Jump to content

Photo
- - - - -

Multiplayer


  • Please log in to reply
263 replies to this topic
Thread Starter
_Assulter_
_Assulter_

    Private First Class

  • Members
  • 31 posts

Posted 24 April 2003 - 22:17 #1

Ingame join ? And that dropped players dosent get exchanged by an AI. Atleast there should be an option for it.
I am A
<A href="http://www.da.ex1.cc"><TT><img src="http://w1.534.telia.com/~u53403033/angelbanner.gif"></TT></A></TD></TR>

SpeedyDonkey
SpeedyDonkey

    Warrant Officer

  • Members
  • 2030 posts

Posted 25 April 2003 - 12:40 #2

<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
-SZ-Vladimir

    Sergeant

  • Members
  • 178 posts

Posted 25 April 2003 - 15:24 #3

That can be great for persisting Battelfield Posted Image On bigger map, with more players...

Vladimir

Warin
Warin

    Retired Moderator

  • Members
  • 3052 posts

Posted 25 April 2003 - 20:54 #4

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! )
No Matter Where You Go, There You Are
Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori.
Qui custodiet ipsos custodes?
Truth from Tex[USMC]: Pravda\'s funnier than the Onion, but less reliable
Nolite te bastardes carborundorum

Kegetys
Kegetys

    Warrant Officer

  • Members
  • 2752 posts

Posted 25 April 2003 - 20:57 #5

</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! )[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
OFP1's max. 3024 isnt enough? Posted Image
Posted Image

MP Studio
MP Studio

    Sergeant

  • Members
  • 118 posts

Posted 25 April 2003 - 21:05 #6

No server supports so many Posted Image
Ex-member of mapfact.net ;)

SpeedyDonkey
SpeedyDonkey

    Warrant Officer

  • Members
  • 2030 posts

Posted 25 April 2003 - 21:31 #7

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
168GRN HPBT

    Sergeant

  • Members
  • 140 posts

Posted 26 April 2003 - 11:26 #8

</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 Posted Image 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@#$ me the lag and de-sync was masive

Unatomber
Unatomber

    Corporal

  • Members
  • 72 posts

Posted 26 April 2003 - 11:38 #9

So we need a better optimized netcode...
(which was already mentioned in the list) Posted Image




alik Una, 2nd Platoon, Mech Recce Squad, AA-NCO
Local Defence Detachment Kyllikki
----------------------
FDFMod Team

deathguy
deathguy

    Staff Sergeant

  • Members
  • 299 posts

Posted 27 April 2003 - 21:22 #10

</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.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
on foot ya....but in a chop or plane that's another story Posted Image
Webmaster of Mod Marine Fran├žaise - MMF

Traductor for Soviet War Rebelion Mod and admin of SWR forums (the main part is in french but we have made a section for english and espagnol speaking persons).

Lt_Damage
Lt_Damage

    Master Gunnery Sergeant

  • Members
  • 1007 posts

Posted 28 April 2003 - 02:51 #11

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 Posted Image

Nyles
Nyles

    Master Sergeant

  • Members
  • 748 posts

Posted 28 April 2003 - 08:52 #12

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

Apollo
Apollo

    First Sergeant

  • Members
  • 811 posts

Posted 28 April 2003 - 12:24 #13

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.

Adammo
Adammo

    Staff Sergeant

  • Members
  • 283 posts

Posted 28 April 2003 - 16:05 #14

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.
Capt. Moore

granq
granq

    Sergeant Major

  • Members
  • 1955 posts

Posted 28 April 2003 - 16:14 #15

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.
My streaming Perhaps catch me working on some addons.
http://www.anrop.se Swedish ArmA community.

NKVD
NKVD

    Sergeant

  • Members
  • 184 posts

Posted 02 May 2003 - 15:06 #16

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.
<span style=\'font-size:14pt;line-height:100%\'>ARMEDASSAULT.ORG</span> - English and Russian fansite!
We have AA News, Forums, Screenshots, Videos about War in Chechnya and Iraq, Server Query, and a lot more!


Posted Image
My other site: Crysis.ws - mods and posters WANTED!

Necromancer-
Necromancer-

    First Sergeant

  • Members
  • 914 posts

Posted 03 May 2003 - 23:48 #17

</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.[/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?
Jihad Joe!!! The Real Al Qaeda Hero!

Furia
Furia

    Staff Sergeant

  • Members
  • 267 posts

Posted 04 May 2003 - 16:49 #18

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
Anaconda

    Sergeant

  • Members
  • 169 posts

Posted 05 May 2003 - 17:00 #19

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

Makaveli
Makaveli

    Rookie

  • Members
  • 3 posts

Posted 05 May 2003 - 22:59 #20

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.