Multiplayer

[G-Capo 0]

How many people can play on multiplayer at once?,It would be cool to have say 100 man servers,Mainly for clan battles.Like this 25 man clan is allies with this clan and they want to fight it out with 2 25 man clans.

Would be fun and you get points for capturing airports and ports.If they capture too many of them the other side looses.

Also if you die,You will spawn back in all the way in the rear,So they will have to have 2 helo's flying troops back and forfth from the staging area to there positions which could take 5-10 minutes.

What ya say?

[Fork122 0]

How many people can play on multiplayer at once?,It would be cool to have say 100 man servers,Mainly for clan battles.Like this 25 man clan is allies with this clan and they want to fight it out with 2 25 man clans.

Well at the moment we can have over 100 people on a server, but the lag would be pretty horrible.  But the mission editor allows it to be done.

Hopefully with improved multiplayer we can support more players than OFP could.

Also if you die,You will spawn back in all the way in the rear,So they will have to have 2 helo's flying troops back and forfth from the staging area to there positions which could take 5-10 minutes.

Hmm, it'd be fun for the helicopter pilots, but it would suck to ride on a helicopter for 10 minutes just to get shot 30 seconds after landing.  It's realistic, sure, but I just don't see the fun in it.  There's a fine line between realism and gameplay.

[G-Capo 0]

Quote[/b] ]Hmm, it'd be fun for the helicopter pilots, but it would suck to ride on a helicopter for 10 minutes just to get shot 30 seconds after landing.  It's realistic, sure, but I just don't see the fun in it.  There's a fine line between realism and gameplay.

Yes I see your point,Maybe it will be possible that after a peson is killed in a huge clan battle they spawn in say in a forward base close to the action,To get to there position lets say a city that is being hit hard they can take Humvee's and or helicopters in a 3-4 minute drive or flight,Then they are dropped off hunker down in buildings and begin repelling the attack,Sure you may get show after landing or even your convoy of helicopters gets attacked but some times you will come in uder fire take out 5 guys and hold the city.It depends on your skill and also were your clan or leader tell you to depart,Like if you depart in back of the enemy you can wipe them out and link up with the guys in the city etc etc.  

[DBR_ONIX 0]

That's not really a "feature" in MP, it's an idea for a mission.. Quite a good idea acctualy

As for the number of players, if OFP's campagin is a large map, with lots fo enemys, civillians you can talk to etc, this could be translated into MP as a Joint-Ops style gameplay (Lots of people, possibly more than joint-ops), by the sound of it, the game engine can handle lots of people (by streaming, say), the netcode is all that would limit it, if it's good, then there can be lots of people

One idea that I don't think will have been mentioed.. Instead of the cilent/server system OFP uses, wouldn't a P2P server be a better idea? That would mean, 1, the game wouldn't die if the server crashes, 2, less bandwidth used by the server (when a dedicated server is used), it would be quicker, instead of everyone sending/reciving data from a single server, the person could get it from the fastest player(s), and the server at the same time. If theres 100 players, the bandwidth from the server could be then be used primarily for sending the missions out (One a player has the full map, it can be taken from this player, or the server), or addons, this could be only from the server, so if a player has a modifed version for what-ever-reason, the player will only get the original addon (Imagine accidnely downloading a modified-for-cheating addon on a unadministered server, and going on to a tightly adminstered server.. Not great )

A dedicated server, if it has fast interent connection would still be good, as the players would get most of the information from it. But if the ded'server had a slower interenet, it could(/would) be used only for administrating (Kicking players) and holding missions, and keeping the server avalible when there are no players.

It's enteriely possible, several Xbox Live games do this (MotoGP2 or something I have the demo of uses P2P servers I'm certain). It'd solve a lot of problems, espically with many players on a map (So the players nearby send data to eachother, and ALL data for ANY palyer on the map doesn't have to get proded though the server, to all the rest of the players..)

Reasonable idea?

- Ben

[G-Capo 0]

Another idea I had is a peace keeping mission were 30 soldiers online against 40 soldiers that look like civilians,There can be 100 civilians spread across the map and the Peace keeping force has to secure water ways,highways and airports for food and aide to come in.The other guys are pretty much the terrorist and they can set IED's and ambushes.Once an attack occurs the Peace keeping force will have to search houses to look for the terrorist.If a peace keeper dies he re-spawns in at an airport and can be brought in the action rather quickly.If the terrorist take over the airport the peace keepers cannot bring in aide and cannot spawn in.

Just an idea,Would be rather fun especially if it was like Iraq.An idea for any mod teams out there  ,Or even Bohemia..I would pay 80 bux for a game like that with Civies,cities,IED's and all that stuff.

[smoot 0]

I would like to see better network code all around. I would like to see 100+ players on a server with no lag. Islands as huge as these almost need it.

Maybe adding more to the editor as far as built in scripts for creating simple dynamic spawn points, capture zones, etc. Anything to spice up mission making for multiplayer. Hopefully with these simple options part of the editor instead of user made scripts will lower the overhead and chances of a script not always triggering in multiplayer.

[schmerzbringer 0]

 some "wishes" are very strange.

About JIP:  JIP makes sense that´s clear.

On the other side, each new player rejects the current tactic.

My suggestion is a player-pool. Each new connected player gets in this pool. and the commander of each team can select his next "joiner". And the join-process starts when both teams has one player to join. (I mean also both commanders has selected 1)

I love my suggestions.

[DBR_ONIX 0]

I would like to see better network code all around. I would like to see 100+ players on a server with no lag. Islands as huge as these almost need it.

Like I said, a P2P server setup would mean you could have as many people on the island as you can fit, techically..

It wouldn't melt the server, as the server's job is distrubuted

- Ben

[xnodunitx 0]

yeah but if its P2P (if you mean pay to play) then one might as well get xbox live for OFP Elite

[DBR_ONIX 0]

Err, by P2P i mean Peer To Peer (I.e all trafic that would normaly be going though the server, then getting redirected to all other players would be trasnfered around client to client, thus saving the server bandwidth, and allow the server to use a slower connection, thus lower running costs = good)

Pay to play = Baaaaaaaaad idea

- Ben

[smoot 0]

Err, by P2P i mean Peer To Peer (I.e all trafic that would normaly be going though the server, then getting redirected to all other players would be trasnfered around client to client, thus saving the server bandwidth, and allow the server to use a slower connection, thus lower running costs = good)

Pay to play = Baaaaaaaaad idea

- Ben

That might work for smaller battles with very few people in a game but once you get to huge battles I dont know how well that would work. Considering most internet connections (where I live at least) only have around 64k outbound. You almost need a dedicated server with huge inbound and outbound traffic limits, that way only one system updates everyone with player position, ect. Instead of 50 systems telling each other where everyone is at. Hence 50 packets just to update your position on all systems in p2p, to just one packet that is needed to tell a server where you are at and the server tells everyone else where you are at in a server client configuration.

Im no network guru but I dont think P2P is the answer. But I could be wrong.

[jafarin 0]

Improved JIP:

Can JIP made configurated so that configuration happens in different level.

1) Server level (server configuration)

2) Mission level (mission maker make JIP conf)

3) Game level (players / admin select JIP conf)

JIP configurations :

JIP to spectator

JIP to brief and then to game when admin allows

JIP to playable units

JIP to spawn area as default unit

JIP to any compination of previous selection

Then something new:

It should be possible to create trigger which move player(s) one server to other. E.g. player(s) in server A get helicopter and fly to A1. Then script move player(s) with helicopter to server B.

Some one maybe ask why? Use your imagination what possibilities this gives. I been thinking little while and I see fully new kind way to play. WAR with 5 server. RST with 2 server. Huge coop at 3 server.

[DBR_ONIX 0]

That might work for smaller battles with very few people in a game but once you get to huge battles I dont know how well that would work. Considering most internet connections (where I live at least) only have around 64k outbound. You almost need a dedicated server with huge inbound and outbound traffic limits, that way only one system updates everyone with player position, ect. Instead of 50 systems telling each other where everyone is at. Hence 50 packets just to update your position on all systems in p2p, to just one packet that is needed to tell a server where you are at and the server tells everyone else where you are at in a server client configuration.

Im no network guru but I dont think P2P is the answer. But I could be wrong.

In huge battles, the clients would only send information to people near them

It's the oposite, for small games, using only the dedicated server would be better, as your not limiting the game to only using 64kb/s upload from both the clients, instead using the ded' server's upstream..

Hmm... In a huge level, a server recieving all the data (for 200 players) would use a massive ammount of bandwidth, thus slowing the server down for everyone.. But, if the clients could work out which players are near-by, and send data to them, and the other clients do the same, when theres a group of 10 players here, and 5 here, and 10 here, you get 3 mini-servers almost.. Where very little data is getting sent between them (Chat messages and kills, but no position/stance/when-I-fired into)

Then, when they are close enough (1/2 km?), you start seeing position updates, then the closer you get, the more information you get

..okay thats hard-as-trying-to-eat-ice-cream-in-hell to code, but it would mean your not limited by the servers connection speed, you can have a slow server and the the clients do most of the data-sending, or a fast server, and do some of the data transfer (So let just the server, and the clients with faster connections send most of the positions etc about)

I'm probobaly making this sound extremly complicated... But, theres games that already do this.. as I said, Moto GP2 or something on Xbox Live has a P2P server thing, and works really well, and it means that if the person hosting the game accidently switches the xbox of, or their internet dies etc, the game doesn't stop (I can't remeber if the main-hosting duties switches to the person with the fastest connection)

- Ben

[nedal 0]

in Multiplayer, the biggest issue i think off is better server log possibilitys, to provent from cheaters

Perhaps also Chat log ( all messages loged and IDs of the writers)

another thing is it would be realy cool if in the mission setup screen should not only be seen what mission and island, there should also be the SERVER NAME seen! (many times i had to reconect to check on wich server i am to tell friends)

Also server Command #servername     to check this in game   would be cool too

and MOST WANTET:

new function in Multiplayer Scripting: something like a File handler (for example:  print "blabla" > missionscore.txt)

it should always just write just to game server in a default dump path (creating sub folder with datetimeand and perhaps missionname to provent from overwriting files, like /operationflashpoint/dumps/200512082155/dump.txt)

if it just writes under default names in default folders it provents from missusing it to make cheats or viruses.

**  what do you think of this guys??  **

[crashdome 1]

That might work for smaller battles with very few people in a game but once you get to huge battles I dont know how well that would work.  Considering most internet connections (where I live at least) only have around 64k outbound.  You almost need a dedicated server with huge inbound and outbound traffic limits, that way only one system updates everyone with player position, ect.  Instead of 50 systems telling each other where everyone is at.  Hence 50 packets just to update your position on all systems in p2p, to just one packet that is needed to tell a server where you are at and the server tells everyone else where you are at in a server client configuration.

Im no network guru but I dont think P2P is the answer.  But I could be wrong.

In huge battles, the clients would only send information to people near them

It's the oposite, for small games, using only the dedicated server would be better, as your not limiting the game to only using 64kb/s upload from both the clients, instead using the ded' server's upstream..

Hmm... In a huge level, a server recieving all the data (for 200 players) would use a massive ammount of bandwidth, thus slowing the server down for everyone.. But, if the clients could work out which players are near-by, and send data to them, and the other clients do the same, when theres a group of 10 players here, and 5 here, and 10 here, you get 3 mini-servers almost.. Where very little data is getting sent between them (Chat messages and kills, but no position/stance/when-I-fired into)

Then, when they are close enough (1/2 km?), you start seeing position updates, then the closer you get, the more information you get

..okay thats hard-as-trying-to-eat-ice-cream-in-hell to code, but it would mean your not limited by the servers connection speed, you can have a slow server and the the clients do most of the data-sending, or a fast server, and do some of the data transfer (So let just the server, and the clients with faster connections send most of the positions etc about)

I'm probobaly making this sound extremly complicated... But, theres games that already do this.. as I said, Moto GP2 or something on Xbox Live has a P2P server thing, and works really well, and it means that if the person hosting the game accidently switches the xbox of, or their internet dies etc, the game doesn't stop (I can't remeber if the main-hosting duties switches to the person with the fastest connection)

- Ben

That sounds goodand all, but every game I have played that was P2P net-code sucked big-time.

1) You need to worry about connecting not only to the server, but to a bunch of other people (i.e. they have good route to server but get 500ms ping to you - then multiply this by 128 for worse case)

2) Forget about playing with 2 machines behind a NAT unless you have external IPs for each machine (and still it's a nightmare) usually requires many many ports to be open

3) One small hiccup on your data and you affect EVERYONE.

4) Crashes often when someone disconnects

Your thoughts are sound and I wish there was something newer out (hardware-wise) that allowed for better ways to handle distribution of processing without the need to hand it off to the clients.

With the way things are going, I believe that one day mobos will come with the GPU seated directly on the mobo and the CPU in bus slots

[Scrub 0]

When you currently ban a cheater from a server, do you use the cheaters IP address, or product ID code, or some-other semi-permanent ID?

Just thinking of making it an absolute ban, so they can't change names and come back like in so many other games.

[Jinef 2]

It's a player ID assigned to each copy of OFP.

[CTU24 0]

Not 100% sure if someone said this but, I think when this game comes out there will be technology that can support massive battles. I would like to see that in Game 2. And some Co-op. So in other words

Very little - MASSIVE battles

[Maximus_G 0]

The server should be able to remember player and his stats. That's one of the basic functions allowing to build such a gameplay that inspires players to come back.

[LtCmdrBoon 0]

Couple of things:-

Having spent many hours days and weeks as revolving admin, our clan all has spoken about bans which is a problem. Yes it's just a txt file, and can be edited live now sinec 1.08, but some sort of time ban option would be a real plus. If a guy logs in and blows base, rather than the outright ban, (it might of been a kid brother with a proper players PID for eg) some sort of box for a number of hours would be a real plus.

0 = infinite, 1-9999 = hours, or whatever

2ndly

Being logical guy, I've often thought about the best way to get all the changing data in sync asap, and I agree the best way is generally a 100mbit dedi, however, while p2p is out of question, what's the possibility of adding some sort of bit torrent type thing within the game its self, so for eg, all battle like movements are handled by the server, but less time sensitive traffic is shared around the torrent aspect (eg I have a custom face and 100kb of sounds. When I connect, this info is passed from the server to all players, when another player connects, rather than server lagspiking 5-10 seconds on 40 players+, the other 39 players all chip in and send a KB or 2 to the new guy joining)

[jezpops 0]

Build a group, get your own dedicated server and have a password !

..problem solved,

or play evo for the rest of your life !!!

(There are over 14,000 coop mp missions made and played by dedicated, tactical players. Join their groups, make your own - this is the only way to keep hackers and cheaters out)

The Tactical Gaming Group

[Misfit Leader 1]

I don't know why this post still here (look at the starts year.. it was for better for ArmA 1 suggestion ^^), but if the developer look at these post better have a new one dedicated to the amelioration for the transition ArmA 1 -> ArmA 2.

No ?

[benreeper 0]

I have no idea what you just said.

--Ben

[wipman 1]

Hi, i miss a better Server Info system; that displays more info about

the server, the players, the mission, required addons or not.

In the AAO the server info was very good i think, you could know

which players were playing in each server, you had the Server IP

and name Info and also a "Favourite Servers List", the ping display

was also faster than in the current ArmA; the players list was just

a vertical box with all the players names that you could scroll down

to read the name of all the players in the server. The mission info,

may not be a bad idea to diplay more info like: Required Addons,

Empty Slots, Kind of game (CTF, COOP, etc..), and well... an AAO

style server info screen. Let's C ya

[SpaceReverend 0]

What I would like to see in ArmAII is samekind of point/rank system like in Battlefield. Of course this sounds like utopia but this is my suggestion and dont take it personally.

Evolution mp missions are good example what i seek but in larger scale. It would be more than nice to get new weapons when going up in ranks etc.

Of course this kind of global ranking system would need a lot of resources and manpower, but personally it could bring something more to the mp. At least thats the only reason why i ever (quite seldom) play BF.

In my vision there is one or more mp missions made by BIS that are "ranked". From other missions you wont get any "official" points. After every match all the points are saved in some database which is accesable to all to see.

Maybe this kind of a system can be developed by group of ArmA community?

kindly yours -SR-