Multiplayer

[Uziyahu--IDF 0]

That IS a good idea... :-)

[bigdog632 0]

maybe have it that if there are ai present in the game you can spawn into the ai but the missions i saw didnt really seem practical to have in game joining

oth i HATE sitting in the lobby watching people's pings rise and fall

[Uziyahu--IDF 0]

maybe have it that if there are ai present in the game you can spawn into the ai but the missions i saw didnt really seem practical to have in game joining

oth i HATE sitting in the lobby watching people's pings rise and fall

Spawning into A.I. has been possible for some time, now.

Lack of in-game joining is the reason that Battlefield 1942 is more popular than OFP, right now; otherwise OFP would be the clear winner because of its larger maps and better simulation.

People won't buy OFP2 if it doesn't have mid-game joining. It would be seen as an insult to the fanbase.

Besides, it has already been said that mid-game joining will be dependent on how the mission designer sets his mission.

[HellToupee 0]

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.

that wouldnt make the slightest difference, whats the difference to playing on a local dedicated server to a offical one in ofp, if it was ofp2 and a server for a large amount of players like df2 and the 64 people ones then yes but for ofp it would of added nothing, without jip u cant expect large or long games, ofp2 with JIP should bring the element of dynamic battle fields and games that go all day, an quitters being a problem well no they wont i play other games to like wolfenstein and dose everyone quit no they dont, when one dose one takes his place in ofp one quits no one else takes his place. With JIP quitters arnt a problem without JIP quitters are because they uneven the sides and lower the player count.

[SpeedyDonkey 0]

Quote[/b] ]Lack of in-game joining is the reason that Battlefield 1942 is more popular than OFP, right now; otherwise OFP would be the clear winner because of its larger maps and better simulation.

Im gonna disagree with you here. I'm sure Bf42 would have more players then ofp1 wether ofp would have had JIP or not. It's the realism and the skill level that scares alot of CS people away. (even though waiting times is a big factor too)

Im very sure ofp2 will have JIP and it's a vital and a grate improvement that witch will attract more players.

[The Sharpshooter 0]

I´d like to see a chat interface improvement when OFP2 comes out. The channels are OK but the chat itself is uncontrollable. For example if you were away for 2mins you can´t catch up with what´s going on on the server because all the chat dissapears after few seconds. Moreover, an admin of a server told me that you can´t keep what has been chated on the server.

Also I´d like to see the clan system improved. The way it is right now you have to have a Webpage with the clans members player IDs and nicknames. It could be a little easier to do, especially for the clans that don´t have a Webpage(haven´t tried on Free Web Spaces) or don´t know how to do it. Also the clans logo apears on every vehicle the player gets in to, in CTFs this can get a little annoying because it makes you easier to spot an recognise. I mean if you have this clan system and get into a vehicle, it´s the same that if you went out screaming "I am an enemy shoot at me, you can´t miss !"

The voice over the net system should be also improved, reduce the lag and increase the system compatibility as some users complian the can´t get the voice system to work. I haven´t read the whole thread so forgive me if this was already suggested.

Thanks for your attention

[LT.Schaffer 0]

if you press the front slash button "/" like when you chat,

and then press page down& page up you can cycle through whats been said

[SpecOp9 0]

Where the red boxes are, it would be cool to have small Icons, created by the Server owner

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

It would be nice for mission makers to be able to set some units as 'reinforcements' for MP missions, that people could spawn into - after a certain objective has been done, EG the bridge is secure. So that would be a good way of allowing people to join in game.

[Phleep 0]

It would be nice for mission makers to be able to set some units as 'reinforcements' for MP missions, that people could spawn into - after a certain objective has been done, EG the bridge is secure.  So that would be a good way of allowing people to join in game.

That is a good idea. It also would allow for MP saving to be implemented since there is less information to save. No one would care if their position was different when reloading if they were not under enemy fire.

[The Sharpshooter 0]

if you press the front slash button "/" like when you chat,

and then press page down& page up you can cycle through whats been said

Didn´t know that one, I´ll have to try it. My apologies.

Thanks.

[Heatseeker 0]

Aint we forgeting something...

Respawn with primary weapon maybe!!!

No more respawn with M16/AK74 and 30 rounds of ammo, that feature makes the sniper character useless no? Aint you guys tired of ressuplying ammo and gear after respawn? I think this should be implemented in OPF2 .

[-WKK--SkyQuake 0]

Without reading the full thread.

One shuld not be able to turn off cloudlets (fog) in MP. Like viewdistance is fixed or set by mapeditor, same shuld fog be. Smokeshells is one of the small tactical advantages in ladder-ctf's.

Right now they are useless.

SQ

[Franz_Schall -SWAF- 0]

OFP needs something like HLTV with the possibility to stream the action from the Server to people outside, who want to look how it's going.

This will surely support the Community, and would help to grow the interest in Multiplayer Gaming.

In our virtual military command, I have seen a desire of the "younger" members to see what a Ladder game is like or simply to watch the game.

Would be cool to have something like this, but there should be the ability to restrict it, of course. We don't want to give our tactics away ;)

[SpeedyDonkey 0]

@ Aug. 10 2003,13:40)]OFP needs something like HLTV with the possibility to stream the action from the Server to people outside, who want to look how it's going.

This will surely support the Community, and would help to grow the interest in Multiplayer Gaming.

In our virtual military command, I have seen a desire of the "younger" members to see what a Ladder game is like or simply to watch the game.

Would be cool to have something like this, but there should be the ability to restrict it, of course. We don't want to give our tactics away ;)

Yea that would be really cool!

[Guest]

I'M of an Opposite meaning.

You are getting away from a main subject here:

I say that for some gametypes like CTI; Strategy like command and conquer etc. There should be no "Join in the game". Have you seen any strategy games with ingame join?!

Maybe if someone disconnects, that someone could get his place.

CTI is a big element of OFP nowadays and it should not be removed.

What goes for other game modes, you can have auto join but not FOR CTI.

[haunted 0]

as with the HLTV like feature. If your going to let people watch games, they should only be able to see certain players/ teams, and people playing the game should know who is looking at which team, after all, its not hard for someone to look at a teams position, then relay back to the other team where they all are using teamspeak.

[Yoma 0]

I'M of an Opposite meaning.

You are getting away from a main subject here:

I say that for some gametypes like CTI; Strategy like command and conquer etc. There should be no "Join in the game". Have you seen any strategy games with ingame join?!

Maybe if someone disconnects, that someone could get his place.

CTI is a big element of OFP nowadays and it should not be removed.

What goes for other game modes, you can have auto join but not FOR CTI.

I honestly don't see any problem there? Wouldn't CTI-games be a lot more fair if they didn't keep ending up with half of one team disconnecting/ loosing connection.

I can imagine that the problem you think of is something like:

"I don't want guys disconnecting, joining the other side on reconnect and giving away our base position".

This could be solved by creating a playerlist.log (based on players id's) everytime ctigame starts. In this playerlist.log u could log players id, time of connection and side. On reconnecting the server could forbid that you join the other side. This idea would also greatly enhance possibilties for serveradmins to ban gamewreckers, not only in ctigames, but in every multiplay gamemode.

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

as with the HLTV like feature. If your going to let people watch games, they should only be able to see certain players/ teams, and people playing the game should know who is looking at which team, after all, its not hard for someone to look at a teams position, then relay back to the other team where they all are using teamspeak.

The playback should be delayed by at least 10 minutes, maybe to be controlled by server.

[vosku 1]

That message which appears when you kill somebody (player x killed by player y) should be removable or removed, because you can't be sure if the enemy you shot is dead or not if you can't see him well.

[SpecOp9 0]

Personally everything that was done in Counter-Strike should be done with OFP2

-Spectator view

-Join games in progress

BIStudio, I think, should look at all the other Multiplayer games, see what made them so popular, and find ways to use those ideas and implement them into OFP2.

Timesplitters 2 for example.

You had a huge amount of game modes.

(however very unrealistic)

But they could make something like paintballing or laser tag.

The Army used those little gizmos for practice.

If you played Americas Army, you probably remember those.

But, I should'nt have to worry.

There will be a big addition to scripting, which means Maps will be exactly the way you want to make them.

(SpecOp9 = Blahhh Blahh Blahhh Blahhh Blahhh)

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

Minus the making the game based 90% on luck, pandering to the lowest common denominator, and simplifying the gameplay so much that there is no depth to it at all.

[nevbin 0]

This is only a brifing of my idea. Read it and comment it.

The idea is: starting a online war, you know a big server whit many players on two sides fighting against each other.

You would join the game by getting into army. You will get a name like for example "Privat Jones" If you are a good soldier wou will get higher ranks. You are becoming Corpral and then Sergeant and becomming a groupleader.

It would be one leader that leads the whole side like PapaBear. He would plan strategic moves and try to beat the enemy.

If the players ar not playing at he moment, a bot would substitute him.

If the player die he have to wait a few days befor he can rejoin the server.

If you are intrested in my idea and want me to tell more, mail me at mathias.sundholm@sunpoint.net

[Noodles067 0]

[LBGS_Stewart 0]

i like Nevbin's idea. but i think it would be better more at a squad type level of comand. i mean manny people join squads to play as a team, it would be nice if "so and so squad" is likes say on the US for example. and the people who join there squad would be placed under the squad comand. and while one guy is off, another guy of that squad team, can come on and take his place for him to have R and R and such. kinda like reinforcment i guess. i think this would be better then having each person composed of being controled by say "papa bear" so its more then just two sides fighting agents each other, but each squad on a side fighting agenst each squad on the opposing team Side.