I will pay for an add-on for proper multiplayer

[Dangus 0]

I am willing to pay 10 dollars for an add-on that does the following:

1) Join in progress

2) Sane bandwidth use

3) Player character selection(rather then having the mapper decide what type of units are involved)

4) AI that uses resupply

5) AI that can't see through hills and shoot like an expert marksman even on Cadet mode

6) Anti-Armor weapons that are harder to use for those who are not AT soldiers

7) Adequate netcode

8) More non-dedicated server options

9) An address book

10) More gameplay modes

11) Co-op save games

12) Fix problems with getting into boats

13) Fix problems with getting into vehicles. Sometimes you just suddenly cannot get into or out of vehicles with the current code.

14) Make the supply ship driveable

15) Support more guns from one vehicle, so the BMP can meet it's true potential, and people inside helicopters can defend themselves better.

16) No parachuting out of helicopters or tanks(yes, you can parachute out of a tank, or even a SCUD launcher if you get it high enough into the air)

[Dangus 0]

17) RPG, LAW, etc. DO NOT have an optical scope on them IRL. This should be removed. It makes light armor just about completely worthless in MP, and makes shooting down choppers with disposable AT launchers much too easy.

18) RPG, LAW, etc. ARE NOT reloadable! Either make people carry more than one, or give them just one shot(forcing them to work as a team if they wanna bust armor)

19) add anti-personel mines like claymores, and make them kinda hard to spot, like little bits of shrubbery or something.

20) Helicopters and especially A-10s should be able to select targets without putting the mouse over them, especially since the damn mouse steers the craft at the same time....

[Hudson 0]

10 dollars huh? I would pay more than that for "Join in Progress" alone!

[Jusupov 0]

I'd pay anything for linux-dedicated.

[KaRRiLLioN 0]

LOL I'd pay $50 for a mp addon with all of that in it, or even if it only added join while game in session.

[rekrul 7]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Dangus @ Jan. 16 2002,18:49)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">18) RPG, LAW, etc. ARE NOT reloadable! Either make people carry more than one, or give them just one shot(forcing them to work as a team if they wanna bust armor)<span id='postcolor'>

It's only the LAW wich isn't reloadable. RPG and Carl Gustaf are.

But yes, I'd also pay extra for an MP add-on server disc. I would also like some more (and bigger) MP missions on it.

Oh and one more demand: It shouldn't be bug riddled so we have to wait 4-5 months for it to acceptable. =P

-Rekrul

[Col Rambo SBS 0]

I agree, $10 ( or Å6.25 in the UK ) is worth join in progress allone.

The other game types can be created by using the triggers and assosiated commands correctly.

Come on BIS, get your heads out of the sand, this is the Umpteenth time this has been asked for.( something which it should have shipped with in the first place )

[Dangus 0]

Exactly. Every major FPS since like 1996 has had join in progress. Not including it on OFP was a HUGE mistake. What a shame to see such a spectacular game in single player only to find that it's multiplay is nowhere near finished, and has a UI that could scare the dead.

[Placebo 29]

Did Bis not say from day one that Opf was going to be a fantastic SP game with MP elements added on to it?

[Col Rambo SBS 0]

BIS or Codemasters did give an interview where they stated huge MP battles will be possible with up to 100 players per side, and online war would be possible, depending on Hardware in use.

Now its like having the Biggest and Best fanciest Firework, but no match to light it.

[Placebo 29]

100 players per side? I don't remember reading that, perhaps on a top quality LAN but certainly not over the net

[mahuja 12]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

20) Helicopters and especially A-10s should be able to select targets without putting the mouse over them, especially since the damn mouse steers the craft at the same time....

<span id='postcolor'>

Discovered the ALT key? It's called mouselook and will let you move your mouse (and look somewhere) without steering.

NUM * provides a toggle for this - I always do helo flying in this mode.

[Dangus 0]

Real helicopter HUDs do not need manual pointing for targetting on vehicles, not sure why the one's in OFP should either. Targets within range should be selectable by cycling through them like on a real aircraft or tank. Human sized targets are a bit trickier, they can be locked in on but usually that requires a manual designation, though tanks do this a lot better than aircraft do.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Did Bis not say from day one that Opf was going to be a fantastic SP game with MP elements added on to it?<span id='postcolor'>

This is precisely why I am offering to pay for these features rather than calling for BIS's heads on a stick. OFP offers a lot that is truely worth my time, but it suffers HEAVILY on replayability due to poor interface features and bad multiplayer options. The only truely enjoyable multiplayer I have had has been entirely based on cooperative multiplayer maps, particularly those made by the mapper "Windowlicker".

In one multiplayer game I played, one of the guys on my team grabbed our BMP and drove it off into the woods and hid there until everyone on both sides used up all the RPG and LAW rounds, and just about all the handgrenades as well. He then comes out of the woods, two of us hop in with him. Me as gunner, and we just drove around destroying everything in our path. We ran over players, AI, blew up what little vehicles they had left, and just generally caused complete havoc. Nobody could stop us. Why? Because we were playing one of the included mp maps, no vehicle respawn, limited resupply, except the resupply truck was able to endlessly rearm our BMP, and nobody could destroy it because we hid it so well.

Stuff like that is precisely the sort of problems you encounter in a half-finished multiplayer game.

I do not regret the money spent on OFP, the single player was worth my money. Again, that is why I am offering to pay money for an add-on that makes the game good in multiplayer. Hire John Carmack if you have to, but do SOMETHING, I will buy it, and I know most others here would as well. Rather than releasing new tanks, planes, guns, etc, most of us would much rather have better online play options.

[Dr Jekyll 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Dangus @ Jan. 19 2002,07:58)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Real helicopter HUDs do not need manual pointing for targetting on vehicles, not sure why the one's in OFP should either. Targets within range should be selectable by cycling through them like on a real aircraft or tank. Human sized targets are a bit trickier, they can be locked in on but usually that requires a manual designation, though tanks do this a lot better than aircraft do.<span id='postcolor'>

That's exactly how the "cycle targets" key functions, tried that yet?

[Dangus 0]

Yes, and it doesn't work.....

Is this just a bug I am experiencing?

[rekrul 7]

I've tried hitting the tab like a mad man too, but it doesn't cycle at all. However I've only tried this on MP games and the dots are usually white (prolly because they're unmanned).

-Rekrul

[suma 8]

If vehicle dot is white, it is because its engine is off. In this case onboard radar/IR detection has no way to reliably distinguish it from destroyed target (as I was told, this is how it really works). Automatic locking works only for active ("engine on") targets.

[Dr Jekyll 0]

So you are basicly saying that a tank is "hidden" if it's engine is off, does the AI fall for the trick or do they just fire at will. (I imagine placing a tank somewhere and turn it's engine off, then wait until someone comes by)

[rekrul 7]

Oh. Then it's actually a cool feature.

[suma 8]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Dr Jekyll @ Jan. 23 2002,16:58)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">So you are basicly saying that a tank is "hidden" if it's engine is off, does the AI fall for the trick or do they just fire at will.<span id='postcolor'>

Tank is not "hidden", it is visible on radar, but it seems to be empty. AI will probably consider it empty unless it will clearly see (visually) some kind of activity (turning turret, firing).

[Col Rambo SBS 0]

Wasnt this post supposed to be about the lack of good Multiplayer???

Suma, since this post has got your attention, please take note that there are people willing to PAY fro a proper good multiplayer for Flashpoint.

The current system is hopeless for decent sized MP games.

Have you ever Played Deltaforce 2 or DeltaForce Land warrior ?

Automatic map rotation, Ability for people to come and go as they see fit, its the key to bigger things on flashpoint. The current Setup is too lame to be a serious Multiplayer game.

Its like making the perfect body, and then shoving the head of a Donky on it.

[madmike 0]

14. there is an addon that make the LST moveable and it can be steered.

there is also one that has working guns on it

[rekrul 7]

Rambo:

First of all, Suma is a coder and this is a Business Mangement decision so he really can't comment on it. I'm sure he and BIS are aware of the demand for better MP tho.

Second, DS are what makes a MP game popular. If they were to charge the backbone of the MP community, that is not a good signal.

Third, if they can make it better, I'm sure they will but I think it would be wiser to make a OFP 2 with better netcode, and a free DS program. Make it Linux comaptible and you have a winner. Not only will it give them time to remake it properly, but also money wich is quite cruicial.

I don't think BIS/Codemasters will sell anymore copies by making a better MP part of the game, hence it would not be wise of them to make MP add-on, but rather OFP 2 (War on terrorism, perhaps ;).

-Lurker

[Horse 0]

Firstly to Dangus: I agree 110% with your list of problems. Here in NZ, games retail for around NZ$100, add-ons to an existing game for around NZ$60. I'd pay NZ$60 for an add-on to OFP that made multiplayer work. But I'm not holding my breath. From comments here made by BIS developers over the last 6 months, it's quite clear they fundamentally don't understand what online play is all about.

Secondly, Rekrul said:

> I don't think BIS/Codemasters will sell anymore copies by

> making a better MP part of the game

For about 18 months now I've been saying one thing - if you want to make money in the games industry, then look closely at succesful examples - namely Valve.

Here's the Valve recipe for making loads of money off MP:

1. Ensure your game has a reasonably good MP engine, but don't stress over it - you'll have 3 years to perfect it.

2. Give away all the tools and hugely support the mod community, because someone out there is going to make your big ticket game for you (eg Counter-Strike).

3. Use CD keys and central auth servers containing only the keys that were actually shipped to prevent piracy. Just using fancy hash algorithms isn't enough, someone will always crack it (not to mention bogus CD anticopy schemes), but putting only shipped keys on the auth server (which are randomly distributed and only a tiny fraction of the total keyspace) ensures that the pirates are screwed. So people have to keep buying your original game, even 3 years later, to keep playing the latest mod variant online.

It's that simple. It continuously amazes me that other game companies can't figure this out. I'm convinced this is why Valve hasn't released TF2 - they don't need to yet. The revenue stream from the existing HL engine has held up enough that they can afford to keep working on TF2.

Finally, Independence Lost. I'm hoping (or praying) that someone in the USMC has had enough technical Clue to say to BIS, "here's loads of money, but these are the deficiencies in the OFP MP design that we want addressed as part of this contract" and then held a gun to their head until they deliver.

I certainly think IL will be a separate game rather than an OFP add-on. Why sell an add-on to me for NZ$60 when you can make some small changes to the engine, call it a new game and sell it for NZ$100? I just hope they think of the long term earnings bonanza if they fixed MP - just look at Dangus' list for ideas on where to start!

Horse.

[duuk 0]

I totally agree with Horse and Dangus. I would be willing to pay for a better MP interface, including the all-important JIP (Join In Progress).

I bought OFP two weeks ago, and as a newbie I see this game fresh; both its good sides (the great graphics, all the weapons, vehicles and possibilities) and the bad sides (the bugs, like the "get into a vehicle at the same time" bug) and the time it takes to join a decent game.

This is a great game, but with a flawed setup. Thats my verdict for now. I hope I will go on playing it!

lol....as a newbie I have made some teamkills. I then wanted to quit the game (I felt so embarrassed) but I hesitated since I knew it would take me 20 minutes or more to join a new game......*sigh*

I am surprised about the arguments against JIP. - From a technical point of view: if it is possible to save a single-player game, then why can't you 'save' a multiplayer game and update the world for the new player? Sure it is difficult but hardly impossible! - From a simulation point of view: yes, it is more realistic to disallow in-game joining, but I reserve realism for the Single-Player game. The Multi-Player game is made for multiple players to come together and play the game...lol.... it is really very simple!

OFP is a great game. Keep up the good work!