I want an OFP MP add-on and I\'ll PAY for it!

[CanisDEK 1]

The reason people are so pessimistic is that alot of potential has been wasted. OFP could be THE online Mapping Tool"l FPS or warsim. It is not however mainly because of design faults and a netcode that just isn't good enough to support the amount of players this game really needs to be great. The game wasn't designed for MP. This was added (because CM said it had to I think) for the American release as online play is much bigger there than in Europe. If MP was meant to be in the game they would have designed the game very differently.

1. Mission files set the parameters for MP, so join in progress is impossible to implement

2. When you respawn it is always with the standard weapon.

3. Alot of MP features was added after release... the game wasn't a finished product when released. The MP functionality was added for marketing reasons.

Some company should use the OFP engine to make a great online FPS if BIS don't want to do so themselves. If BIS decided to release a MP add-on that would add Join in Progress, great netcode that could support as many players as Tribes2 I would PAY for it (Tribes 2 might be very different from OFP, but it also has machine guns and other weapons with projectiles going everywhere, vehicles that can shoot and hold up to 8 people... yet the game has no problems with 100+ players).

I would PAY for this add-on because OFP has a great potential. After all BIS can't do it for free, and shouldn't. They made an error when designing the MP functionality, but we need to give them some money so they can and want to release such an add-on. Lots of people will scream bloody murder I guess... but wake up... it is the only way we can get the game we want.

[Munkejens 0]

i would gladly pay also.

anything to save my beloved game.

[Mr Z 0]

I WOULD DEFIENATELY PAY FOR A MP ADDON! as I have practiced the MP maps offline against AI its great, I have also played a few games online, but my connection is not the greatest (FOR ANY GAME)

[762WorldOrder 0]

Yes I would pay for it too.

BIS, are you listening? Keep this is mind for OFP2.

[mithrandir 0]

I would also pay for it!

Online game is so funny, but it has to be smooth otherway potential players dont bother to get online!

[heyvern69 22]

I think the problem is that they used Micro-Monopoly-softs "DirectPlay" for the netcode.  DirectPlay is the one fairly bad part of DirectX left.

I understand that Direct X has made vast improvements since it first came out.  But "Direct Play" still sucks pretty bad.  If I had a NICKEL for every game developer that said they regretted using DirectPlay for multiplayer, I'd be a rich man.

(Edited by Heyvern at 6:01 am on Dec. 27, 2001)

[Rogue2020 0]

Why can't there just be a server for flashpoint?...so it has it's own lobby and stuff.....this game seems like it would be great in multi player......

[Unl33t 0]

DirectPlay is the most horrible way to make a player Multiplay.

It's just poor quality.

Each game needs its OWN netcode (unless the games are identicle) using its OWN code, So that each differant game can function like it should online.

I will never bother with DirectPlay games. i have tried a few and all are useless and pathetic online.

I think games like Q3 and Half-Life have netcodes built to suit the game.

OFP should have had one too.

[ALDEGA 0]

hm, yeah but q3 doesn't run smooth at all when you've got 50 players (10 human, 40 ai for example)

all you need to play OF online, is:

a) a decent net connection

b) and also a preferably a dedicated server (with a good ping to your pc ofcourse)

(Edited by ALDEGA at 1:02 pm on Dec. 27, 2001)

[CanisDEK 1]

I have found a new way to play CTF games. Previously I would put 10-20 soldiers on each side and we would disable AI. Now I have made some maps with a respawnable helicopter for each side and one or two other respawnable vehicles found at other locations. Each team has three squads of five soldiers and a pilot who isn't in any squad. Players then play as officers and the pilot ie. 4vs4. This gives a great gameplay as there are more soldiers on the map (16vs16) but it can still be played with only 8 players. Controlling the AI is fun and is a big part of OFP... When you learn how to control the AI you can really make some awesome defensive/offensive tactics. Also human players don't die as often as they have their AI with them too. I have always been of the oppinion that OFP had to be played with lots of players to be fun... but few players and some AI backup is great.

[Agua 0]

Just a question here: what is it that you guys think is so crappy about OpFP MP? If you have a decent (not bleeding edge) machine, a DSL or Cable connection, and a low ping to a dedicated server (which is also a decent machine), the game runs lag-free.

If you are missing any of the above elements, then, I mean, what do you expect? Online play with a 56k modem is going to suck with a game that has as much info to be communicated as this one. Online play with a crappy computer is going to suck. Online play with a high ping is going to suck. Really, what do you expect?

Why don't you guys try All Seeing Eye? The utility displays all dedicated servers playing whatever game you're interested in, and displays those servers in the order of their ping to your computer. It also has filters which allow you to exclude from the display servers with pings over whatever level you deem to be unacceptable. I have no problem finding two dozen dedicated servers with pings under 100 on ASE, any time of day. I don't have a link, but "do a search", you won't have any problem finding "All Seeing Eye".

[Rogue2020 0]

Well what about all those people who don't know anyone else that has the game....connecting to someones IP is bulls**t.......it's true though that this game would lag because of everything in it....i'm just used to playing swat 3....that game has great multiplayer and there are always at least 50 people there wanting to play all the time.......

[Bloodshot 0]

Agua, I would love nothing more than to have a Cable connection, upto 40 times faster at a third of the cost of my current phone bill! But it just isn't available where I live yet.

So what do I expect???

I expect it to be a lot better for 56k users at least! If Op Flash was as easy to get into online (with hardly any lag during gameplay) as it is in Return to Castle Wolfenstein (Dump Gayspy too!), then it wouldn't just be one of the best Single player games ever, but also King of MP too!

I've never been kicked from a game of RtCW because of my ping and never had to wait around for ages to find a game!

P.S. I noticed that on Gamespy pings are upto 200 higher on RtCW games. So I stick to the ingame route and avoid Gayspy altogether.

[Agua 0]

Rogue:

Get All Seeing Eye. You don't have to "know" anyone else. Like I said, the utility lists all the dedicated servers connected to ASE, arranges them in order of ping, from lowest to highest, with the mission, and mission type that is currently set to be played on that server also being displayed. You just click on the server you want to join, and voila. Again, I have no problem finding two dozen servers, any time of day, with pings under 100 where I live. Your mileage may vary.

[Agua 0]

Bloodshot:

There is too much information being conveyed in OpFP for it to run smoothly on a 56k. It's the size and detail of the maps as well as the number of vehicles/characters which bog down online play. I understand what you're saying, and I feel for ya not having cable/dsl access. However, with as much data as has to be transferred, it just can't be played on 56k. Sure, if you were limited to a map encompassing an area equivalent to RoTW maps, then 56k will play fine; but the beauty of OpFP is we're NOT limited in that manner. We can, and frequently do, make large sweeping manuevers to approach an objective. Now, there ARE games that include even larger maps, and run relatively well, specifically, I'm thinking of ww2ol, but the graphics in that game are A$$ ugly, and very limited variation in terrain -- there is no where near the features available to the player as in OpFP (scavaging weapons, 3d person view, command options, etc.). I think, in short, you can't just can't expect to play a game with all the data being transferred that is occurring in OpFP, without a fast connection.

[Bloodshot 0]

And I understand what you're saying, Agua! I certainly don't want the game changed in any way.

I just think the pings would be much better if they dump Gamespy though!

[Agua 0]

Blood:

Give ASE a try as well. Gamespay, obviously, DOES utilize bandwidth and your own system's resources as it runs in the background while you're playing, no doubt. You could give ASE a try as well because under the "general/misc." options, you can set ASE up to close after you connect to the server you join: saves system resources and bandwidth utilized by ASE in updating itself in the background while you play. I REALLY don't think it's going to make that much of a difference though on 56K, but it might, in as much as GS utilizes a larger percentage of the available bandwidth on 56k than it would just straight IP gameplay, which, is what you have with ASE if you enable it's "shut down after joining" feature. Good luck.

[RudeMood 0]

Agua I suggest you try out some Tribes 2 online.

And if you already did that, quit talking out of your ass.

It is excactly how the first poster said. BIS screwed up BIG when implementing MP into OFP.

I have played Tribes2 games with 128 people on the same map. Yes 128 people!! I never experienced any form of serious LAG with Tribes. You say OFP needs more data for 4 people than Tribes2 needs for 128 people? I am telling you than something is very wrong with OFP mp-code. (As if we didn't know that already)

For me it really hurts to walk on these immense large MP maps and to see the huge potential of it all. These maps are screaming for 100 or more people!

Sometimes I really am angry with BIS for screwing up the way they did.

Btw love the sp part of the game...

[animalica 0]

Yes, it`s sad that OFP wasn`t planned as an MP game in the beginning but BIS improved it alot since V1.0.

But small scaled battles with 4-8 human players against the AI is better than really big battles.

With small teams you got to cooperate (especially against AI) while big battles are only slaughtering where no one else care about any orders - except you play in an clan or with buddies.

Before release I thought that OFP would support big online battles but it didn`t - maybe in OFP2...

And connecting in midst of an mission isn`t very useful - where are my buddies?

They got an advance of 5 minutes and are 5 kilometers away - and how do I get to the island when there is no boat or chopper left?

It`s not an normal mindless 3D shooter!

And if you need an good tool to connect to online games get All-Seeing Eye from UDP-Soft!

Supports up to now more than 20 online games.

http://www.udpsoft.com/eye

[Agua 0]

Rude:

I have never played Tribes 2.  I imagine there is a display limit upon the number of players that can be seen at any one time in that game, regardless of the number actually playing.  WW2OL, despite being capable of accomodating 3600 players in a single world (not broken into zones), can display no more than 64 players at any time.  WW2OL was designed for online play only and its entire development was/is designed for optimization of net code.  If Tribes 2 isn't broken into zones, and all players are in a single world, I'd be very surprised if there were not a ceiling on the number of visible players.  The problem with this limit of visible players?  Blinking in and out of units, inviso enemies, etc.

[edit follows] Are the maps in Tribes 2 as large as in OpFP? Are they broken into zones where you are switched to a different server when you enter different areas? Just wondering. If so, that would help explain why Tribes 2 is capable of accomodating more players on a single map. 

(Edited by Agua at 12:27 am on Dec. 28, 2001)

[SilentSnipeR 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Quote: from Agua on 12:23 am on Dec. 28, 2001

Rude:

I have never played Tribes 2.  I imagine there is a display limit upon the number of players that can be seen at any one time in that game, regardless of the number actually playing.

(Edited by Agua at 12:27 am on Dec. 28, 2001)

<span id='postcolor'>

Whats that mean? like, you can only see 64 people on the screen or are you talking about in the server?

[animalica 0]

I tried the Tribes2 demo out today ( ftp://sierra.de/tribes2/demos/t2demo.exe - 80 MB) and I must say that the maps dont look so big like in OFP - maybe 1 squaremile.

It`s very foggy and the landscape has many steep hills and deep valleys so you can´t look that far.

The built in server list was an 700 Mhz PC (Mhz`s are displayed in the list) and there were approximately 25-30 players playing.

I got an 1,4 GHZ, 512 MB ram PC with an 64 MB graphics card and ADSL connection and it was an fluid gameplay.

If there would be such an landscape in OFP and such an bad weather I bet that OFP would be also much more fluid in gameplay.

Or move the Tribes2 vehicles and many players to an OFP landscape and it will lag too.

(Edited by animalica at 5:04 am on Dec. 28, 2001)

[Agua 0]

Silent:

Can only see 64 on the screen. That is the way it is with ww2ol: Even though 3600 can play at one time, you can only see 64. How the game prioritizes what you can see leads to a lot of problems, and seems to be at the whim of the developers, changing from time to time. Troops/Vehicles blink in and out, you can be killed by invisible enemies simply becasue you can't see them, but they can see you if they do not fall in the prioritized 64 player limit. Now, in actuality, it seldom happens that way because most battles are spread out and involve less than the 64; nevertheless any large battles, this is the problem created.

[KillorLive 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Quote: from Rogue2020 on 7:24 pm on Dec. 27, 2001

Well what about all those people who don't know anyone else that has the game....connecting to someones IP is bulls**t.......it's true though that this game would lag because of everything in it....i'm just used to playing swat 3....that game has great multiplayer and there are always at least 50 people there wanting to play all the time.......

<span id='postcolor'>

Huh.

I took "KillorLive's T-3 fun- LPB's!" down a few months ago since it had jack for hits and was a total waste of my connection.

[KillorLive 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Quote: from animalica on 5:02 am on Dec. 28, 2001

I tried the Tribes2 demo out today ( ftp://sierra.de/tribes2/demos/t2demo.exe - 80 MB) and I must say that the maps dont look so big like in OFP - maybe 1 squaremile.

It`s very foggy and the landscape has many steep hills and deep valleys so you can´t look that far.

The built in server list was an 700 Mhz PC (Mhz`s are displayed in the list) and there were approximately 25-30 players playing.

I got an 1,4 GHZ, 512 MB ram PC with an 64 MB graphics card and ADSL connection and it was an fluid gameplay.

If there would be such an landscape in OFP and such an bad weather I bet that OFP would be also much more fluid in gameplay.

Or move the Tribes2 vehicles and many players to an OFP landscape and it will lag too.

(Edited by animalica at 5:04 am on Dec. 28, 2001)

<span id='postcolor'>

That's just the demo.

There are many MANY huge maps.

The map never ends, in essense you can run forever.

Though the playable area in most maps is about 5-10 clicks.

Vehical based maps 40.

[edit]

Tribes 2 is CTF (usually), and besides air/armor battles you usually don't see more than 20-30 people defending an objective, if that.

(Edited by KillorLive at 6:09 pm on Dec. 28, 2001)