Multiplayer

[KaRRiLLioN 0]

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!

[foxer 0]

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 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (whisperFFW06 @ 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 @ 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 ).

Excellent idea, Baron.

Whis'<span id='postcolor'>

I am Completely agree with u. GREATE IDEA

[Skunk Monkey 0]

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). <span id='postcolor'>

[Makaveli 0]

Well thats multiplayer ruined then

[Dubble0zero 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Makaveli @ 11 May 2003,03:48)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Well thats multiplayer ruined then<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...

[WhoCares 0]

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 0]

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 0]

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 0]

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 0]

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.

[Phleep 0]

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 0]

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

[sgtvor 0]

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.

[Long 1]

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

[or65 0]

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

[Apollo 0]

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 0]

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 0]

Well, join in progress is going to be implemented as a mission designers perogative.

[Vognsen 0]

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.

[Guest BratZ]

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 0]

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 0]

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 0]

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 0]

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.