What would you like to see in ofp2

[unclepogy 0]

Sorry about over-quoting, I'm still learning how to interact on the site. Apologies... Uncle

[Cloney 0]

If BIS implements half of this stuff you will need a fricken CRAY to run this game...

[eh remraf 0]

Not really, your looking at a minimum of a 1ghz cpu and GeForce 2 or equivalent card.

[DarkLight 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Quicksilver @ Aug. 22 2002,05:07)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">hehe you guys dont know bout this do you?

http://www.virtualbattlefieldsystem.com/<span id='postcolor'>

Wow, is that a game?

If it is, when will it be available??

Or is it some engine that cna be used by game developers?

[DarkLight 0]

I'd also like better accuracy when running, i dunno if this has already been taken care of with the updates (sold the game but i've ordered it agian so i'll be playing soon).

I agree with almost everything that's written here, perhaps this is good for the developers to see what they can change for the next version....

[awdougherty 0]

I took a look at that Virtual Battlefield System. I don't see why Bohemia Interactive just doesn't release some form of that as a game at some point. It definitely looks cool.

Things I'd like to see in OFP2:

1. Better sound effects. Let's face it, the EAX is pretty weak (maybe that's creative's fault, but it's still weak). Also, it feels like the sound effects are accurate, but they don't sound really clean for some reason. The voice acting is pretty bad, but that's standard for the industry. So better sound in general.

2. Better graphics. I like the graphics of OFP, but this seems like just something you have to do for a sequel.

3. A few more weapons and vehicles. I actually don't think OFP2 should include everything and the kitchen sink when it comes to added equipment, but there should be a little more variety.

4. Better physics, by the time the game came out, the average CPU speed should be pretty high compared to when the first game came out. Hopefully some of that increased CPU power can go towards better physics.

5. A dynamic campaign. This is what I think they should really go after. I don't find the included story driven campaign all that great, the missions are ok, but the glue holding them together feels weak. What players seem to really want are the missions, not the story that goes with the missions. Why not let the players select an object, such as clearing a town, then letting them choose the team, then letting the attack commence. That's essentially all that happens in the first few missions in the real campaign. Then if the player succeeds, the allies gain more control of the map. If the allies control a certain % of the map, maybe the enemy surrenders or takes to the hills and you have to clear them out. I don't know, maybe having to clear them out is too complicated to program.

Basically just have an island with the enemy controlling 75% and the allies controlling 25%. When the player starts, have there be a list of objectives that need doing. The player can then go down the list and do them or decide to let the AI handle the task (this way people who don't like flying don't have to). Also if the objective is to hit an armored column, the player could choose to hit them with a tank platoon, so A-10's, or an infnatry ambush using LAWs and AT mines. As the player succeeds, promotions get handed out, and soon the player is creating that objectives list. Does this seem feasible?

I don't know if anyone out there every played a game called Twilight 2000 by Game Designers Workshop (GDW). It's been out of print for a while, but the basic idea was that NATO and Russia go to war in Europe and you roleplay a small squad of NATO soldiers trapped behind enemy lines. We never really roleplayed stuff too much, we just hunted around for tactical engagements and picked fights and we loved it. OFP is the closest thing to Twilight 2000 except that OFP doesn't let me have the freedom of choice in targets and weapons. Give me a dynamic campaign that let's me control what I hit and I think the magic of Twilight 2000 will finally be there for me.

[EBass 0]

THE POTENTIAL!!! THE POTENTIAL!!!!!

Ok ok in this dynamic campaign you decide to send a crack team of black ops across a river to sabotage a tank base to halt the armoured advance in the sector as they wade slowly across pushing their bergens in front of them a russian MG opens up cutting them all to shreds, the tanks remain intact, and tommorow push accross the Rhine, the German 3rd army cannot hold them and morale decreces on the front impacting troops fighting ability! MUHAHAHAHA FANTASTIC STUFF

[awdougherty 0]

I agree that the potential is stunning for a dynamic campaign, and I don't think it's so far out of reach to do. Essentially, every mission is come into contact with the enemy and destroy/kill in some manner. Regardless of how you dress it up, that's essentially OFP (which makes for an awesome game in my opinion). So why not let us have control over when and where we make contact?

I don't think we need the level of detail some people describe. While I would like to have trenches in the game, I don't necessarily want to dig them in game. I also don't think we should be able to pull the pin out of the grenade and then use the pin to scratch ourselves or pick a lock. Overall, the complexity of OFP was really good, although I think a little more should be done with the buildings in the game. More of them, make them breakable, and so on.

I would love a game where some friends and I link up online, choose some weapons, and then run around the island causing havoc for the enemy... planning attacks, ambushing small patrols to reload our weapon supplies. I guess I don't really even need a whole dynamic campaign, just set me up with a huge open area and let me attack when and where I like.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

Okay, OFP is just the start- OFP2 will be the mother of all combat sims. You should make it have everything but the kitchen sink. You should focus more on combined arms battles on the company-battalion level. You should make the islands much bigger. You should fix the clipping so that CQB isnt quite so awkward. You should make (or hire someone who can make) netcode that can support 40 people on one server. You should also consider the possibility of adding a massively multiplayer capability of 60+ people on really bad ass servers. Maybe BIS or CM could provide one or two to the public...

You should NOT dumb it down in any way. if anything, make it more deadly.

You should NOT rush it. OFP is one of the best games ever IMO, but you guys hurt it and Resistance by rushing them out prematurely.

You should NOT get lazy. Take advantage of yer VBS contract to get access to realistic sounds and weapons data, and incorporate it into the sim. I will not accept any more 7.62 mm rifles that require 3 shots to the chest to bring a man down. Remember, you have my permission to take yer time ( ). Ill be over here playiung flight sims til you get done.

Concentrate more on Multiplayer. Dont get me wrong, a cinematic singleplayer experience is nice, but Multiplayer is where the longevity and popularity will come from.

You should keep the Mission Editor. This tool is possibly the best addition to OFP. maybe even expand the toolset to include, perhaps, terrain editing and modeling tools?...

Anyhoo, take yer time, I expect nothing but the best from you.

[HellToupee 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ Aug. 29 2002,13:31)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Okay, OFP is just the start- OFP2 will be the mother of all combat sims. You should make it have everything but the kitchen sink. You should focus more on combined arms battles on the company-battalion level. You should make the islands much bigger. You should fix the clipping so that CQB isnt quite so awkward. You should make (or hire someone who can make) netcode that can support 40 people on one server. You should also consider the possibility of adding a massively multiplayer capability of 60+ people on really bad ass servers. Maybe BIS or CM could provide one or two to the public...

You should NOT dumb it down in any way. if anything, make it more deadly.

You should NOT rush it. OFP is one of the best games ever IMO, but you guys hurt it and Resistance by rushing them out prematurely.

You should NOT get lazy. Take advantage of yer VBS contract to get access to realistic sounds and weapons data, and incorporate it into the sim. I will not accept any more 7.62 mm rifles that require 3 shots to the chest to bring a man down. Remember, you have my permission to take yer time ( ). Ill be over here playiung flight sims til you get done.

Concentrate more on Multiplayer. Dont get me wrong, a cinematic singleplayer experience is nice, but Multiplayer is where the longevity and popularity will come from.

You should keep the Mission Editor. This tool is possibly the best addition to OFP. maybe even expand the toolset to include, perhaps, terrain editing and modeling tools?...

Anyhoo, take yer time, I expect nothing but the best from you.<span id='postcolor'>

Yep me wants JIP, so its possible for 60+ ppl battles, the current ofp net code can do 66ppl i think at the moment, but battles with more than 20ppl would rock, maybee even have islandwars, a island made for mp thats not too big and its 30v30 to control it, maybee with rts elemts involed like tank factorys and airfields to hold.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

LOL, with OFP's current netcode, the best servers out there start lagging at 30 people even with low pings all around. And JIP is up in the air. If they want to implement it, whatever, if they dont, whatever.

[HellToupee 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ Aug. 29 2002,15:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">LOL, with OFP's current netcode, the best servers out there start lagging at 30 people even with low pings all around. And JIP is up in the air. If they want to implement it, whatever, if they dont, whatever.<span id='postcolor'>

yea thats cos u need one powerful computer hosting, gp has a duel 1ghz computer and that struggles with 25, but in ofp2 i want to see a special island made manily for mp battles with a offical mission that puts 33v33 to control the island with things like factories and airfields to hold and control like c&h except u get rewarded with weapons of war for taking and holing areas.

[aronvp 0]

i would like to be able to reload the gun while walking

[End_Creditz 0]

I'd quite like to see those wing type parachutes so you'd have more control of where you land and maybe have it so you can kneel inside a building and actually see over the bottom of the windows )

not much of a post or brilliant ideas but they would be useful

[edc 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I'd quite like to see those wing type parachutes so you'd have more control of where you land<span id='postcolor'>

Ditto. Especially for Spec Ops.

[Axek/Axyl 2]

I'll add my vote for spawning in to multiplayer games that are already running and improved net code.

(I'd really love a WWIIOL back end, with a OFP front end. )

Oh, and the ability to use more than one joystick in your mappings. i.e. My rudder pedals are a seperate joystick to my HOTAS.

Axek.

[Mogge 0]

I would like to see better damage models, like the ability to detrack a tank or shoot the tail of a chopper, stuff like that.

[-SZ-Vladimir 0]

Euh... I want a MMOOFP... with bigs islands et a lot of players... and realism...

- better tank simulation

- better fly simulation

- better physical model (as in real life )

- more in any day

And take your time (1 ou 2 year ) it's not easy to make that i know... make a very good game, the best and take 1 ou 2 year for make that .

And sorry for my English

Vladimir

[gonk 0]

My 2 cents... (Leave everything from OFP in just add extra)

1. Better models... i.e. RADAR, Flight, damage, driving. This is to allow people to become more specialised. But have an option box to turn the modelling done for newbie’s.

2. In game joining: -- Have an option to allow this for games like DM, CTF etc. I don't think it is required for Co-op but it still would be nice there too.

3. Bigger Arenas: - self explanatory

4. Dynamic seasons... ie winter, summer, spring and autumn texturing.

5. Be able to shoot whilst seated in a vehicle. : - the more guns firing the better...

6. Be able to take over the gunner spot from a passenger's seat. :- a few times I have had my gunner killed and had to land to let someone to take the position

7. Grass...variety..long and short.:- to hide in

8. Be able to Jump:- I know it sounds Counter Strike-ist but allow a jump (at least to your feet) every 30sec, should work well. I have seen tanks fire from a great distance and the adrenaline rush from the sight should be enough to make me jump to my feet and run... but I just take my time and get killed.

9. Ability to Swim:- should enhance game play

10. Multiplayer campaign with the option to save. i.e. be able to save Multiplayer missions half way through.

11. Medic packs.. so anyone can pick it up and heal themselves or someone else.

12. Better sounds... 50% of the game is visual and 50% is sound. Too many companies forget about sound.

13. Improved net performance. :- the net code is great (works very well on my 56k modem ) it is the warping that is annoying. Make a position update look more normal so it hides the warping. try to make the character move a little faster then normal to catch up not have an instant refresh.

14. pick me to beta test it...

15. Trees that sway in the wind.

Keep up the great work BIS!!!

[bn880 5]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Axek @ Sep. 03 2002,23:49)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Oh, and the ability to use more than one joystick in your mappings. i.e. My rudder pedals are a seperate joystick to my HOTAS.<span id='postcolor'>

Yea me too, I am surprized this is not in yet....

[advocatexxx 0]

About sound... BIS has already demonstrated that they can build an awesome sound engine.  Incorporating everything from proper doppler effects to sound change over distance.

Listening to a massive tank battle 10km away is a bass-rumbling pleasure.  Too bad though this effect only works on such long distances.  Would it be too much trouble to have the sound engine lower the trebles when the sound source is blocked by terrain ?

Small arms, explosions, vehicle engine sounds all have crisp trebles at far away distances.  In real life however this is not so.

A rifle shooting in close vincinity sounds different than one 150 meters away.  This could be easily done by having the sound engine propertly lower the bass and treble levels and boost the midlevels instead.

Here's an example of a machine gun going off at close range and then at 150 meters obstructed by buildings.  

CLOSE RANGE  FARTHER & OBSTRUCTED

As for the sounds themselves, well I'm sorry to say that BIS probably knocked them out in the last 2 days of the project. The M2 sounds like a woodpecker and don't even get me started on other ones : ( Did I mention footsteps and other sounds being heard from kilometers away ? How about setting a cutoff variable to each sound which would be completely shut off at a certain distance. One (in real life) cannot hear an M16 from 3km away no matter how quiet it is, as opposed to Flashpoint. How about the A-10 sounds too ? When that baby roars 50 meters overhead at full thrust the ground should tremble, though in game one can hardly hear it.

Second ammunition. It should be divided into classes like Armor piercing and so forth. It's pathetic to be able to destroy the Abrams with a handgun (even though it may take a while). Vehicle damage should also be improved. Why does the APC always explode when hit with an AT rocket ? Sure the rocket itself explodes but unless you hit the fuel tank then vehicle will merely be disabled.

AT rockets should also be less accurate and should self-detonate/run out of rocket fuel like they do in real life. AT rockets as they are now are dead on precise horizontally and don't go off to the sides at all. IF you set the viewdistance to 5000 you could see what I mean. All they do is drop down, when in real life LAW for example has less than 50% chance of hitting a tank-sized object past 250 meters.

Avenger cannon should also shoot at a realistic rate. Not sure but I recently downloaded a Tornado ( I think ) addon with Italian colors and its cannon is pretty close to realism. It shoots a shitload of bullet in one second and you can clearly see them as they impact the ground.

I have about 100 more items to list but I think I'm just starting to complain now rather than pose formittable improvements.

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (advocatexxx @ Sep. 08 2002,11:01)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It's pathetic to be able to destroy the Abrams with a handgun (even though it may take a while).<span id='postcolor'>

Exactly how long did it take you to do that?

[toadeater 0]

Critical needed updates:

1. Multiplayer without waiting to join. This is a key concern.

2. More realistic vehicle behaviour / physics / collision detection. No falling through floors, bouncy tanks, or those vibrations when you're near an ammo box or other small objects.

3. More realistic weapons, so that you can no longer snipe with MP5s or pistols, etc.

4. AI soldiers should miss much more often than they do now. The AI often makes impossible shots and doesn't take fatigue, distance, or movement into account like with human players.

5. Optimizations to the engine in general, but I guess that goes without saying.

Low Priority Updates:

1. Better soldier models, perhaps like Ghost Recon's.

2. Improved sound engine.

3. Bigger battles, strategic elements. Perhaps an entire dynamic campaign where you can actually set up your own bases, and choose what actions to take and which troops to use, etc.

4. Support for larger vehicles like cargo planes, ships. More vehicles. Installations like SAM sites, artillery, etc.

[ACT SMILEY 0]

Most of its pretty obvious - better graphics, better sound effects and sound physics, better collision detection, better vehicle physics, bigger islands (Come on, lets have the whole UK ), bigger towns, more indoor areas , more guns, more background world detail (lets have cats in the towns and more civilians etc.), but there's also the big thing - how much multiplayer... should it go all the way to online simulation of war from the Generals to the guy whos sitting in a muddy field with an M16, keep the current multiplayer, or somewhere in between?

[m79 0]

better damage model would be good. I dislike seeing an APC full of men being reduced to nothing when hit from any angel by a single LAW from 500m. its just not realistic.

Throwing tracks , mobility kills , rotor hits, these are what makes a game an immersive thing. Toasting a BMP and 9 men in the back , just is not any fun. i wait for the men to debus now to make it a challenge.