The Problems with Multiplayer Online

[Horse 0]

This posting is to discuss some of the problems with the mission-joining phase of playing OFP multiplayer. (I'm not going to discuss Join-In-Progress, because I think it's been discussed to death, except to state that I think it remains essential for online play, irrespective of how hard it might be to implement.)

Up until the beta 1.26 release, I hadn't bothered playing OFP multiplayer at all, because I found it simply too bugridden to be worth the effort. However I must commend BIS for their work with the Beta releases, they've made huge improvements to the network code and the engine is in place to make online play a lot of fun.

Except, that is, for the problems associated with playing on public servers. Here's a typical session of playing OFP online:

1. Find a server to play on. That's hard to begin with here in NZ, because only NZ & Australian servers are typically going to give good enough ping for online play (and I'm on DSL - I pity someone trying to play on a modem). But that's only half the problem - the other half is finding a server with people on.

(an aside: I use All-Seeing-Eye. Gamespy Arcade is an evil blot on the software landscape, and should be taken out and shot. BIS and/or Codemasters (whoever is responsible for choosing to use GSA) should be ashamed of themselves.)

Here's the problem: finding a server that's in the "waiting for players" state is a nice idea in principle. In reality it doesn't happen. Most servers with people on will be "waiting for players" for typically 45 seconds in a 30 min gamecycle. Whenever I do a refresh of ASE I see dozens of dedicated servers "waiting for players" with NOBODY on them, and no more than 20 servers with people actually playing. (For example right now ASE reports 7 1.27 servers "in game", and 49 servers "waiting for players", all with nobody on them).

So the reality is that in finding a server, we're extremely unlikely to find one waiting for players. So we find a low-ping server, join it, and wait.

2. So the in-progress game ends, and we can play, right? Wrong. First we have to endure the "join the mission" debacle. Here's what typically happens:

- you join a server with 5 people on, playing coop. While you're waiting, 3 other people also join the server to wait.

- the mission ends, and the server cycles to the next one, which as luck would have it is an 8-player deathmatch, and there are now 9 people on the server.

- unfortunately there's no admin on the server. everyone wants to play, so someone suggests "#vote missions"

- which is an extremely bad idea. the players select a mission (after a minute or two arguing over which one to play and whether to turn cadet on or off) only to find themselves at the "wait for server" screen, because one of the players hasn't voted for a mission or doesn't know how to or is AFK or doesn't speak very good english and doesn't know what to do. So all the players who want to play can't.

- The usual course of events at this point is that someone suggests kicking the non-responsive players (which seems to need everyone else to "#vote kick ..." and is therefore only occasionally effective).

- eventually everyone realises that the only solution is for everyone to disconnect from the server and reconnect.

- upon reconnecting about half the time you'll still be stuck at the "wait for server" screen. If you're lucky, the server will be back at the mission join screen with the same 8-player deathmatch, only there's now 12 players on the server.

- sometimes someone will suggest "#vote mission" (without the s) instead, which will cause the server to randomly pick a mission. Let's say for argument'e sake this works (i've seen it happen once) and you now get a 12-player deathmatch mission on a different island.

- not a complete success - everyone would much rather play co-op, or CTF, but it's better than nothing. Only now there's 13 players on the server (people tend to notice servers with 8 or more players on and join them).

- there's a mad dash for the 12 player slots, which involves clicking your name on one side of the screen, dragging it (laggy GUI interface and all) over to the other side of the screen to one of the "not assigned" slots, and releasing the mouse button, only to find that someone else grabbed the same player slot before you, so your name reappears on the left hand list. so you repeat. It's taken me up to 4 tries at times to find an empty slot.

- eventually all the slots get filled, everyone presses their start button and we're ready to go - aren't we? Nope, that 13th player is still there in the "unassigned players" list, so the mission won't start. If you're _lucky_, they'll just be AFK so you won't have to listen to them whine about not being allowed in the mission.

- so once again everyone tries to vote the player off, but just as you're doing that you see the "Player X is connecting..." message. That pesky 13th player disconnects, but even though their name hasn't appeared on the list yet, the server won't start the mission while another player is connected.

- this cycle (convincing people to leave or voting them off while others keep joining because they see the server has lots of people on AND is still in the "waiting for players" state) can go for several rounds before you actually get into the next phase - choosing a role.

- and here (choosing whether you want to be a soldier or a machinegunner etc) all the mouse-drag GUI problems occur. But there's another catch. Whoever had their name at the top of the side list in the previous screen now becomes a "pseudo-admin". They're now the only ones with a start button, and when they press start, the mission loads. If they know about this quirk, they'll wait for everyone to pick a role. However many people don't. They're unware of their status (and probably didn't really pay attention to the fact that they were at the top of the list in the previous screen), so they see that start button and figure they have to press it to indicate they're ready. And if you're on the same side but hadn't picked a role yet (because of all the GUI problems mentioned earlier) you find that you get to spend the next 10-30 minutes at the "game-in-progress" screen.

- if you're lucky, you actually get to load the mission, but if you're on a modem (or didn't have the mission and have to wait for it to download) you can't afford to take any time reading the briefing, because you'll be the last one there while everyone else waits. If you're lucky, they'll be patient and not "#vote kick" you. But don't spend time reading that briefing if you don't want to get abused.

- and finally, if you're very lucky, you might actually get to play some OFP. Just pray that some idiot on your side doesn't run you over with an APC in the first 30 seconds so you spend the next 30mins as a seagull.

Typical elapsed time for the above drama? I've seen it take up to half an hour just to get into a mission, which some server admin has set to run for only 10 minutes (presumably because people don't like waiting). The server not starting because there are too many players connected for the current mission is the biggest problem.

Okay, so those are the problems. Do I have solutions? Well kind of. I think it's blindingly obvious to everyone (except BIS) that join-in-progress would fix this. But as I said, I'm not going to discuss that.

Firstly, the drag-your-name user interface has got to go. Online, it's a major pain in the <expletive>. At the first "join mission" screen where your options are typically "join east" or "join west" there should just be big clickable "join east" or "join west" buttons that just put you in the next available slot. And if you click too slow, you miss out on playing.

Which comes to my second suggestion. I think this is obvious. The server shouldn't wait for extra players when all available slots are full AND everyone in those slots has said "I'm ready"

The next problem is the "secret side admin", where clicking start at that second screen has much greater importance than many people realise, leaving some out of the game. I think to solve all this waiting for players (and having to "#vote kick" people who are AFK or just too stupid to figure out what to do) is to simply have a standard timeout (say 60 seconds) at each screen where the players must choose something (eg which side to join, or which role to take). If you don't do the right thing in 60 seconds, you miss out. And at the second screen, where players are choosing a role (soldier/officer etc) there should be a second timeout, of about 5 seconds, after everyone in the game has chosen a role. If no-one changes their mind in that 5 seconds (and the other 60sec timeout doesn't finish first), the game should just start. if someone changes their mind about what to play as (and again, we need to lose the name-dragging and just have nice big buttons to click on) the 5 second timeout starts again. That way there's a chance to change your mind, but if everyone picks a role the game just starts and there's no need for a secret pseudo admin to click start.

Finally, the mission briefing. What would be really great (but I admit probably a lot harder to implement) would be for the game client to download the briefing first and display that while the rest of the mission loads. Even if it was just the briefing text without the map, at least you could read that and get a feel for it. And again, stick a default timeout on it so that if someone suddenly goes AFK while the mission was loading, they don't hold up everyone else.

(BTW, while we're talking briefings, this is completely unrelated, but would it be possible to add functionality so that the different sides in MP could get different briefings? It would make recon actually useful in a team vs team co-op game. My brother and I would _really_ like this for the short missions we're working on)

These are just some ideas for solving the problems I see with online multiplay. They may not be the best ideas, but we need systems that don't require an admin on public servers, and Do The Right Thing in the case of stupid (or Away From Keyboard - AFK) players. Another suggestion regarding the side pseudo admins - enabling/disabling the AI should be a server config setting, either as a server global setting or preferably as a per-mission setting in the config file.

Right, that's my lot for now, I should be in bed but I was unable to sleep with this churning in my head. BIS, I hope you'll think seriously about these problems, it makes online play a real pain in the rear.

One final question: BIS, have you guys actually tried to play OFP online? When I compare some of your comments with my actual experiences trying to enjoy this game, I really wonder. I dare (no, I double-dare!) the entire programming team to spend the next week playing a few games of OFP online, on public servers where you don't know the other players, and there's no admin logged in, and then tell me you don't think Join-In-Progress is important (let alone everything else I've discussed above).

I hope you'll consider these issues carefully.

[Thundercok 0]

God, that sounds horrible, and I know from reading enough posts and setting games up that you are 100% dead on.

We are lucky enough to have 3 PC's on LAN and 2 hi-speed buds that connect to me for our games, so we don't have to deal with the online debacle.

####, we would be playing online if we it wasn't a complete mess. I hope they get something fixed. I wonder when all developers will see how the Quake/Half-Life type server model adds massive life(sales) to their game.

[MajHavoc 0]

We feel your pain Horse.....

/0

Maj

[Guest]

Horse re :(BTW, .....t would it be possible to add functionality so that the different sides in MP could get different briefings? .....)

Already there - see in BIs briefing document : <a href="" target="_blank">ftp://www.flashpoint1985.com/doc/briefings.zip

Quote</a> "....so it’s possible to have special briefings for all sides in Operation Flashpoint. See the example below:...."

/Quote

Since I'm using remote IP and lan mutiplayer modes, I don't have the pains you're expereincing.

[Recon 0]

Yeah, we keep posting it to let others know not to waste their time on even thinking of playing this game online.

[AJ 0]

Great Post. I also live in New Zealand and believe me Horse has hit the nail right on the head. Bis have made a total hash of the Multi Player aspect of this game.

[Claudi 0]

Spot on Horse. But I really, no REALLY like this game. So im still hoping, crossing my fingers till they are blue.

Try a great SP mission: EnemyTerrain

[Dawdler 0]

Its a great post, but anyone that has been here for a while know its just pointless. Post in the 1.2x forum, at least there they respond [sometimes].

[benreeper 0]

We do have the right to state our opinion on their opinion.

I suggest all ded servers run all of their games with the same amount of players and if possible, the same game types.

[762WorldOrder 0]

I hate it, but I DO use Gamespy Arcade to find games. I use All-Seeing Eye to find Wolfenstein games, but for OFP it's just pointless, because of the issues mentioned above. I simply do not have time to set aside 45 minutes of my time in the hope that I *may* be able to get 10 minutes of actual playing time in.

At least with Gamespy, I can find a game within ten minutes or so. That's still a rediculous amount of time to wait to get into a game, but what can you do (besides make your opinion known to developers who really don't care)?

Whoever thought the current non-join-in-progress facet of OFP was a good idea should be forced to play OFP MP for a month using Gamespy on public servers. It just flat out sucks ass, any which way you cut it.

This game is probably the most unique and engrossing game I've ever played. It's a real pity that it's status is crippled by poor foresight in the development process.

Oh well, they can always get it right in OFP2. Are you listening, BIS?

I really, REALLY hope so...

[zovirl 0]

I believe there is a server option called voteThreshold which would make it so at least not everyone on the server has to vote for something. I haven't actually used it so maybe it doesn't work, but if it did it would help with some of your problems. Also, that pseudo-admin you are talking about is the team leader. They are the ones who get the first slot on a side (the one that is a different color). They are the only ones who get to disable AI I think. We haven't had a problem starting without people though. We are playing 1.27 on a LAN with a dedicated server and we have found that every person has to click ready or ok or whatever it is before you move on to the next screen. Perhaps it is different online. If it is, that sucks and should be changed...

[Claudi 0]

Is there a complete list of servercommands somewhere? I know these:

 #vote mission (have not seen it work)

#vote mission []

 #vote missions

 #vote reassign (have not seen that work either)

 #vote kick []

(Edited by Claudi at 4:15 am on Oct. 31, 2001)

[VecteR 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 3:54 am on Oct. 31, 2001

Lets get back to the topic at hand MP in OFP, well my opinion (and remember it doesn't affect me if you agree or not) is that OFP's MP provides for a #### of a lot of fun, and that was my main purpose in buying the game.

<span id='postcolor'>

it was my main purpose too - and that´s why i am so disappointed...  :-(

the "is-it-a-bug-or-feature-mode" or the fame or the "wait-until-it-crashes-mode" is no fun to play... (for me)

(Edited by VecteR at 2:59 pm on Oct. 31, 2001)

[suma 8]

Horse,

thank you for posting your experience here. It is very beneficial for us when someone is able to write accuratelly what is wrong. We are already working on voting - it should be easier in 1.30. We will also try to implement warning for "side masters", so that they are aware what they are doing.

[noise 0]

Cool, can't wait till 1.30 is released then

[Recon 0]

Any status on whether time remaining in game will be in the 1.30 patch?

[suma 8]

This discussion here went completely off-topic. I deleteted many posts. If someone wants to discuss the topic (user inteface and problems when connecting to ded. server), please continue here. For personal quareling please use Offtopic or even better Messenger, it will save a lot of our time.

[koch 0]

Well - i've got a few comments;

I've been playing mainly OFP in single player mode for about 1 month or so. I then tried playing online with 1.00 - but that dident work out. Then 1.10 came out - tried again .. gave it 1-2 days - and then .. trashed the game. Maybe it's my lack of interest in sitting trying for hours to find a server where I can play.

Now - about 1-2 months later, Im giving it a go again, but have only found complaints about servers, netcode use of gamespy etc. when I browse forums.

I've been playing Unreal Tournament for about 22 months now (since it's debut in dec. 1999) - and compared to this, and many other online games, I find OFP rather strange. I know that OFP - is - a different type of game than UT, Quake, etc., but I'm not quite sure why I has to be so complex to find a server, get into it rather quickly and start playing. There might be a need for people to "check in" - in a sort of que, but - even though not perfect - I guess the TacticalOps, Infiltration and Strikeforce mods for Unreal Tournament all do a rather decent job.

How about checking those systems out ?

Another thing I find rather strange, is the lack of a server browser build into the game itself; now, there may be some arguments to why you have chosen GameSpy (lets not debate that here) - but actually how difficult is it to build in a screen, that prompts the master server for available server, with sorting etc., and prompting for status etc. The most annoying part from my point of view, is the everlasting : "lanching game" -> "BEEEEP" -> "Error" -> return to gamespy -> find new server -> try again .. it takes A LOT of time on the net, and it shouldent.

A friend of mine, and myself ended up launching a 2 player multiplayer game instead of trying out the internet part; which is a shame I believe. So in short - my wishes :

a. better que options / launch options

b. a build in server browser

** Save a beer for me - thanks **

[Bronco 0]

Join East   Join West  buttons great Idea. I have most luck getting games through Game Spy Everon lobby. The dedicate server lobby @ GS I got in to one game which crashed after five minutes. After trying to join other servers there and numerious reboots of my comp Im back to the Everon lobby @ GS to find games.

[Toxic Avenger 0]

hmm. . .a god idea here might be to just have a counter- strike style interface- i mean, drag and click. . .drag and click. . .why cant i just press auto team, and then like 1 for team leader.. . .2 for gunner. . .3 for ETC, ad infinitum.

another very good point is to LIFT the map population restrictions- why the blazes would i host a room with 16 slots, only to have the map i want to play only have space for 4 on a side. . .and its CTF! i mean, is this a war, or is it paintball? This is something that should have been cought in beta.. . or did we forget to do that?

Last thing- the single player is a beautiful thing- but you tried to make the MP like the single player, and that sa BIG mistake.

[Recon 0]

They put multiplayer in this game, but didn't have any real thoughts behind it. It's obvious - perhaps we should buy them a copy of counterstrike and gamespy (3d, arcade sucks) - and tell them to study how to make a good online game (who wouldn't want 10,000 people every night playing their game...duh).

Well, OFP is a awesome game, just no experience with multiplayer has really reduced the playability of the game - sad..I think personally they should reduce the price since they aren't giving to us all that they market on the box...

[Dawdler 0]

The game IS an experience in MP. IF one gets it to work. I think they are loosing lots of players because of the darn restarting every time... It is very annoying, and I have stopped playing cause I grew tired of it.

An ingame server list would cure alot of MP problems. Foremost the previously mentioned restart thing. As usual I have posted two threads of the server list idea but received no response, not even a bad one.

Btw, has anyone noticed that the MP forum is almost dead now, compared to a few months ago? I truly hope that BIS has noticed this...

[Bronco 0]

Also the head count over at Game Spy seems to be dropping. And I dont think they are using ASE because same number of people there as before, more servers but most are empty.

[suchey 0]

Dedicated servers arent very stable at this point...I have yet to see any official statement as to any fix in the future for the contual crashes...I have seen rumors from others that at least one of the issue has been identified and fixed, but nothing solid. Our dedicated server crashes many times each day, and in reading the posts in some of the forums here, it seems that this is a common issue among many dedicated server admins...this could be a big part of the problem in seeing less servers, less players, etc etc...its quite frustrating for players to wait for a while to enter a game only to crash a few minutes into the mission...the problem seems to be isolated within the CTF missions, although I have seen reports on the boards that team vs. team missions in general have the same crash result. 1.2 worked well for us (in regards to server stability) but all subsequent patches have been plagued by the dedicated server crashing problem. I sent the files which BIS asked for in their "forum rules", and was contacted to provide additional info, so that is a good sign...I think that once we see a stable dedicated server platform, finding a game will be a bit easier as well. Not many folks have the resources to properly host a dedicated server (not a cable or DSL server, but one runnign on from a co-located box on a T3 or something to this effect), and those that do will probably not use those resources on a server which crashes constantly (at least for long)...This is a beta and I realize that, it was a concious choice to run the new patches, but in order to get any sort of player base, we all know that a server needs to be running 1.29...so hopefully it will be fixed in 1.3- Im keeping my fingers crossed...any information from BIS in regard to progress on this issue would be greatly appreciated.

[Recon 0]

Yeah, I went to play last night - nobody is around. Kinda a bummer, had to go play the Ghost Recon demo and some counterstrike.

But, you know, when you don't have a good design and vision you shoot yourself in the foot. That is as true as anything