MMOTFPS??

[FatNinjaKid 0]

Is OFP2 going to be a MMOTFPS? ("massively-multiplayer online tactical first person shooter" )

Here @ww2ec it says:

Quote[/b] ]There is supposed to be a full-scale war going on around the map. To achieve this Bohemia has implemented a way of having every action on the map recorded. If a helicopter flies overhead, then it is on it's way to perform an action. It is either dropping off or picking up troops or it is on it's way to attack an enemy position. Everything in the game will have it's own goals and priorities to handle. There will even be civilians living and going to work in the cities.

Why would BIS undertake such efforts if not for the purpose of having a very very LARGE number of players on the same map???

[7-62 0]

i think every player will be a plutoon commander, 40 booth x 50 players........

[txalin 2]

will be really nice

[monty67t 0]

It would be a pretty cool feature if there was a full scale war going on and each player had it's own objective to accomplish. For example, player 1 might be in charge of an engineer squad who's job is to destroy a vital bridge, but they cannot do that job until player 2 and his flight of Apaches has taken out the armor threat around the bridge. Then player 3 has a special operations unit that is going to HALO jump in behind enemy lines and "paint" mobile scud launchers for player 4 to drop laser guided bombs on from his F/A-18. The possiblities are endless. It would be a CooP heaven.

Monty

[BlackScorpion 0]

I want to be the SF transport helo pilot...

Dunno how the SF guys would like the ride though.

Anyways, rather interesting... Hmmm... Looking forward to it!

[Daniel 0]

We can do that as soon as we get JP with AA though

[Morbid Angel 0]

Well about the mmo thingy ... mmos are subscription based games which cost the devs a LOT of money to maintain those huge servers that can handle thousands of ppl online at the same time.

While the next BIS game might be able to handle 64 players, maybe 128 like JO (doubtful but still), its hardly a mmo. PLUS its never gonna be a persistant world anyways ... cause that is the whole idea of the mmo concept.

On the other hand tho - a round in this next BIS game might take a couple hours maybe, which is gonna make for some nice coop experience like previous posters said. Can't wait.

[Victor_S. 0]

no I dont think it has to have a ton of people, but each person is in command of a squad or multiple squads. So maybe 32 people and x10 ai. That would make a great multiplayer game

[TwentyFourSeven 0]

be the death of it and exclusive if it was a sub fee based

[Heatseeker 0]

no I dont think it has to have a ton of people, but each person is in command of a squad or multiple squads. So maybe 32 people and x10 ai. That would make a great multiplayer game  

Well, i prefer player only squads, because thats the point of MP, competition betwean gamers, not a.i. like in brothers in arms but im sure the possabilities will be big enough to please everyone .

[sidhellfire 0]

Unfortunally MMOFPS are impossible due of connection limitations :/

I've seen only MMORPG's, MMORTS (only one - shattered galaxy, that is a combinatin of rpg and rts at all)

btw. it would be so interesting to see something like commandos, but as massive multiplayer. 1 player - 1 character. 1 shot - 1 kill...

Anyway it has nothing to the thread here.

I'll keep dreaming.

[Antichrist 0]

Yeah, that's my dream as well. When I first played PlanetSide I immediately thought how awesome it would be to have the same kind of persistant world on Everon for example. Class based gameplay, so machine gunner will never be able to drive a tank unless he trains the necessary skill. Capturing bases, holding them, directing artillery strikes. With around 500-1000 people on the server (read island) it will be so awesome. Unfortunately it is impossible with current technology.

[Heatseeker 0]

Yeah, that's my dream as well. When I first played PlanetSide I immediately thought how awesome it would be to have the same kind of persistant world on Everon for example. Class based gameplay, so machine gunner will never be able to drive a tank unless he trains the necessary skill. Capturing bases, holding them, directing artillery strikes. With around 500-1000 people on the server (read island) it will be so awesome. Unfortunately it is impossible with current technology.

Ah! 30 minuts and your bored of all the chaos and lack of comunication, 30/50 or even much less well known, friendly players and you got 2 hours of gameplay fun guarantied .

[Apollo 0]

Well there may be other ways than persistant game worlds and developer run servers.

Some years back i had a bit of talk about that in the ofp2 multiplayer suggestions thread and some people agreed that maybe an option to put servers in a grid to distribute the workload to multiple pc's might improve MP performance while maintaining game flexibilety.

These server grids would be created by 3rd party groups like gamers and clans ,and wouldn't probably involve that many servers.Basicly the server load could be distributed thus allowing more people to play the same game session online depending the number of servers of the grid ,or array.

But Ofp wouldn't be default need multiple servers to run an mp game ,it would be up to the third party how many server he wants for his specific game.

I don't think such an option wouldn't be ultimatly that hard to implement ,IMO it would deffinatly be a very worthwile feature ,but afcourse it has it's limitations.Realisticly noone in the Flashpoint is going to create hughe grids due to the sheer costs ,but you would have a larger number of servers that distribute the server load over 2 or 3 servers.Neither would the increase of the extra server mean an increase of performance in the same quantity as the one delivered by the first server ,but it would be noticable ,and a grid of 3 seververs might alow something between 100 and 200 players depending on the netcode and base mp performance of the game.

Such a system IMO offers most flexibilety to player demands in player numbers for an MP session.

Atleast i like the fact that BIS fullfilled atleast one of my suggestions for the game ,though i doubt that they duid it for me personally ,in the sense that i wanted to have more life and crowd in the game ,i always had the opinion that Ofp allowed to few objects and people on a game compared to the space it offers.These dynamic campaigns look a wonderfull way to me to give Ofp layers the impression that the island is full of life.

[Antichrist 0]

Ah! 30 minuts and your bored of all the chaos and lack of comunication, 30/50 or even much less well known, friendly players and you got 2 hours of gameplay fun guarantied .

I don't think so. I actually think that chaotic gameplay and lack of any teamwork will make it much more exciting and engaging experience.

[funnyguy1 0]

Ah! 30 minuts and your bored of all the chaos and lack of comunication, 30/50 or even much less well known, friendly players and you got 2 hours of gameplay fun guarantied .

I don't think so. I actually think that chaotic gameplay and lack of any teamwork will make it much more exciting and engaging experience.  

lol

That`s the reason, I don`t want It to be so called MMOTFPS(   ).

I want coops like:

spec ops (just a few guys) vs AI

and bunch of missions like mapfact`s laves in wind (or something like that)

When It comes to the players number on the server, I don`t want It to be uber battlefield with thousands of players...

BF2 comes to mind....It would be great, but it could turn into a nightmare...All those CS guys on this server, no communication at all, runing and shooting on each other...

Back to this mission from mapfact. If you are the main commander, and you`re coordinating those other 2/3 squads.

Who will listen to you in mp?

The action should be considered before the game starts, but then, who will watch the disscusion on the chatroom when some freaks from the old ofp community are talking about the strategy....

I `m just worrying about the MMOTFPS thingy. Large battlefield with large number of players, yeah...but there aren`t only technical limitations. Think about it.

Eventually, they could do something like that. We would gonna play our more `private` coop games, and wait till those cs idiots get borred, and than play mp on large scale

[Heatseeker 0]

I say limit vehicals to specific classes like pilots, armor crew members and stuff like that, otherwise it will be the same nightmare all over again, plus everyone will be rushing to grab the vehicals and infantry will suck, everyone will just pick a law launcher, a sniper rifle, grab a cobra... i say screw that crap and give us more realistic MP gameplay, we need a new game concept that gives "simulation" its justice, not BF/JO arcade stuff... i really hope vehicals wont take such an important role in the game and that their performance will also depend on infantry ground forces and their capability to paint targets and radio map coordinates for bombing, stuff like that... otherwise the game might turn out to play better without them damn vehicals .

[FatNinjaKid 0]

Right, I played Joint Operations with 150 ppl on one server and let me tell you: it sucks!

Everybody is running around like decapitated chicken. There are no tactics, no team work and there is absolutely nothing you as a single player can do to influence the outcome of the game. A large number of players is no guarantee for a good game. Personally I too would prefer small servers with up to 32 player but with lots of a.i. units.

On the other hand it would be understandable if BIS should go for a "pay to play" strategy since we all have enjoyed their stuff for thousands of hours without essentially having to pay for it. If they can think of a way to charge for this prolonged gaming experience they probably will. It should not surprise anyone. That is what companies do.

[LtUlrich 0]

In regards to Apollo's ideas on 'Server Grids'...

This idea could allow small servers on cablemodems to host 4-8 local, low-ping players, and could take part in multiprocessing as well, provided that the master sync server isn't too far off.

Bioware's Neverwinter Nights allows for server 'porting', which means that you can place a teleport in your map on your server that will then send the player, character and inventory and all, to a teleport on some other server someplace.  This is a distributed, user owned-and-run (on cablemodems at that) MMORPG that's totally free.

Once JIP can be implimented, this seems almost feasible for OFP, does it not?

EDIT: I must add that I never actually saw this work; Bioware quickly became disgustingly moneyhungry and I didn't feel like paying for the other 2/3 of a game I had already spent a good handful on.

[Apollo 0]

Quote[/b] ]Right, I played Joint Operations with 150 ppl on one server and let me tell you: it sucks!

Don't compare Ofp to JO.

Quote[/b] ]I `m just worrying about the MMOTFPS thingy. Large battlefield with large number of players, yeah...but there aren`t only technical limitations. Think about it.

But having a flexible server grid system is like having a JIP option ,it's handy for those who want it and it can be kinda turned of for those wo rather not have it.A server grid system might allow a lot more players on a server ,but it's still possible to put a limited server online wich host games with a server limit of for ex. 16 player.Basicly it's to the server admins own discretion.And given the costs of maintaining only 1 server already i figure there would still be a lot of "1 server" servers.But atleast that would be a flexible system of expanding a server depending on player needs.

There is a segment of players of the Ofp kinda games that would like the possibilety to play the game with considerably more people.

Games like WW2 online have a fair fanbase even for a MMOG wich costs a fair bit in monthly fee and wich isn't all that great graphicly.If Ofp could create a Server grid option it would make it kinda a semi MMOG ,it would never have a server like the WW2online mainfarme ,instead of thousands of players probably only a few hundreds could maximaly play ,but that would be a high number for the normal FPS game's out there ,it would be free compared to WW2online ,and it would suit IMO the Scale of OFP as we fight over large but not gigantic maps like WW2online.

Quote[/b] ]On the other hand it would be understandable if BIS should go for a "pay to play" strategy since we all have enjoyed their stuff for  thousands of hours without essentially having to pay for it. If they can think of a way to charge for this prolonged gaming experience they probably will. It should not surprise anyone. That is what companies do.

Implementing a "pay to play" system would keep a large mass of players of actually buying the game probably ,thus would hurt sales.

[FatNinjaKid 0]

Implementing a "pay to play" system would keep a large mass of players of actually buying the game probably ,thus would hurt sales.

And profit too...? It would be foolish for BIS not to consider "pay to play" with such a loyal fan base and all. Hey, I wouldnt like it just as much as you, but I have to admit I would probably pay.

[Morbid Angel 0]

I can honestly tell that I had a blast playing World War 2 Online (it got old plus it lost many players so I lost interest finally) ... and now this is something I know is not gonna happen - but IF BIS pulled a stunt and made a MMO out of their engine, I would subscribe for damn sure.

Other than that I will be happily enjoying the mp part of "Game 2" when its out ^^

[4 IN 1 0]

Ah! 30 minuts and your bored of all the chaos and lack of comunication, 30/50 or even much less well known, friendly players and you got 2 hours of gameplay fun guarantied .

I don't think so. I actually think that chaotic gameplay and lack of any teamwork will make it much more exciting and engaging experience.  

yes, watching noobs tked someone or being killed by his own stupidy is an exciting entertainment

[Victor_S. 0]

"Pay to Play" is evil. I have nothing more to say than that...

[sidhellfire 0]

Pay to play will at least scare away customers from East Europe. Noone here wiling to pay regular money for it i won't either. I had to cut off phone, everything that connects me to the world is internet now, and how would look p2p game? Most of players saved some money, and when they had them much enought - they have bought product. Actually it's easier to keep own server online instead of paying 1euro per each player which plays on it.

And forming huge battles would be extreamly fun, even with "noobs". Of course the number of them may be easly lowerd by few suggested server variables.

hmm let's think about thoose variables:

1. only players with clans may apply to the big battle (not a great idea i know)

2. players in order to enter must form a group of min. 4 players, or must push a battle commander to press "allow" button ;-) (nicer)

3. Account system which count's points on a player. ( i believe everything will have cd-key mangament system, like steam, or id software's ones) Only players with let's say min 10 battles after them, and got at least 10x more kills than teamkills. (best i think)