Joining during a battle

[Dawdler 0]

Good idea. Limit the play to a smaller island (like the one in the SE on Everon(or the other island, cant remember)).

Then when people want to join let them load all things thats in the preset mission, pause the game for a while (like the lag where you can run but you dont see anything else move), and let the joining player catch up with events. How long would such loading time take? I mean even a gap of 30 secs to a minute I can handle.

Just give us the darn joining ability, one way or the other. You will place this game among the Gods of MP, it might even knock down CS. Without this feature it will crash to the ground just as sure as helis do in MP.

Scrap Red Hammer, scrap all betas, scrap new vehicles, take month, just give us the joining ability.

And if you Dev guys dont do this, at least give us the SDK or this game wont live long on my harddrive.

[GiB SunSeeker 0]

It would be nice though.....

sorry Suma, just trying to help, but how does a game like Red Faction manage to do it.

GeoMod technology deforms the map and scenery, and still, a player can connect mid-game

[Capitaine Haddock 0]

Thanks for taking time to replay, Suma.

I love flaspoint down to the last tiny detail, but I missed this feature in Flashpoint from day 1. It’s something you expect as being part of the basic core in the multiplayer code.

I understand you are concerned with the connection time, but in quite old games like Quake 2 there was the option to download a whole map from the server if you didn’t have it. I presume the information about the current state of the mission in flashpoint is quite big, but it can’t be much bigger than the download required for a whole quake map (we are talking about 3D models with texture coordinates here, even actual textures sometimes, not just object positions and states...).

But it should be possible, because you can talk to the guys playing aclosed game, so it means you are sending information in and out of the game.

I understand you can’t tell how long it’s going to take to load, but can’t you just have a Loading message with a warnig saying that it could take a long time? Even if it takes 2 minutes to download the gamestate (that’s like Ë Mb with a slow modem), it’ll be better than waiting half an hour for the end of the mission...

I understand that you just want to get this game out of the way and work on your next project, but I feel sorry for flashpoint. It’s such a good game...

I understand all this. I really do, but this is the last little help the game needs to become a true classic in the history of computer games. Not more vehicles, not more weapons not more maps. Just this.

Dan “Haddockâ€

[Col Rambo SBS 0]

Well said that man.

Nothing is impossible, just maby a bit improbable. This does not mean it cant be done, it usually means we wont do it.

If this is the road its going to take, than in my opinion, the support from BIS for developing this game has lasted a whole 2 months before failing.

Listen, Guys at BIS, we are trying to save your game ! please listen to us. Its better to try and ( Hopefully not ) fail, than not to try at all.

[v4nd4l 0]

i HONESTLY do not believe that ANYTHING will be able to knock down CS in a LONG A$$ TIMe! ive been playing cs since6.5 and i still cant get enough, expecially now that i found a server cluster that has a lot of cool ppeople on it and i ping good to, i will watch the regulars in the cluster, and learn off them, well, i used to do that, i dont anymore though, i have my skill level that will increase day by day as i play.. i hate bein called a cheater though, i think that if there is anything that will kill cs, its because of the newbs taht play and call everyone cheaters, i know several ppl who have quit the game cuz of that accusations.. thx for the time guys,

--long live CS.. (i love OFP as well though dont get me wrong... and, join in progress is a must for the next patch)

[subx 0]

The way I see it the next big thing in MP gaming will be first person, allow people to play different roles, allow them to cooporate in those different roles, let them fight against other people, provide various additional equipment such as vehicles, have large and persistant combat zones, and allow people to join the game when they want (it's not difficult, you start them in a safe base external the game and then transport them into the game in a realistic reinforcements way).

OFP is achingly close, but my high hopes for the game are fading fast. An occasional game to play with a couple of friends, but not the next best thing.

[Vincent Vega 0]

First let me say one thing: Operation Flashpoint is the game I always wanted to play since I started playing computergames on a C-64. Thank you for making it, BI!

Singleplayer is pretty good, but the real potential of this game is multiplayer!

Joining ability for multiplayer games in progress is a MUST HAVE for an onlinemultiplayergame! who needs new vehicle-, weaponsaddons etc. if nobody plays the game online? I think we don't need them for one or two "lousy" singleplayer missions to play around with... The ability to join a multiplayergame whenever you want is really ESSENTIAL. So you say its difficult to implement cause there is a lot of information to be send?

Why not try to handle it like this: Players connect to game in progress. The server shows the connected player short info about the mission and/or welcome message from the server and which "roles" are available to play (eg. as in RTCW). The player picks one side & role to play. During this process the information about the actual game state is being sent to the player. How long might connecting take? 30 seconds? Ok, it depends on the players (and the servers) available bandwith how long it takes to get the actual game state from the server, but who cares if it would take eg. 2 minutes? better than wating for 30 minutes or even more to get in a game!!!

Just look at the number of servers running for OFP... acutally I see 125 (v1.26) in All-Seeing Eye, only !3! of them got more then 10 players:( Thats really a shame for a game like OFP! Even for Return to Castle Wolfentstein MPDemo there are running 511 servers at the moment, and many of them are full! not to mention CounterStrike... but #### OFP has much more potential than those "primitive" games!

Just think of the most popular multiplayergame at the moment, CounterStrike: if you couldn't join a running game who would play this anymore???

CONCLUSION: please make join in progress as soon as possible available in OFP, its much more important than anything else!

Otherwise OFP is going to be forgotten soon:(

sincerely,

Vincent Vega

[OperationFPoint 0]

I think that this MP should be more like ROGUE SPEAR. You can join at anytime and play at anytime

[Cle Hicks 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">in quite old games like Quake 2 there was the option to download a whole map from the server if you didn’t have it. I presume the information about the current state of the mission in flashpoint is quite big, but it can’t be much bigger than the download required for a whole quake map<span id='postcolor'>It seems to me u r forgetting a little detail: the state of an in-progress game is *not* static like a map. Look: ppl are playing when u r downloading those data, and are *changing* them.

Virtually, u could even get stuck in an infinite d/l because what u get from server is changing continuosly and u need to re-download it all the time... (not likely to happen, but u got the point huh?)

I just think average d/l time would be the same u spend now waiting for already-started games to finish. Only difference: programmers spent a lot of time implementing a feature that cannot keep what it promises: "let u play on the fly".

C'mon guys: look at those huge, beautiful, detailed maps OFP lets u play in. They're what elevates OFP over other FPS (that's the good) and at the same time they prevent u from joining a game in progress (and that's the bad). Everithing comes at a cost.

Personally, I don't think OFP is goin to "die" because of this feature lacking. Simply, OFP forces u to schedule ur games instead of just joining in in ur "spare time"...

Try to see the situation this way: OFP is more tactical than other games even in deciding when to play and whith whom...

I love this game, and if u love it too, there'll be no "10 mins wait" that stops u from playin it.

By the way, infos transmitted by servers to clients like GameSpy or All-Seeing Eye should definitely be improved - plz Suma, u sure can do this: add those info

- name of map currently playing (possibly with option to see its briefing and the map itself, even if not animated)

- timeleft (in maps with fixed duration)

- time from start (in all maps which arent time-based)

- number of objectives reached/number of total objectives (just to have an idea of what's goin' on)

I think this could be easily made available in a forthcoming patch, am I right?

[UberPhreek 0]

Anyone ever heard of "Feature Creep" ? The game is massive. It is already by far the most in-depth, detailed, realistic, beautiful, shooter/simulation on the market. I  run a dedicated server, and I know for a fact, that if I had kewl d3wds coming and going at their leisure, it would be incredible destructive to my gameplay, not to mention others. If you want the "join in progress" try talking Suma and his team into giving you the source code. I'm sure you'll get just as far as you will by demanding "Join in progress" ;) Or you could just write your own game, i mean, it's not impossible... right ?

[SargentCannoot 0]

im not a talker so ill keep this short

i love opf ive been following it for 3.5 years now almost so that proves that i really love it

and i must agree with everybody the join in progress is needed for opf to survive

else it will die soon not for me but for all the rest:/

Proud member of the OPF Veterans

btw say hello to petr if ure reading

[quiet 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Quote: from Bronco on 8:50 pm on Oct. 15, 2001

How about a smaller Island (death match Island) designed for join in progress games. This could be a small area so less data needs to be transmited to each player as they enter,with or without vehicles. A place where we could jump in and shoot each other. And for a more serious game take the time to setup the game as we do now. The join in progress maps could be included in a patch so everyone has the same map.

<span id='postcolor'>

Awesome idea. I like it!

[quiet 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Quote: from GiB SunSeeker on 9:54 pm on Oct. 15, 2001

It would be nice though.....

sorry Suma, just trying to help, but how does a game like Red Faction manage to do it.

GeoMod technology deforms the map and scenery, and still, a player can connect mid-game

<span id='postcolor'>

Good question... Hrm.. I hope he responds to this.

[quiet 0]

Question -

Are you guys locked into an agreement with Microsoft to only use directplay and no other form of server/client connections?

Do the dedicated servers merely allow an in-game lobby yet still utilize directplay?

Thanks.

(Edited by quiet at 4:28 am on Oct. 16, 2001)

[mr pedersen 41]

In the future there will be more games that have just what players want, join and leave a game when ever you want to.

So what do you think will hapen with the game then?

do you think the average player will chose your game if he has a simelary game with join and leave when you want possibilety?

A difficult job to fix the code, yes maby so.

But how long will the game last without it?

[ufo_hk 1]

Cle Hicks / Suma and others make some really good points which I believe others just don't want to come to grips with. Otherwise this issue won't keep appearing (I not saying don't discuss it !!)

OFP is not a FPS such as HL:CS / Quake etc - it's a totally different experience and therefore suits different people in different ways.

To say that because one feature is missing the game is likely to die, over looks the fact that there are many other features / functionality provided that will ensure it's survival. The mission editor is a great example, with this you've got two great oppurtunties that go well beyond being able to simply join an existing game. You can either spend hours playing a wider variety games simply because the editor exists, or you can spend hours building missions, or do both.

Also comparing the game features with others such as Red Faction / Delta force Land Warrior is not correct, Red faction and Delta force certainly have much less status information to relay between players. Therefore we are comparing apples with oranges etc.

Although it might be a possible that a compromise could be considered, ie join a game feature is available in CTF / DM type games (with out vehicles??) - if game type could be identified.

[quiet 0]

Than what about Tribes 2?

It has all the above and mid-game join.

[Antichrist 0]

Tribes 2 got what?

Respawning vehicles that leave no trace when they're destroyed?

Or absolutely static and indestructible terrain, trees and buildings?

Or limited areas with borders?

U see my point i hope. There is no need to compare OFP to Tribes 2. They're just different.

As for "Join in Progress"

I think that BIS can easily implement this feature, but the main problem is that whole game engine relies heavily on scripts. Global scripts don't work even after u loaded a game in single player. Would I like to play MP game which won't finish for you because some script was activated even before u joined, or won't record your score for the same reason, or every time u shoot a gun the bullet will fly back and kill you? I doubt that!!!

To make "Joining in progress they need to rework only net-code but whole game engine, which will probably take them another 4 years. We'll better wait for the next game

[QIce 0]

is any progressive game exist without "joining during a battle"? NO! absolutely. too bad news about Operation Flashpoint in this question...

[quiet 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Quote: from Antichrist on 7:36 am on Oct. 16, 2001

Tribes 2 got what?

Respawning vehicles that leave no trace when they're destroyed?

Or absolutely static and indestructible terrain, trees and buildings?

Or limited areas with borders?

U see my point i hope. There is no need to compare OFP to Tribes 2. They're just different.

<span id='postcolor'>

I see your point.

Hrm.. I wonder if they could implement a save game feature for multiplayer.

My main concern was if my clan had battles, what if someone drops?

Let's say you were fighting it out and lost a clan-mate or two. Host could save game.. restart game back where everything left off and have people join.

Would this fix the most important problem - if people drop out yet they can't rejoin?

Suma,

Would this be possible? This is the main reason I would want mid-game joins - if clan mates came in.

Personally I would not want someone from the outside jumping into a game randomly and disrupting strategies.

But ... If you could save a multiplayer game and restart with all the same players, that might be a decent work-around.

Thanks!

(Edited by quiet at 11:15 am on Oct. 16, 2001)

[Capitaine Haddock 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">By Cle Hicks: It seems to me u r forgetting a little detail: the state of an in-progress game is *not* static like a map. Look: ppl are playing when u r downloading those data, and are *changing* them.

Virtually, u could even get stuck in an infinite d/l<span id='postcolor'>

I see your point about the game state changing all the time, but the game sends ALL that information in real-time when you are actually playing...

If it works in-game it should even be faster in a download screen.

Oh. Another game that has this feature is Warbirds. There are far more players than in OFP, lots of planes, damaged units, damaged land objects... and you can join mid-game.

Dan "Haddock"

[subx 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Quote: from ufo hk on 5:41 am on Oct. 16, 2001

To say that because one feature is missing the game is likely to die, over looks the fact that there are many other features / functionality provided that will ensure it's survival....

<span id='postcolor'>

I think what you're overlooking is what the majority of people want out of a game: easy, "out of the box" usage that they can play for an hour or two when it's convenient for them. The features you talk about are welcome, but will not appeal to the majority.

I can think of several games over the passed few years that had entertaining multiplayer games, but because their ease of use was poor they didn't take off.

[UberPhreek 0]

One last thing I wanted to mention. I hosted a game last night for some friends of mine. We like to play long, drawn out missions. The entire time people kept joining, leaving, joining and leaving. Most with names like }{ooter}{unter etc. I have no interest in playing with these people ! I was so glad that they couldn't join ! I know I can assign a password etc, but why should I have to ? I think that with all the quick n dirty fragathon shooters out there, Operation Flashpoint answers the call for the elite. The ones who really want to 'get into the battle' vs running around killing everything that moves yelling w00t ! ... But that's just me.

[Gunny 0]

2quiet: I dont think saving MP game will be good cause its only for Clanwars not for much more single fans around the world (btw u cant keep yo clan together all the time and play only this team).

[Showstopper 0]

Despite all the talk, I still think, that waiting for 5 minutes for gamestate to update is WAY much better than waiting for 40 minutes for server to restart. Right ?