Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
_Assulter_

Multiplayer

264 posts in this topic

Ingame join ? And that dropped players dosent get exchanged by an AI. Atleast there should be an option for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

<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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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! )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Warin @ April 25 2003,23:54)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yeah..and support for a LOT of players (128 would be nice! )<span id='postcolor'>

OFP1's max. 3024 isnt enough? tounge.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote ([sZ]Vladimir @ April 25 2003,17:24)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">That can be great for persisting Battelfield biggrin.gif On bigger map, with more players...

Vladimir<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@#$ me the lag and de-sync was masive

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So we need a better optimized netcode...

(which was already mentioned in the list) tounge.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Warin @ 25 April 2003,16:54)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Larger maps??

Why? Nogova is HUGE.<span id='postcolor'>

on foot ya....but in a chop or plane that's another story wink.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 smile.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Terrain streaminig, it they manag to get it work properly, will indeed be a major breakthrough, both for single-player and multi-player.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (NKVD @ 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.<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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It could be very useful during a clanmatch, like when someone loses connection, he would be able to join back in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX @ 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...<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 wink.gif ).

Excellent idea, Baron.

Whis'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you 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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. biggrin.gif Ahh, a dream is it not.

BTW: If you have JIP, enable MP saving and loading. smile.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0