Dear Suma and everyone ...

[quiet 0]

Let's work together to find  a good suitable way to get Multiplayer to work better for us all.

Keep in mind, ASE can now show 'waiting for players' and 'game in progress' servers, so that makes it much easier to find a game that is about to start.

These are my requests - and I hope others add to this thread:

Request New Voting Options:

Vote to 'kick so and so' - team based and global voting options.

Vote to change mode - 'cadet or veteran'.

Vote to 'admin a person'.

Vote to 'disable or add AI' - this would make teams more balanced.

Menu driven vote menu - able to be binded or within the action menu i.e. [ ], middle mouse, backspace key.

Server Status Request:

For programs like gamespy, ASE, etc, please make the following rulesets:

gametype - ctf, dm, coop, etc.

time remaining - if game has time limit.

time passed - how much time is passed.

score remaining - if game has score limit.

score within game - to determine how far along.

Other options:

Suicide option - limit set by admin or vote.

A person can suicide so many times in the game, but not excessively so he/she can get out of glitchy situations - I would default it to 3 times.

Everyone - please add your ideas to this thread.

Please do not complain about the game - this is a positive thread to get this game working better for us all via multiplayer.

Thanks!

(Edited by quiet at 12:01 am on Oct. 21, 2001)

[quiet 0]

Another request:

Server Information Needed:

Password - 1 or 0 (yes or no).

I tried connecting to a dedicated server but it was password protected.

Currently there is no way for a person to know this from ASE or Gamespy.

Thanks.

[shadowwolf 0]

I totally agree with all of these points.

If joining a game in progress is NOT an option, please consider some of these options in order to make it more "livable". Thanks.

-shad

[redsolo 0]

I have to agree. It is very annoying to see a game, with 8 ppl inside and then connect to it, and see that they have 30 mins left to play.

Displaying the time left for a game is a must, if they want ppl to play OPF.

Ive almost left gamespy, because its easier to find good games (good ping/lots of ppl/etc) with ASE. I might even register it

A new feature, that I would like to see is that when a player has teamkilled 2 times (accidently or not) appears on a vote list automatically. So if ppl dont want him there then they can vote him of with no hassle.

Could any of the OPF staff please respond and tell us if these ideas/features will make it into OPF !?

[Morchaoron 0]

Good ideas... except for the 'admin a person'.

Ever played Tribes 1? It had it too and 90% of the time there was being f**ked with because some kid joined the server before anyone was in there and voted himself admin.

They removed that option a few months later

But voting for all other things should be fine.

[hees 0]

First of all, a nice bump!

Secondly, I wholeheartedly agree with all of the above. Please BIS, look into this. Save your place on al the best-sold lists!

[KaRRiLLioN 0]

Excellent ideas. If JIP isn't possible without a huge code rewrite then these ideas will help tremendously.

The only problem I see regards sending info about whether a map is CTF or DM, etc primarily because of the scripts and such that ppl use to make these missions. I've made a few missions and there really isn't a hard and fast rule for the server to know what gametype is being played since it's not a predefined type as in Q3.

If it displays the name of the map (it may already do this I don't know) then the name of the map might provide a good clue as to what is being played, i.e. Co-op, CTF, DM since most mission makers put the type in the map name.

Here are my requests. They may exist in 1.27 but I haven't found mention of them in the readme.

1. Ability to limit # of players on a server

2. Ability to give the server a hostname, i.e. "My Cool server" instead of seeing Dedicated Server in ASE or GSA.

3. Ability to enter commands from the server console like Q3 instead of having to actually connect with a client to do that.

There are other ideas I have but these seem like they should be possible to implement. Limiting players is a BIGGIE because I can't tell you how many times I've had 20+ players connecting but there's no way in #### I can support them all. As I said these requests may already exist in 1.27. I've read the readme and haven't seen anything about them though so if any of you know better please inform me.

Thanks!

[Vincent Vega 0]

All those "solutions" you people present here don't solve the main problem with the missing Join-in-Progress feature: all people I know want to play on a specific server cause they know each other and they call it somehow (gaming-)"home". So BIS stated this is a tactical game... right it is, but tell me how you do nice teamplay with people you don't even understand or know a bit. I think its really disappointing if you look in ASE for an open game, jump in and recognize that every player does his own thing, not even trying to do some teamwork:( This sucks bad, OFP is definitvely made for teamplay! So this is the effect that missing Join-in-Progress feature has on the game, an effect the developers themselves don't want to support for OFP as they stated before. Believe me, I know what I'm talking about, we had one of the first clan-servers for CS in germany. It was a really great time, many people were playing only on our server and we made a lot of buddies (even in real-life) during this time. The reason why this worked like this ? Join-in-Progress was always available and people could just get in game anytime (if there was room *g) and didn't have to wait for a long time. Many of them quitted  CS meanwhile and we sometimes manage to get in an OFP game with 3 or 4 of us, but this is only possible if people got time and nerves for this procedure! Don't tell me now you get 20 people togehter all the same time for playing OFP, even on LAN this is not easy (although you can slap people who mess around ). Once more my conlusion: I need no more addons, missions etc. till Join-in-Progress is possible in OFP, who needs all this stuff for one or two singleplayer missions!? JIP is the thing we need ASAP.

[redsolo 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">There are other ideas I have but these seem like they should be possible to implement.  Limiting players is a BIGGIE because I can't tell you how many times I've had 20+ players connecting but there's no way in #### I can support them all.  <span id='postcolor'>

That is so true, ive had a few games when ppl just jump in and theres no more room for them in the mission. This is irritating both for the playing ppl and the ppl who connects.

It seems that ASE notices that on some servers there is a player max, but it is max 32 players for all those servers, so perhaps its a flag that hasnt been used thoroughly yet.

Anyhow I would like to say that BIS has done a great job by incorporating new features and ideas to the game after it was released.

But as someone said, we dont need more units to make this the best of games, we need a solution to these problems.

[Mister Frag 0]

The maximum number of players allowed can be set using the MaxPlayers setting; check out the Dedicated Server FAQ at

http://www.3dap.com/flashpoint/deddyinfo.htm

[suchey 0]

that feature doesnt work...at least on dedicated servers

[LordNam 0]

The problem here is that OFP does NOT return correct info for MAXPlayers, when using the GSA query (like ASE).

When using NATIVE OFP query, it returns the correct parameter. This is how I, managed to return correct info on OFP servers.

Funny enough - so does ASE now - AFTER I released the source for my Server Query for OFP.

Look @ http://www.wkk.dk (REALTIME Server Query).

Anyway, a mix between the 2 queries - returns the desired results of MAXplayers, private/public servertype - etc.

[Hagman 1]

I think that in tdm,dm,ctf gametypes,the dead bobdies need 2 dissappear,obviously in a coop game in dont matter,but after u been playing a game for a while,bodies start piling up and it makes it a bit silly

[Recon 0]

play something else - these people can't code a good multiplayer game - garbage. Stick to single player, and play a real online game like CS.

What sucks is having to pay for this stuff - no wonder peeps hack games, because there is no accountability to game companies (in this case, to have vision).

But, I will say that when I see the next game with CodeMasters on it - I'll be sure to put it back on the shelf and look elsewhere.

Sounds bad, but at least put on the box that it is for single player or lan play. Not online play.

[quiet 0]

Sigh, I agree with you Recon.

Besides Wolf, Allied Assault, I'm looking at this game.

I wrote them a letter too, telling them the importance of mid-game join:

http://westwood.ea.com/games/ccuniverse/renegade/english/html/faq/faq.html

http://gamespot.com/gamespot/stories/previews/0,10869,2707121,00.html

It's not a realism game but for Sci-Fi and C&C fans it's probably pretty cool.

(Edited by quiet at 2:57 am on Oct. 28, 2001)

[Morchaoron 0]

I still hope they'll improve this games online multiplayer expierence...

There are no other games yet that have a gameplay type like OFP has.

Cheater-strike may be popular but its nothing more then a common first person shooter and any other 'commercial quake3 mods' (like wolf) in making do not seem to have much to do with war either (except for the weapon models and skins).

If they could somehow imrpove this games online multiplayer expierence it would be one heck of a multiplayer game.

(Edited by Morchaoron at 2:56 am on Oct. 28, 2001)

[Hagman 1]

Man i just cant see what all the fuss is about,ofp plays great online for me,god only knows what u lot expect from an online game,if u want that much realism go and play paintball at ya local forest,lmao

[redsolo 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Quote: from Recon on 1:21 am on Oct. 28, 2001

play something else - these people can't code a good multiplayer game - garbage.  Stick to single player, and play a real online game like CS.  <span id='postcolor'>

I would play OPF ver 1.00 online anytime over CS. CS is only quake with other weapons, and a bunch of whining kids making the game unplayable !

Its interesting that MOST (real) squad games handle the multiplayer situation like OPF do. SWAT3, Ghost recon, Rainbow six... Of course you need a little more dedication to this kind of a game, than quake or any other single player games. (they have multiplayer but not multisquad play)

[benreeper 0]

Hey Red that's what I said. CS = Quake + real weapon skins - fantasy weapon skins.

Why can't these people just go back to there beloved CounterStrike.

If you've ever played paintball you know that talking about what happened in the game is as much fun as playing the game-- Flashpoint is the ONLY computer/console game that makes me do that.

[noise 0]

I can see nothing wrong with the multiplayer aspect of the game. I enjoy the closeness of the squad when you all have to start at the same time, promotes teamplay.

the only thing i find annoying is that sometimes i get disconnected after joining, and then can't back on

but that's probably something to do with Living in the UK, when most of the servers are in US.

I have a cable modem, but still get a ping of 230+ which is kinda annoying, perhaps i should host myself, can you host and have it auto start when all the players connect incase i'm not at my PC?

Cheers

noise.

(Edited by noise at 7:19 pm on Nov. 3, 2001)

[noise 0]

any1 know what the optimal amout of players i should allow on my PC with 512kbp/s d/load and 128kbp/s upload?

[Dawdler 0]

That depends on what they have. 6-8 if they all have 512, I think, but if you want optimal amount I would say 1.

[noise 0]

lol, thanx, 1 it is then, lol

In UT i can sometimes manage upto 5/6 at a push, but the higher there connection speed, the lower the amount of people can connect to me, as they use up more of my upload bandwidth