MMOTFPS??

[Morbid Angel 0]

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

No not really ... you have to understand that companies which make mmos have nutter expenses maintaining their servers ... PLUS they have rather big teams to add new content constantly ... making this game their only job. So basically, they HAVE to charge a monthly fee just to keep going. I know I know there are games like Guild Wars coming which dun cost monthly but only the price for the retail box, but there, you dun get addon stuff for free but for the price of a regular addon box.

So same story basically.

And again, if a tactical shooter comes out which is like OFP ... but mmo... I am there in an instant!

[bravo 6 0]

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...

I agree.

but there will be Big coop missions VS AIs with lots players (it just will). I wounder if we will have lag due to the extream action in map!

imagine a coop Vs AI with 40 people (if possible), there must be lots enemys in map so it can fullfill the pleasure of those 40 players.

As a mission maker i was/am (for some servers), i would like to know from the OFP2* Creators how much can i count on it.

will we have lag (graphic & connection lag) if lots units are implemented in a 40/60 players mission?

Go Team!

(*) might have diff name, arf!

[Heatseeker 0]

I believe that if you gather 40 people at a server it would be a waste to put them all shooting a.i. , i think coops are more interesting, organised and fun with smaller groups like 10, behiond that it problably gets too messy but a 20 vs 20 objective based adversarial game can be really good (objective based and realistic, not cti), i think one way to improve gameplay would be to split players in 5/6 man fireteams because when a bunch of guys stick close/together their more likely to be seen, naded and sniped one by one .

[4 IN 1 0]

i remembered that sometime ago Zeus did tried to get a 100 men Coop game work, and result in no choose but to kick high pingers for the 100 ppl run

[Phleep 0]

You could have coops where you have a squad or two of real people against AI with a couple of real commanders giving orders according to intel (sightings, satellite views, spies).

[Cyphus 0]

FWIW, there is an MMOFPS out there - Planetside - in which I've met many an OpFlash player. You get big field battles, tanks, aircraft, etc in which its not unusual to have 200 people all fighting in the same base-battle.

[blackdog~ 0]

Up to 32 players is fine, but you must remember that it would more than likely be economically unfeasible for most server admins to pay for something that could support upwards of 64 players...

[Garcia 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???

Ain't that just the SP campaign?

[Apollo 0]

Well i'm sticking to my guns.

No pure MMOG plz where one has to pay monthly fee's ,and i think BIS wouldn't go MMOG anyway.But plz expand the amount of players that can compete in MP as much as possible.

Therefore my proposition of a server grid option ,though i don't know how easy it would be to implement it ,and how much additional performance a second server could offer ,it all depends on how service's can be spread among servers and how certain servers could be specialized for a certain task.I figure the bottleneck of current MP gaming limit's is in the amount of net connections a server can handle that is already performing dedicated game service's ,then a conection server might actually increase performance a lot depending on certain factor's ,like network packet sizes and amounts over lan ,and multiple connection servers even more ,but in the end that would be limited also eventually by the performance of the dedicated server.

In the end that is what MMOG's do ,spread workload over multiple servers ,however MMOG's aim for player numbers in the thousands and game enviroments sometimes expantionally larger than thos of OFP ,thus they need a lot of servers to create that game world for wich then they have to charge the players for the servers.

Allowing customizable server grids would offer a new system to larger online games ,not a MMOG but a game with the posibilety to allow more players online than any other NON-MMOG MP FPS game out there withought additional server costs.Players would create and support the semi large server grids ,not BIS ,so it's no additional costs for them ,the can offer a semi MMOG withought having to charge their fanbase for servers ,thus not hurting sale's.the supportable players would be only in the 100's ,not in the thousands ,but for Ofp this is perfect.

IMO that would give the sequal of OFP1 another substantial advantage over it's competitors ,and it would very much fit it's scale to allow 200 players or more (depending on private server grids) on an Ofp map.

Also ,IMO ,if BIS wants to go further in creating a realistic war platform ,then increasing the number of unit's on map is a must ,afterall most opperations in RL easily consists of a few hundreds of combatants.Their dynamic SP campaign is a good direction to that goal.

IMO allowing a customizable server grid system would offer OFP players flexibilety in that area that is otherwise comon for OFP on many other area's ,one of OFP's major strenghts is it's flexibilety.

I really hope i can reach BIS with this idea ,it doesn't have to be implemented and i can understand when it wouldn't be technicly feasable ,but i would really like BIS it's feedback on this proposition ,as to know where i stand with this.Such a server system would really be my most preffered addition to Ofp.

[Placebo 29]

I really hope i can reach BIS with this idea

By posting such thoughts on the forums you are reaching BIS, there can of course be no guarantee that you will receive feedback or even that any/all suggested ideas will be implemented but we see everything

[Apollo 0]

I really hope i can reach BIS with this idea

By posting such thoughts on the forums you are reaching BIS, there can of course be no guarantee that you will receive feedback or even that any/all suggested ideas will be implemented but we see everything  

I was just scared that the suggestion might go unnoticed ,

what you said was all i needed to know.

From here on ,ill see if the thought was technicly/commercially feasible if BIS implements it ,if not then i know BIS had it's commercial/technical reasons not to implement it ,and i trust BIS in their judgement.

[DBR_ONIX 0]

I really hope OFP2 isn't a MMOFPS type game.. If it is, no addons..

You can't make 10000 people download an addon if someone gets it. The way it is just now is okay, give it JIP, better netcode (Support for lots of players on dedicated server), and you can make a Semi-MMOFPS game

But if it had loads of people on one server, like Planetside, you couldn't use addons in MP, and that wouldnt be good..

But, if you had support for large ammounts of players, you could run a MMO server the same as a normal server, just with lots of bandwidth

Yes I kinda repeated that, but I thought it was important enough to do so

- Ben

[sputnik monroe 102]

Why do you all think a persistent dynamic campaign has to be a pay MMO type game?

   Have any of you heard of Longbow, Falcon 4.0, Enemy Engaged, and Total air war? Heck back in the 486 33mhz days we had online persistent campaigns with Falcon 3, A10, and Mig 29 in which all three games could play together online in a persistent dynamic campaign.

    Dynamic persistent campaigns aren't a new thing that just came to be all the sudden. It's a lost idea from the golden age of simulations that has been recently rediscovered after a decades absence filled with ID, Unreal, and half life junk.

    Think of computer gaming 15 years ago as the height the Roman Empire. Then the barbarians came and caused the fall of civilization and the onset of the dark ages (doom and half life). Now it's the renaissance and lost knowledge is being rediscovered, relearned and built upon.

     Basically think of Maruk and Suma as Davinci and Michelangelo.

[ninjatek 0]

PlanetSide is still the most kick ass MMOFPS, but it is dated and a there is a huge void for a modern warfare AND modern engine MMOFPS.

Things I noticed comparing JO to PlanetSide. Both have a mixture of solo players, but PlanetSide utlized guilds which actually helped organize a lot of those unorganized players. In JO people just join a game and run around doing there own thing, maybe a few would coop tactically while using VOIP. In PS there was a lot more cordination for those in guilds, using VOIP or not. Allowing players to form squads and platoons also helps coordinate them better especially when given devices like in PS where squad leaders could mark waypoints that made it simple for those in the group to know what the actual target is and where. This could easily be done in Game 2 as well, with or without MMO aspect, and highly recommend it being added if the devs haven't already.

[therealFerox 0]

what BIS means is that like in rpgs such as morrowind, or the new one oblivion, on the map there will be lots of soldiers going about doing whatever they do and it would simulate a full theater war that you would be a part in. The npcs may have ended up being engaged at city X, and your on patrol somewhere, then all of a sudden orders come in to your platoon that is like " assist platoon y at city x, and clear it out." They war would go on and probably end eventually, even if you just decided to sit in the mess hall for days.

we are not talking like ww2ol where you would have a map 1/2 size of real europe and thousands of players on at one time. You will be lucky to see 100 person servers when ofp2 is released.

[ninjatek 0]

I could live with at least 64 player support.

[Goeth 0]

64 is enough imo, no need for more slots.

[Scrub 0]

Hmmm. lets see..   Possibly up to 64 players.  JIP.  There are reasonably priced, scaleable, parallel servers for rent with big pipes.  And remember the tenacity and raw creative power of the community.

Ok, maybe not MMOFPS, but definatly VLMOFPS (very large multiplayer online FPS) seems emminently probable.  *Especially if BIS gives us a few net tools or just hooks for our code.*  

[whisper 0]

Planetside fan here!

And it doesn't mean complete chaos, in fact I've seen in PS some of the most organized things ever. Massive infantry drops on ennemy held grounds, tank warfare with support squad running around for repair, rearms, etc...

It's absolutely not realistic, has many flaws and bugs, but as it is the only 1 bare WWIIOL available, it's still enjoyable.

Now, should it be done for future BIS product? I don't think BIS should center it on this. Give us tools for us to build something approaching, why not. Centering multiplayer part of the game on being massive, no.