Large scale PvP coop - an idea

[xawery 0]

Hello all,

before I begin, let me state that I am not a mission maker. My knowledge of scripting and mission making can barely be called rudimentary

Some two years ago I was a member of the OFP squad called SWAF. One of the activities this squad used to participate in were Clan Wars. These were in fact a series of PvP coops, connected by a story line. For example, in the first mission the attacking force would have to establish a bridge head, in the second it would have to advance to strategic points on the island etc. Of course, the defending force would have to hinder their progress. The missions were an excellent mix of combined arms and spec op missions: special forces would disable AA defences, aearial units would perform recon and offer CAS, while infantry and armoured units would capture and hold ground. Interestingly, the most exciting and suspenseful aspect were the radio communications: a single commander (who did not participate in the fighting) would oversee the progress of the troops and coordinate the operation. A disciplined chain of command was established, and everyone agreed that "deadmen don't talk": if you're dead, you do not communicate. This created some of the most exciting moments in my OFP career. It was so cool to hear the commander desperately try to establish contact with the infantry leader, oblivious to the fact that the whole infantry contingent had been wiped out by friendly arty fire. Great stuff!

I have always had the idea that this is what OFP is all about: combined arms encounters, where everyone has a task which is essential to the success of the operation. Establishing a chain of command using radio communications overcomes OFP's original shortcoming - the lack of CoC beyond squad level. And this without the need of lag-causing scripts! In my experience, proper radio communications are one of the most immersive aspects of online play, especially in a game so well suited for large-scale cooperation as OFP.

These Wargames had one big flaw however: the lack of scale. Every soldier in-game was played by a human. This resulted in the ridiculous situation of an island being invaded by 12 people... And being defended by the same amount of soldiers. This called for some serious suspension-of-disbelief on the part of the players to truly enjoy it. This made the whole concept less than popular. Which is a shame!

I have been suffering from some insomnia lately. Laying wide awake in bed, I have had enough time to think about a lot of stuff, including OFP. A thought occured to me - would it be impossible to incorporate AI in the above concept in order to overcome the limited scale? Just imagine: the players could play squad commanders, with the ability to 'reincarnate' in squad mates should they be killed. This would simulate the idea of the second-in-rank taking command. Even with only 6 players on both sides this would expand each force to at least platoon scale. Of course, this still isn't very realistic when invading an island, but it's better than 12 v 12...

Also (and this is a rather experimental idea), the commander could even stay out of the game. As he doesn't participate in the fighting, he could be just a coordinating voice on Team Speak. How cool would that be! There you are, with only a map of the AO and a headset to coordinate the movement of your troops. Performing periodical status checks and moving pawns on the map to indicate the position of the troops. I realise this isn't everyone's cup of tea, but to me this sounds very cool.

I have no idea whether this would be technically possible. I don't know whether this amount of AI would cause a lot of lag. Intuitively, I don't think it would be that bad: 6 squads on both sides, that shouldn't be too laggy, right? There would be no need for extra scripts to simulate the CoC, as that would be done purely via TS or another comms program. Perhaps a trigger or two to check who controls a strategic point.

That's pretty much what I had in mind. Let me know what you think! Does the concept sound appealing? Is it at all feasible? Let me know...

Regards,

X.

[berghoff 11]

Ah Xawery I know what you mean. I don't know but you missed some great co-ops in the finals active days of SWAF (I called it Combined Arms which I started on a long time ago, later known as Combined Arms Night). We've played a campaign with a story with a huge large scale area of operation (nearly covering 50% of an island) against AI forces. But we didn't have other AI under our control however due to lag issues but those games were very nice to play.

We combined Air wing, tanks, infantry and the rangers (mosty scout and painting missions) to complete a set of objectives. There was nice chain of command during these missions, and whoever got MIA our taking captive in the mission he was in the next mission also MIA for nice rescue mission altough we never came to that point really as we don't have much active members anymore. Our goal is to continue this type of 'online campaign' when ArmA is out however.

Truely nice when tanks move in to clear a village and the infantry does the final cleanup and with the air support.

Damn typo's

[xawery 0]

Hi Berg,

though I left SWAF quite some time ago, I kept track of the forums and the site. I saw the Combined Arms missions and the concept seemed quite nice. Still, Player vs AI is a somewhat limited type of game. The AI is not good at (or even able to) making strategic decisions. It's the Player vs Player variant that truly interests me.

[lwlooz 0]

Well,it is technically possible on a Platoon size.We at Zeus have been trying to get into the exact game-type you mentioned since quite some time now,but because OFP is old and all and most people are busy with RL,we don't have that many missions.

(If you want to read up on it ->Zeus PvP Coop Missions thread).

Personally I think this Humans controlling AI vs Humans controlling AI is the way to go forward,you can script the AI what you want,if you have humans on the OPFOR doing the tactical thinking,that is always the better way to go.

But there are also some problems.The AI in OFP is .. well,lets say.. they aren't the smartest folks around.That is why those type of missions very easily can turn into just some sort of TDM. That happens as soon as some human players take advantage of their abilities over the AI(for example a human sniper killing platoons by his own ).

As a conclusion,as long as people only act like SL's(SquadLeaders) and coordinate their AI via their binocs(that means do no shooting themselves) you can get pretty nice battles.As soon as you get some human vs AI battles you can get some pretty frustrating battles.

I really look forward to ArmA,personally unlike most folks I hope its not optimized for shiny,l33t SF blow the shit out of enemy battalions with roxxor death animations and heck lot of gore,but rather optimized for a conventional Blufor vs Redfor type of virtual exercise thing.

Edit: Btw,I only can encourage mission makers to get into this type of missions and I dont only say that because I want to have more to play

[xawery 0]

Hi Lwlooz,

it's good to hear that this concept appeals to someone besides me Incidentally, I've been monitoring the Zeus PvP thread for some time, and it was (amongst other things) your game style that inspired me to give this thing some thought. As to the players abusing their superiority to AI - in my experience, human players can behave as absurdly as the AI in multiplayer Besides, an AI squad led by a human is less idiotic in it's behaviour than a pure AI squad. Certainly, one human with a sniper rifle can easily eliminate whole squads, but it would be up to the mission maker to make such weapons not available to players (squad leaders with sniper rifles are not very realistic to boot). Besides, the mission maker could opt for addons which use weapons which are less accurate than stock BIS weapons (say JAM HD, or FFUR). In 'vanilla' OFP, a well-hidden soldier armed with an MP5 could easily eliminate a whole squad. In FFUR, this is nigh-impossible. This encourages the player to rely much more on his squadmates (at least in my case ). Such conditions put a nice stop to any rambo-behaviour human squad leaders might show.

[General Barron 0]

I have always had the idea that this is what OFP is all about: combined arms encounters, where everyone has a task which is essential to the success of the operation.

I totally agree. These types of missions are really where OFP shines.

I haven't been working on missions for quite some time now, but I really have a hankerin' to make something along these lines... Some thoughts:

If you are going to have a player 'commander', he is going to need to have access to resources that other players do not, such as calling in airstrikes, or directing some AI forces, or seeing where everybody else is, etc. This encourages him to stay out of combat, instead focusing on coordinating the larger effort; because if he dies, the side as a whole loses BIG.

If players are going to control squads (which they should, and I don't see how that would cause much lag unless you had like 20 players), then I wouldn't suggest they 'respawn' into their old squadmates. This will result in players just leaving their squad out of harm's way, so they always have a large supply of 'extra lives'. If the player only gets 1 life, then he will be inclined to actually use his squad to its fullest.

The only problem would be when someone dies, and then has to wait 20 minutes in order to play again. But as long as the mission is good enough, then it should be worth it, right?

[Mr. Cheese 0]

I have always had the idea that this is what OFP is all about: combined arms encounters, where everyone has a task which is essential to the success of the operation.

I totally agree. These types of missions are really where OFP shines.

I haven't been working on missions for quite some time now, but I really have a hankerin' to make something along these lines... Some thoughts:

If you are going to have a player 'commander', he is going to need to have access to resources that other players do not, such as calling in airstrikes, or directing some AI forces, or seeing where everybody else is, etc. This encourages him to stay out of combat, instead focusing on coordinating the larger effort; because if he dies, the side as a whole loses BIG.

If players are going to control squads (which they should, and I don't see how that would cause much lag unless you had like 20 players), then I wouldn't suggest they 'respawn' into their old squadmates. This will result in players just leaving their squad out of harm's way, so they always have a large supply of 'extra lives'. If the player only gets 1 life, then he will be inclined to actually use his squad to its fullest.

The only problem would be when someone dies, and then has to wait 20 minutes in order to play again. But as long as the mission is good enough, then it should be worth it, right?

Don't mean to slate you, but most of that is proved wrong on Zeus.

Player commanders naturally have more resources - they command a platoon or more. 'nuff said. [although in Zeus missions, we usually have a mortar team]

We have group respawn in Zeus and everyone runs into combat anyway. Orders are orders, regardless of whether you're going to run out of respawn. To my knowledge, there are no cases of leaving squads behind and having a player war. Squads are always used to full potential.

Perhaps you should come join us one time? :P

[Jinef 2]

Well, when you say large scale here are some rough numbers of my zeus missions.

The best size I found was platoon vs platoon.

Platoon = 3/5 squads/7-12 men per squad.

Usually supported by mortar/HMG/vehicle.

12 players can run a decent platoon vs platoon.

6 players in these positions can operate a 30-50 man platoon:

1 - command squad

1 - rifle squad

1 - rifle squad

1 - rifle squad

1 - weapon squad

1 - mortar team

For full company you are going to need 18 vs 18 which is quite unattainable in these late of days of OFP. It would also strain a few PCs.

A mission I am doing at the moment is going to have -

1x Mech Inf Plt (4 Bradleys + 4 squads)

2x Motorised infantry squads

1x Command squad

1x Ah-1 CAS

1x M109 Battery

1x Convoy

1x Support group

1x SF recon team

VS

2 platoons of Russian Infantry

1x T72

1x 105mm Battery

1x 82mm Mortar Section

1x SF recon team

Scenario - West Secures The Road. East Defends.

This is the largest PvP coop I have made and I estimate it will need 24 people or so to do properly.

The mission will require a cunning East commander to slow the advance of the West. While falling back all the way to avoid the sheer firepower of the yabkees.

so... it is being done. The concept is possible.

My best pvp coop in my opinion is probably Bridge Assault on FDF east border. Inspired by a crazy Finnish drunkard and operation market garden.

[General Barron 0]

Perhaps you should come join us one time? :P

Agreed, I will definately look into it. Problem is, with me living on the opposite end of the globe from most (European) OFP players, the times of when I can play don't usually mesh with everybody else's...

[Jinef 2]

It would be difficult.

To appear at 21:00 GMT (Early enough for 3-4 hours of games) you would need to join the server at 13:00.

Gaming times would be 13:00-17:00 on Thursday and Saturday US Pacific Time.

However it has been known on special occasions for Zeus players to stay up until 02:00 on some nights giving extra leeway.

[xawery 0]

Hey all,

good to see all the responses. I was wondering whether such a concept would appeal to anyone, given that most MP missions being played are CTF's, CS-like shoebox DMs or simple Player vs AI coops. I am glad my assumptions were proven wrong!

@General Barron:

I agree that given the players only one life stimulates cautiousness, at least in theory. But it would be impractical, I think. First, if you are playing such a specific kind of game, I believe it is safe to assume that your fellow players are people who appreciate this kind of gameplay and aren't Hexen Kessel rambo's. Second, if the player is killed (and one doesn't act gung-ho to get killed in OFP), the whole squad is taken out of action as there is no-one to lead it. That isn't very realistic - in RL, the second in rank would take command. I think a certain level of abstraction would be acceptable in this kind of mission. I also agree with Mr. Cheese: the commander's extra resources are his ability to command a whole platoon, full stop. Adding artillery would of course be very interesting, although I do not know how this can or should be incorporated. It seems however that Zeus have already accomplished that.

@Jinef:

What you have described is exactly what I had in mind. I am glad to see that 6 v 6 players can run a decent platoon vs platoon game. Your 12 v 12 idea looks very interesting, but I think one has to bear in mind the limitations of OFP's MP code... I can't recall many online games involving so many players that weren't distraught by players getting disconnected etc. But perhaps things have changed, I don't know: it's been a while since I played OFP online.

Also, I wonder: how is the commander incorporated in the Zeus coops? Is he stashed away someplace safe, or does he advance with his troops?

Regards,

X.

[lwlooz 0]

The commander,being a platoon leader,is always where he wants to be,usually leading his men into combat.At platoon level you dont have that much forces to sit in the rear in your HQ and make operational maneouvers with your sections,squads or fireteams in my opinion.(Well,not that I didnt play like that before but it usually fails,especially if you play against someone who does it properly like og ).That is as true in the offence as it is in the defence,although there you have some more room to get a comfy place for your HQ section(which can be the official FM-based one or a made up squad to give him a little firepower,I personally prefer the FM-one because the Platoon Leader imo should be mainly there to coordinate the battle,not lead a squad into combat).

I guess if ArmA supports Company vs Company battles,the CO can set up a Command Post somewhere warm and nice(in the defence that is).

Another interesting concept is what OFPCC wants to do.You have your platoonvsplatoon engagements,but outside OFP you have a battalionvsbattalion fight on a map.

Btw: I have to second what has been said about respawn.Imo you lead a fighting force into combat.Now if one guy of your squad dies,you still have the rest of it(Group Respawn).If someone gives a shit about dieing and goes in rambo style(Which I yet have to see,I mean people playing DM and that kind of stuff usually dont have the attention span to A) Get the needed addons and B) to wait until the commanders explained the plan to everyone.) he still wastes the whole group.With only one respawn you would lose all the fighting force at once,one well placed Sniper-shot and a whole squad is taken out of action

[fer 21]

Hi Xawery,

Saw your post - is that the same SWAF as the one that included folks like Espectro?

Much of what you wrote above resonated with me, although like you my halcyon OFP days seem behind me, as TZW is not playing much together at present (like everyone else we await ArmA).

The idea of more interesting and large-scale PvP missions is worth exploring, and I think we should give a lot of credit to the CTI crowd for creating something that is much more than DM. However, I think CTI suffers from a lack of compelling narrative, and after a while it can be repititious in its own way.

I suspect that a lot of it boils down to the conflict between those who enjoy the extra effort involved in playing in a truly co-operative manner (chains of command etc), and those who really just want the single-player experience with some humans thrown-in (which is fair enough).

A while ago I started trying to encourage more realistic way of writing Coop missions, which took the form of a dogma called 'CoopA'. This was primarily for the VBS1 crowd, but a lot of it (even some of the scripting resources) is still relevant to OFP. You can check it out at:

http://www.ballisticaddonstudios.com/coopa/

Anyway, the real reason for posting was to let you know about something else which I have been working on for fun - a platoon-level PvP mission. I've just posted a message about it at:

http://www.flashpoint1985.com/cgi-bin....t=50060

It's not (at this stage) overly-complex, nor is it intended to be, but it might serve as a start for the kinds of ideas you have written about. For example, adding in CAS or AFV elements would be easy to do.

The biggest challenge is probably finding like-minded players and mission-makers. However, here is at least the best place to start collecting them

- Fer <TZW>

[cain2001 0]

I would like to see a Invastion/defend mission.

West starts with 10 players, 1 General, 1 co general, , 4 Platoon leaders and 4 Co platoon leaders. Each platoon commander can carry up to 3 squads. (deploy and reclaim)

At the mission start up, West general have supply screen. (all carried in his LST Ship)

5 M60s

2 M1A1s

4 M113s

5 Bots

160 soldier

8 wonded

20 reserv

His objective is to select from which direction and where on the map to attack everon. He can select to att it with platoon alphaone to alhpasix St.pierre. Using 4 bots and 3 M113s. He adds the soldiers into the (create new assualt point) box and assigns Captain Cain and Capten BlueBerry to lead the attack with their platoons.

He saves the rest of his comapny as backup.

He press ready and if the east general is ready the assualt can begin.

The east generals objective is to use his 600 infantry, 12 t-80s, ect ect and deploy them all over the island as protection. Lucky west he only deployed 2 bmps and 24 soldiers in St.pierre.

Game goes into a black screen, server deployes all the troops and "move 1 starts". West have 20min to capure St.pierre and East have 20min to hold it. If west capures St.pierre (which is located at the water) The general will be able to transport troops and light armoured tanks to that location every round. If west fails, he have to either reattack or chose a new location.

This means its the Generals that decided what move to make, and its the skill of his platoon commanders that decide fi they win or not. East could send backup to St.pierre or they could save up more tanks and preper to defend the town aboe st.pierre. Its all what the general does.

This aint no 10000 ais cti, this is real life based. If you capture the airport, you will be able to use more ai reinforcements, the tactical capures on the map reflects the outcome of the game. That is why East general would never leave an important city as st.pierre east gaurded.

20 min later, the map is updated and the general have new towns to attack, he can see the amount of deaths, injuries and alot more. Everything to make sure his next step is the right one.

Sure its alot of scripting and it would be alot of looking at a screen. And it might be hard to get a good general system that count deaths, injuries, reinforcements, dammage tanks, weather and selecable routs for the covjoys that carry ammo to the cities inland, and to select if they should be gaurded of if all troops should be in the frontline.

But holyhell what a god i would feel like knowning I capured a montignac with only 2 platoons and a m113. Imagine the bragging i could do

And if co platoonleader does a good job, he should be able to climb in ranks to one point of the game, make the genrals situation

and that is why i cant sleep.

[R0adki11 3945]

sounds a really well thought out concept, is there any way to link servers so different servers could play different parts of the invasion, so say server 1 is special forces team they are inserted behind enemy lines to disable Anti aircraft battries, SAMs etc and radar, so if doing so on server 2 the airsupport will not have to worry about AA if the SF get the job done, server 3 cud be the invasion, and all linked to say a master server which has an overview of the entire battlefield or island and which updates it self as the other servers feed back the information.

So it would be an ever changing battlefield, but i doubt this would be even remotely possible would it ?

cause servers talking to each other is well i dunno

well its another concept to add to the pile, it be huge though if it was PvP, but for anythink like this i think we will have to wait for AA