW2ol's great tank combat, OFP's environment and ww2ols mass-multiplayer/netcode would make an absolutely amazing world to play in. Adding a pay-to-play scheme would remove the children and allow continued development (added weapons/vehicles etc).

[whisperFFW06]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Swoop @ Feb. 06 2002,12:00)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It would be too much trouble to re-write the netcode? ***Bollocks, thats not a good reason. ***A competant programmer wouldnt exactly have too hard a time doing this, it&#39;s been done before.....and we all know that OFPs programmers are among the best in the world.....after all, they came up with OFP. ***So get your fingers out and get a move on, start now and you&#39;ll be done in a month.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Nononononono
It&#39;s not a question of being competant or not, in this case, the technical issues just CAN&#39;T BE overlooked like you do. And it HAS NOT been done before. Not for a simulation level game like OFP. The core of this game (triggers, scripting and AI behaviour) makes it a huge amount of data to be passed when a client connects, resulting in desync very fast. Data are not just positionnal, they are conditionnal, comportemental, etc...
The game has been developped around this core, not multiplayer. Would multiplayer and JIP have been the main focus, we would have lost alot.
In fact, perhaps BIS is working on the problem since it has first been raised, why not, after all ? But in this case, they would be far from the solution. It&#39;s not a question of a month.

Whis&#39;

[Renagade]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Armourdave @ Feb. 06 2002,12:51)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">After playing WW2ol&#39;s free trial for nearly 2 days straight I am starting to agree with JIP.

BUT, not HL mod style JIP. If it was to be implemented I would MUCH rather see it in a WW2ol constant battle environment where the map only gets reset after one side has claimed full victory.

Though this would never be possible with the current netcode. For example in 1 hour of playing ww2ol my connection had recieved about 2.5MB&#39;s and sent only 1.2MB&#39;s. In one hour of OFP play I normally recieve about 7-8MB&#39;s and sent 3,4-5MB&#39;s. Clearly WW2ol&#39;s packet size is much smaller, possibly because the position update on units is much less frequent.

I think a combination of OFP&#39;s amazing infantry combat, WW2ol&#39;s great tank combat, OFP&#39;s environment and ww2ols mass-multiplayer/netcode would make an absolutely amazing world to play in. Adding a pay-to-play scheme would remove the children and allow continued development (added weapons/vehicles etc).[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
adding P2 P would remove the children?? i think not just look at all the idiot kiddies who are running about on cable these days.
OFP could do with a better lobby if the JIP issues isnt going to change,possibly put in a minigame or 2 for while ur waiting also a better ingame browser like half lifes so u can input all ur favourite servers and refresh them from within the game.

[BigQEd]

I have mentioned this before. It is a solution of sorts...

Allow people to join in on AI Slots. If a mission allows 32 people then allow it to be filled to that amount. Replace the AI slots with live people as they join. When they come into the lobby area if there are AI slots available then they have an option to join the battle in progress.

[Col Rambo SBS]

To keep those happy they see JIP as an evil force and would rather live without it happy, JIP should maby have/had/will have been a server side option so the person running the server can decide whether or not to have the feature enabled.
It would be interesting to see which servers had the largest number of players.

[BigQEd]

Guaranteed the one with JIP would have the highest following.

We run 10 different gaming servers and we know what goes and what doesn&#39;t. The ONLY reason OFP is doing so well right now is because of the Depth of the game... and the support of our Admins assigned to this game.