Multiplayer

[Allstar 0]

Sorry i think yer all full of sh*t about that ingame join progress

If BIS is gonna change the join progress of this game,

then this game will change into a cs-game. Players come

and go, and that's just something that's boring the shit out of the real Flashpoint gamers.

If y'all want to have ingame progress go bother other games with these problems but please leave it like the old flashpoint.

that was what drew so many patient and honest gamers.

Engine needs a big make-over. Graphical and Physical.

But the gameplay itself was good. CTF/TDM and DM.

Waiting at lobby/game in progress al those things were brilliant. Good way to keep those shitty cs-gamers out.

Also a way to create a good sphere on the servers,

Instead of UNKNOWN players all around the place.

Love the new ideas that y'all wrote about the engine and some gameplay options but the ingameprogress NO! leave it the way it was..

[sbsmac 0]

Actually I tend to agree with Allstar ;-) IMHO one of the things that makes OFP CTF games so great is that you know that you are committed for 30 minutes and can't just quit and rejoin on the winning side. I've played a bit of BFV but just couldn't see the point - people joining half-way through a game and then quitting after 5 minutes when they get killed for the second time. It made the results at the end of the game completely meaningless.

OTOH, I can see that JIP for coops might be useful, or even JIP for players who may have dropped out due to connection problems.

[benu 1]

From all that has been said JIP will be implemented on a per mission basis, ie the missionmaker can put it in or leave it out. And as everyone running a server a knows, you sometimes have to modify missions to make them work on your server or fit them to the "flair" of your server. So when there is JIP there will be enough servers supporting it and equally much that will not use it. Also, there are some missions that simply will not work with jip, at least from what we know about it yet.

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

Yep. Theres no point throwing away JIP when it will be very useful for some missions. And, TBH, I don't really care about DM. Thats for the CS players :P

[TZ Andersson 0]

Maps maps maps

HUUUUGE maps, that allows two airstrips

and air to air battles, DOGFIGHTS.

Today, NOT. To small Islands, you get

HIT before takeof.

How about if you could link maps together.

Like Everon, Malden and Nogojev as one map.

IF you fly past Everonborders the next map

loads instantly and you fly over Malden or

Nogojev.

Or if you are mapmakinmonster, u can link up

maps like MAD, i dont know the MAX size now,

but imagine 50x50Km and link 4 of them up.

That would be 200x200Km or something.

Awsome

[Waterman 0]

What about having JIP, but also that admins have the option to lock the server (during game too) to prevent people joining mid game etc. Dunno if you "catch my drift"...

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

What about using the search tool, or looking in the big thread at the top of this forum with the same name as this, which has dealt with this exact topic exhaustingly?

[TZ Andersson 0]

It says loud and clear: "MULTIPLAYER"

That contains all aspects of multiplayer.

Even JIP, Maps, AI, Tanks, grass, wind and whatever

[PainDealer 0]

has anyone thought about silent kills in MP? now there's this text "X was killed by Y" but how about silent kills with this text not appearing. also there could be the same chat system as in CS: dead players can only chat with each other. of course it doesn't have much significance if players are using external voice comms but it could be nice in A&D maps for example. the A&D matches that I've been part of had this unwritten law that the dead don't talk.

[Sniperwolf572 758]

I would suggest an separate non-cdkey dependable exe for LAN play. That way we can play with our friends on one copy of OFP2 without worry of Fade. This was demonstrated in Delta Force: Black Hawk Down and was a very nice addition, as I work in Games Club (Not sure if you call it that way, it's a place with lots of PC's where alot of ppl play games) this would largely decrase my bosses expenses on one game, as OFP can be found in BiH for $30 and counting 16 PC's that are in service (30x16=$480) it's not an option.

PLEASE!!!!!

[funnyguy1 0]

Just look at the BF2s multiplayer system...

here

"Commander Mode"....sounds quite interesting

There`s more about it in the movies/interview.

[hardrock 1]

Since many people suggested more possible players like 64 or 128 (which is possible now, but lagging much) I don't think that this is really necessary. OFP is a strategic game, and I find it always easier to play with only few people like <10. It's very hard to get more dedicated people together to play coops with, which all listen to the leader and enable team work.

Everytime I play on servers with 20+ players it finally degenerates in kill, kill, kill. No-one is following any tactics, no-one listens to anyone, just everybody tries to stay alive and kill as many enemies as possible. But that's not the real fun in OFP IMO. I find it much more fun when you play a coop with a small team, all doing their job and covering each other, forming a perfect base for tactics in a tactical shooter which OFP is.

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

Since many people suggested more possible players like 64 or 128 (which is possible now, but lagging much) I don't think that this is really necessary. OFP is a strategic game, and I find it always easier to play with only few people like <10. It's very hard to get more dedicated people together to play coops with, which all listen to the leader and enable team work.

Everytime I play on servers with 20+ players it finally degenerates in kill, kill, kill. No-one is following any tactics, no-one listens to anyone, just everybody tries to stay alive and kill as many enemies as possible. But that's not the real fun in OFP IMO. I find it much more fun when you play a coop with a small team, all doing their job and covering each other, forming a perfect base for tactics in a tactical shooter which OFP is.

Well yes, but if you do find a server with more people who WILL cooperate like that, it is better! Try the Zeus server!

[StealthTiger 0]

I agree it is hard to get people to play together instead of being in the 'DooM' mindset - 'LOL' server is a good place to start however

[Rommel 2]

JIP is a great idea. But I dont reckon you should be able to play. Just spectate.

[mcpxxl 2]

JIP ist really a GOOD Thing BUT:

It must be as a Param

Because coop games most against AI.

Player wait until some things done in a running MAP and join then when they have their fun...

"Let the others do the work and i join when action comes"

So we make a DOOR for Battlefield-CS Players wide open.

If the Mission maker can choose this in Mission ...it will be a great Feature

[SpecOp9 0]

Some of you probably remember Marek's Stats Server, which people could be ranked on a website based on their performance in-game.

When the map ended, the OFP server would send everything to the web server, and we could view stats and all that stuff.

From Kills, to deaths, etc.

I would really, really like seeing something like this for OFP2, only made 'official".

We could earn badges, awards, and all this other fun stuff.

It would be a great addition to help support OFP2 squads and leagues. Placebo, tell them to concider it ;) haha

[Heatseeker 0]

Stats only lead to more individual and less team play, not to mention cheats and the so called stat whores, i think that stuff would do more harm than good to the game, my opinion.

Some oficial servers would be good though, so we get some neutral places to play decent missions at, i would like that .

[Commando84 0]

freedom of choose!

i don't want it to be narrowed down to only coop even though im making mostly coop missions right now

in ofp 2 i want to feel that nothing is impossible great feeling oh one thing i would like to see if that when you show the stats with I key if they have that in ofp 2 , they should also be able to show peoples pings , instead of doing the guessing game

i want the abiltiy as a mission maker to do missions that could have 64 or 128 players or sometimes make mission that just have 10 players

one of the things i feel that slows my mission making abilities is the 63 groups per side rule anyways and my lack of scripting sometimes too but thats another side of the coin

[Sovietzug 0]

Since many people suggested more possible players like 64 or 128 (which is possible now, but lagging much) I don't think that this is really necessary. OFP is a strategic game, and I find it always easier to play with only few people like <10. It's very hard to get more dedicated people together to play coops with, which all listen to the leader and enable team work.

Everytime I play on servers with 20+ players it finally degenerates in kill, kill, kill. No-one is following any tactics, no-one listens to anyone, just everybody tries to stay alive and kill as many enemies as possible. But that's not the real fun in OFP IMO. I find it much more fun when you play a coop with a small team, all doing their job and covering each other, forming a perfect base for tactics in a tactical shooter which OFP is.

it 's possible

try the wwiionline.com game

In this mass online game the players play at Squads, spawns are choosen and armies have a production or stock of weapons limited.

We uses the teamspeak with chanels to squads.

It's is possible

Another option i think is the spawn system of "comanche vs hokun enemy enganched" :

There are a mission of list to complete and you choose 1 to spawn at game and your option need 1 unit of inf or vehicle selection to disccount of your army.

The spawn system of BF is an error to OFP2, it's no real.

[Pierrot 0]

I guess communication between pilot and gunner is difficult in OFP1. It is hard to guess what the pilot sees. In OFP1, the pilot orders a target suddenly and it takes some time for me to confirm it. If I could know the pilot's gazing point in real time, I would be able to respond to targets immediately.

[OFPDude 0]

I think multiplayer coop missions only, would be a great way to erradicate the trigger happy cheats

How about adding an option for a commander of a unit to assign members of his/her squad to selected towns. If a soilder moves away from that town then he/she is automatically respawned back into the town.

Should prevent the Rambo's and vehicle theives

[Baphomet 0]

GAME 2 needs JIP, at least as an optional feature, it also needs a savegame feature for multiplayer.

Saving an MP co-op game seems like a very very fundamental and obvious choice in my opinion.

[TheBladeRoden 0]

I think there needs to be an option for you to auto download required addons for multi games from the hosting servers.

I hated being told one of 10 addons I was missing, then googling the name of the addon hoping I would get a hit. Download that and install it. Try joining the server again and get the name of another addon I'm missing etc.

[ninjatek 0]

I think there needs to be an option for you to auto download required addons for multi games from the hosting servers.

I hated being told one of 10 addons I was missing, then googling the name of the addon hoping I would get a hit. Download that and install it. Try joining the server again and get the name of another addon I'm missing etc.

Definantly, there is so much random spread mods for OPF it is insane and turns new players away when they have to go dig for these add ons. Also some of these addons can be very difficult to get now as many modders have closed their websites where they were once available.  There needs to be a way for users to acquire the mod addons when joining (if they haven't already gotten them) or see what mods a game requires before joining.

Automatically downloading mods when joining could be a security risk so BIS needs to look into reducing such a risk for users.

As far as JIP or not to JIP, this needs to be a server admin option and leave it out of missions building completely. No reason to create two versions of all the games just to satisfy both.

Server admin options should also include ping rate filtering, where the admin can say that pings greater then # can not join.  Maybe even some filtering script options similar to apf and/or chain rules to block certain ips or ip blocks as well as player IDs so the community can do their own policing against cheaters and trouble makers.

In JO the NA server list that usually had 150 players and good ping rate for me there was one clown who was on almost every night that did nothing but crash TK his own teams helicopters into ones that spawn. So he got no real TK but denied that team the use of helicopters, which was huge dissadvantage and would cost that team the game. Such abusive players need to have some way of being blocked. And votes need to be a % of the team the TKer is on not both teams. Because when we initiated a kick against that player the other team usually would not vote to kick him because he was actually helping them out by his actions.

JO offered 150 player support and usually was usually lag free, I don't see why Game2 could not do the same, especially if the ideas of server arrays was implimented. And if players could control squads of up to 10 NPC each that could offer some mega battles. That would bring the scope of the game truely into feeling like a massive comflict.

I've played in some JO Advance and Capture games with no time limits that lasted more then 12 hours for one session. In those sessions pretty much from the time I started to the time I quit everyone else had left and new players had taken their place, but the battle continued on, Game 2 could easily be the same way.