Troubles of OF network game!

[Gunny 0]

Ive played Ghost Recon demo and must say the network game is very comfortable. Its VERY easy to find and join free server in UBI game lobby - just ckick on the icon and wait for about 15 sec.

Yes, players cant join in midgame like OF but the join screen is very userfriendly, players can chant with others, see a map, users already playing, time remaining and all these features in game!

Why OF fans cant get it?

(Edited by Gunny at 8:35 pm on Nov. 8, 2001)

[JRMZ 0]

that is a good question and nobody knows the answer

[MajHavoc 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Quote: from JRMZ on 2:38 am on Nov. 9, 2001

that is a good question and nobody knows the answer<span id='postcolor'>

The answer is known. It's not gonna be fixed. It was stated by a Dev Team member sometime ago.

/rant on

IMHO:

The answer was known by BIS before the game ever hit the shelves or should have been. There is really only one reason for the MP "waiting for game" screens's lack of luster, polish, and usefulness... MP was a hurried section of the code, non-modular (the reason the can't fix it with out major re-write, by BIS's on admition in a previous thread), was slowing up the release. Really? How? Everyone knows (or should know) that games are money driven, just like any other commrcial product and when budgets are stretched, the accounting and sales dept. say, "we need it on the shelves yesterday. The dev teams is asked, are there any "show stoppers" that you know of? Of course knowing thier jobs are in jeopardy, they say "nope", however there is "this or that". The accounting/sales dept. says "Ship now, patch later! We want it "Gold" now!" BAM! it hits the shelves. The philosophy of most publishers now is:

"If it aint broke so that it wont run, ship it! The users/owners of the game will put up with HUGE patches etc. They all have broadband, right? Ship it now patch it later."

How did this happen? We did it to ourselves by allowing it to happen, How? By purchasing the game. It's that simple.

The only way for us to send a message to these game companies is to wait AFTER the products release at least 30 days (60 is better), read the "boards" (most companies have them) and see what others, gamers/owners that bought it are saying about the game. Not PC magazines or online reviews. Most games are rated by the amount of advertising $$ spent on or in the magazine inwhich the review is found. Then make an informed decision on whether to make a purchase or not.

You send a message with your 'wallet", not your mouth. $$ talks.

Most moaning and groaning, AFTER you've purchased the game falls on deaf ears, for the most part (I'm sure there are exceptions). It's sad but true...

The reality of it is simply this. We will continue to see this sort of thing until we start waking up and not purchase games based on emotion "I want it now! This is gonna be so cool!", and take the same time we would on any other major purchase, do the research and make an informed purchase. If the game company dies for lack of sales, so be it. That's business. If enough of them die then are'nt we sending a message to the gaming industry,

"I'm not buying it until it meets my expectations based on what you claim it will do. So you better get it right the first time, or you may not be around for a second one!"

The thing to understand that these issues could have been solved with good testing, BEFORE, the games release. Some of problems are as plain as the nose on your face. You know that and I know that.

Am I "BIS Bashing"? Nope. I bought the game. They have my money. Just like you bought the game and they have your money. If you ever have read the EULA "end user liscence agreement", you would know that THEY owe you NOTHING, and you agree to those terms by clicking "Yes", you have little or no recourse.

Am I advocating, not expressing your displeasure? Not at all! What i am saying is that you should'nt be surprised if the issue or issues are not addressed in this version of OFP 1 or is miraculously repaired in OFP 2, if there is one.

It will continue to be this way until we, the end-users, change it by using the most powerfull weapon we have, our wallet.

Will I buy anything from Code Masters and BIS in the future? Probabley not. That includes any add-ons. Am I advocating that you don't? Not at all. I've clearly stated it above. You need to make your own informed purchase.

/rant off

Am I going to buy Ghost Recon? Perhaps in a month or two. Depends on what I find out about it. The demo of GR is ok. In a lot of ways OFP has it beat. We shall see...

/0

Maj

(Edited by MajHavoc at 6:06 pm on Nov. 9, 2001)

[PolariZ 0]

I am not buying Red Hammer before I know that it is properly done and tested. Most people should do that, as that will make the $$ talk right away. Not to long to go.....

[BigQEd 0]

The actual game play on OFP is better than GR...

OFP needs a better interface for people waiting and they seriously need to consider mid-mission joining.

I made a suggestion that if there are AI slots that weren't taken then allow people to join in and take those slots. Why can't this be done?

(Edited by BigQEd at 9:15 pm on Nov. 9, 2001)

[CanisDEK 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Quote: from BigQEd on 9:14 pm on Nov. 9, 2001

The actual game play on OFP is better than GR...

(Edited by BigQEd at 9:15 pm on Nov. 9, 2001)

<span id='postcolor'>

The MP gameplay of OFP is almost non existant. I like infantry combat and GR is much more fun. In GR the gameplay is action packed and situations where you throw youself to the ground while an enemy fires at you with his M249 really add to the fun. Also coverfire from a SAW is very useful when your sqaud advance. The maps might be smaller, but they are perfect for 12-36 players. OFP MP has far fewer players and bigger maps??? that makes no sense. It's all about gameplay and IMO GR is the winner simply because it has a very solid netcode and lag free gameplay PLUS up to 36 players which is good for ppl like me who are a member of a squad. OFP is simply not suited for suqad battles.

[Dawdler 0]

You hit a spot there. The area in OFP is TOO big for solid teamplay. I think that if they restricted the area to that island at malden (or is it everon? The training site in the campaign anyway), and got it flowing for 20-30 troopers it would be alot more fun.

When the map editor comes out I think the first think people will do is to make small MP maps (not mission).

[CanisDEK 1]

Yup... the play area should not be much bigger than 500x500m and support up to 30 players... then we have a nice game..

[PolariZ 0]

I would say at least 1000x1000, but that depends on what each person prefers.

I don't know if any of you have played Delta Force 2 multiplayer. Well, the OfP mp reminds me of Df2 mp. Reason? It lags like crappy ####. Why can't the netcode be more like Counter-Strike or Day of Defeat? I remember always using the M249 Saw in Df2, since it was the only weapon that could spew enough bullets to hit a laggy target. But still, it was a great game. First of it's kind I think.....

[CanisDEK 1]

Yes I do know the DF series... I have played them all and is a member of the danish DEK DFLW squad. Compared to OFP DFLW looks like a cartoon... but the game works and is perfectly playable on our squad servers with 16 players. he area in DFLW might seem big (1000x1000 or more usually). But in DFLW the distances are not the same as in OFP. 500m in DFLW look and feel like only 200m in OFP. The game closest to OFP is Ghost Recon, but they boast only 400x400m+ play area... yet the area actually seems larger than the maps in DFLW. The area in GR is perfect for 12-36 players... I know the vehicles in OFP needs somwhat bigger play areas... but I never really liked or used the vehicles much - I guess I'm an infantry man.

(Edited by CanisDEK at 8:23 pm on Nov. 11, 2001)

[PolariZ 0]

I never played LW, for the simple reason that they had removed the grass. I loved to lie down in deep grass in a shadow and blast away with my M40. So I guess you can say I am a sniper guy.

Used the M40 in Df2, Scout in Counter-Strike and Springfield in Day of Defeat. So if there is a sniper rifle in GR, I will buy the game. And I guess there is, right?

But still, I will keep playing OfP. After all, I love how versatile you can be, if you just learn to use the different weapons and vehicles..... And big space is needed for that. Hopefully, I and some others will get together soon to play it over LAN. That shouldn't give much lag.

[Nuku 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Quote: from CanisDEK on 5:30 pm on Nov. 10, 2001

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Quote: from BigQEd on 9:14 pm on Nov. 9, 2001

The actual game play on OFP is better than GR...

(Edited by BigQEd at 9:15 pm on Nov. 9, 2001)

<span id='postcolor'>

The MP gameplay of OFP is almost non existant. I like infantry combat and GR is much more fun. It's all about gameplay and IMO GR is the winner simply because it has a very solid netcode and lag free gameplay PLUS up to 36 players which is good for ppl like me who are a member of a squad. OFP is simply not suited for suqad battles.

<span id='postcolor'>

WHAT? Have you tried GR with that many people? I had a guy try hosting 6 people with a 1.5Ghz PIV, 1Gig RAM server and Ghost Recon choked hard. It was Flashpoint 1.1 all over again. Guys slid and warped around. Everyone was going through "Groundhog Day" with trucks coming up the road, disappearing, then coming up the road again. You could empty 3-4 clips into a guy and he'd never notice, then suddenly you're dead from someone who shot you 30 seconds ago.

I don't think GR is any better than OFP for squad sized MP battles.

[CanisDEK 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Quote: from Nuku on 7:59 pm on Nov. 22, 2001

WHAT?  Have you tried GR with that many people?  I had a guy try hosting 6 people with a 1.5Ghz PIV, 1Gig RAM server and Ghost Recon choked hard.  It was Flashpoint 1.1 all over again.  Guys slid and warped around.  Everyone was going through "Groundhog Day" with trucks coming up the road, disappearing, then coming up the road again. You could  empty 3-4 clips into a guy and he'd never notice, then suddenly you're dead from someone who shot you 30 seconds ago.

I don't think GR is any better than OFP for squad sized MP battles.<span id='postcolor'>

I really can't tell you what was wrong and caused that bad experience. If you used that dirty beta that might explain it. Hosting 18 people on my 1333Mhz t-bird, 512MB ram and a 512Kb upload connection is a good experience. Of course if one person is lagging very much it will degrade the experience I guess. If you run a dedicated server your computer really isn't the main factor in determining lag, but if you play co-op and play on your non-ded server you might have a few problems no matter what hardware you have. GR is meant for 36 players, while the official maps for OFP only supports 10 players or less and that must be the DEVs estimate for the games capabilities on what is possible on normal peoples good connections. Tribes2 supports 64 players according to the box/manual, but you can find servers wit room for 150 players and they run with no problems if your hardware is good enough to support that many players on your screen.

[Nuku 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Quote: from CanisDEK on 3:49 pm on Nov. 22, 2001

If you used that dirty beta that might explain it. Hosting 18 people on my 1333Mhz t-bird, 512MB ram and a 512Kb upload connection is a good experience. GR is meant for 36 players, while the official maps for OFP only supports 10 players or less and that must be the DEVs estimate for the games capabilities on what is possible on normal peoples good connections. <span id='postcolor'>

I'm running the retail version of GR. My group likes to play co-op missions. We've since found that the pre-canned missions lag horrible with more than 4 people, but "firefight" and "recon" games do not.

Humor me. Run co-op missions 10, 11, or 14 with 6+ players on your server and let me know if it lags. We still haven't determined if the lag is due to the server or due to the bandwidth.