Bohemia eyes persistent multiplayer battlefields

[txalin 2]

Quote[/b] ]Wednesday 17-Jan-2007 12:47 PM Managing director Marek Spanel tells CVG that persistent multiplayer battlefields are the future

Bohemia Interactive's managing director Marek Spanel spoke to CVG of the likelihood of persistent multiplayer battlefields being introduced to its military sim Armed Assault in the future.

Although Spanel said that such a multiplayer feature "is something that really isn't present in the game as of now", when we met up with him earlier today, he did explain that it's "something we hope will be evolving over time".

"Due to the nature of the game, it's possible to have a large number of troops, and it's logical to go in this direction," he said. "Probably one of the modes that comes nearest is called Capture the Island. That's a mode in the game where you play on the entire island and there are sectors that you take control of and build bases there.

"This is the kind of direction but it will certainly take months and months to fully get to a persistent battlefield."

Armed Assault is Bohemia's follow-up to its multi-million selling Operation Flashpoint. Similar to Operation Flashpoint, it's a hardcore sandbox military sim where infantry and vehicular combat occurs on a huge island. Armed Assault is due out in the UK on February 16 - keep eyes peeled for a preview hitting these pages shortly.

Source: http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=155692

[Jack-UK 0]

Nice find...

One of our members in SWAF thought up the idea of a persistant 'SWAF island' map which would become a virtual base for us. This was back before ArmA was nowhere near released.. i think maybe in 2005? We were gonna build an island for it, and use our leet skilled ones among us to build buildings etc etc and use it as a virtual base for meetings, trainings, etc with the use of scripts to spawn AI or random missions which we could use.

Though with all this lag when maps are running for a long time doesnt look like it will be happening soon...

[Rune 0]

Hmm, BI CTI is not persistant ...I feel some hope again for saving in multiplayer

[aus_twisted 0]

Maybe when BIS figure out how to add a remove dead units script it will be possible lol, until then it's up to the community to use such things.

[UNN 0]

Quote[/b] ]Hmm, BI CTI is not persistant  ...I feel some hope again for saving in multiplayer

It's possible now. Only you need a dedicated client along with your server. But if BIS are seriously looking into the possibility, then things are looking up

[Rune 0]

It's possible now.

Saving in multiplayer ?

[rekrul 7]

Quote[/b] ]it's possible to have a large number of troops

Well that's a stretch.

You can have it, but with ridiculous low server fps.

[deady 0]

I'm not convinced.

Persistant means stats and ranks, and possibly subscription fees.

I don't like any of those things

[Espectro (DayZ) 0]

I doubt BI means this, though - and are probably just saying it to incriese sale etc.

I don't think BI know what they or their publishers have to do to get real persistant worlds.

Their own 24/7 online servers with an EXTREMELY stable server .exe. We are very far from that now.

We need servers and game optimised so that it's possible to have servers with more than 50 people at once without server fps goes rotbottom on even the highest highend machine.

Maybe in a few years... Or does BI got something up in their sleves that is so different from what we have already seen infrastucture-wise of the server .exe and client?

[dob 0]

+1 for BIS

You want what ?! its a game in first, simulator in 2nd...

You want play 24/7

whith ofp my score is 6h30 in cti, it is persistent?

but whith just 6 players;

now persitent 30vs30

in cti whith end condition: "destroy enemy base" could be infinity game

[UNN 0]

Quote[/b] ]Saving in multiplayer

That’s assuming savegame still works in Arma during a MP game. But yeah, you just broadcast all the info you want to save as global variables. Then get the server admin to setup a client dedicated to capturing the info and converting it into a useable file format for the server. Not exactly a neat solution, but I reckon it's possible.

Quote[/b] ] don't think BI know what they or their publishers have to do to get real persistant worlds.

Their own 24/7 online servers with an EXTREMELY stable server .exe. We are very far from that now.

We need servers and game optimised so that it's possible to have servers with more than 50 people at once without server fps goes rotbottom on even the highest highend machine.

BIS could still go a long way to allow us to come close to it though. A system to allow all the relevant info to be easily saved and restored, user accounts e.t.c Even if it's not a true 24\7 server, allowing us to play games that last for weeks (all be it not in real time) will open up quite a few possibilities.

[Dwarden 1124]

well considering authors of Quaker Wars : Enemy Territory announced no max limit in players for servers (what hw can handle) like ArmA ...

then persistent type of MP battlefields became "solid" selling point

you can await more upcoming titles from EA or UBI to try "sell" by it ...

[Rune 0]

That’s assuming savegame still works in Arma during a MP game.

Hmm, I wouldn't be too optimistic, ArmA has blocked other such things that worked in OFP - I am just hoping it is because they are planning to do it properly soon...

Quote[/b] ]BIS could still go a long way to allow us to come close to it though. A system to allow all the relevant info to be easily saved and restored, user accounts e.t.c Even if it's not a true 24\7 server, allowing us to play games that last for weeks (all be it not in real time) will open up quite a few possibilities.

You are right, I'd be so damn happy if I got even something as limited as two scripting commands to save and load data in multiplayer.

For me the saving is way more important than the 24/7 server, I want to use the saving for small group cooperative play in lengthy campaigns. At the moment you'd be limited to how long you can schedule a session to be, and if it takes longer or if someone has to leave early the whole thing is lost before it can be completed - very frustrating. That is not to say that I'd never enjoy taking part in a game in a continuously progressing campaign game, but that sort of thing takes a long time per session to be really fun for me, and it is not the thing I really want anyway. What I really would like is to play 50+h campaigns where I am there with a few friends from start to finish - no way to do that without saving. The jumping in and out of a progressing world makes you miss out on some things, very hard to make a good strategic gameplan and follow it through that way for instance. The flexibility of saving games for later cannot be ignored - especially for a community that is probably a little older on average than most other gaming communities and people are thus more likely to have serious problems playing for 5+h in a single session without family emergencies, jobs or old-age-sudden-need-for-sleep and such annoyances getting in the way.

[lwlooz 0]

Hello,

Indeed I have to second that. Saving in Multiplayer would make real proper long-play multiplayer games possible , not just creating a server that maybe runs a few days non-stop without crashing and proudly calling that "Persistent battlefield" .

It wouldn't hurt if the JIP implementation was improved as well

[script-Control wise]

I also have my doubts that BIS has any clue what a persistent battlefield would require [supply,Chain of Command,yada yada].

They probably would go for a large-scale CTF with vehicle-buying at every town and call it "Ultimate Wargamez0r"

[Heatseeker 0]

Maybe when BIS figure out how to add a remove dead units script it will be possible lol, until then it's up to the community to use such things.

Havent they "figured it out" before everyone else in OPF? .

Body removal is used on the CTF map in the demo atleast.

Persistent MP game shouldnt need to save anything, one big game/war, people join/leave but keeping the game going for a long time.

Basic needs are missions over large map area with multiple and spread objectives (doesnt even have to be a cpu heavy CTI), and server being able to handle many players wich isnt happening yet (but hopefully will).

It could be a C&H with half Sahrani split into capturable zones, 50 vs 50... .

[frederf 0]

Our group of gamers had high hopes for things like this when starting with ArmA, unfortunately we had limitations:

1. Unstable program

2. Difficult to keep track of supplies long term

3. We have lives so can't really play 24/7

4. We run out of enemy

5. The game gets more and more laggy over time

6. Mission updates mid-mission arent possible

7. Crates cant be moved onto trucks

The VBS2 real time editor would be necessary for any persistent online scenario, to fix problems, give resupply, add in more enemies and friendlies, etc.

[Dwarden 1124]

yeah realtime time editor ... this remind me on Pariah or Dungeon Keeper (master of dungeon reacts on "invaders")

would be great as mission master ... these guys laugh on TS how easy it is ...

let's place some more sharpshooters into these bushes and let's wait what happen if they cross this tree line...

[CouchMonkey 0]

Well I for one welcome this. Our tournament is doing something similar in terms of a persistant battlefield. Currently though we have the mod the mission file after every 12 hour battleday. Hopefully this idea will take off and it will force BIS to look at the server files and focus on creating a stable platform for more than 20 players to play on.

I already see strides, but I hope this become a main goal over there.

[frederf 0]

ArmA/OFP can already write text files to the server HDD and reference them later, which makes a kind of save, like who's still alive, position maybe, what ammo is in box x... but trying to save the whole server state this way would be crazy.

http://www.vbs2.com/media/movies/real_time_editor_low.wmv

Realtime editor (single player) in VBS2 for reference.

[Powerslide 0]

This is light years away for BIS considering how long it's taken to develop AA, look for it in 2015.

[Maddmatt 1]

This is light years away for BIS considering how long it's taken to develop AA, look for it in 2015.

Another ignorant wannabe know-it-all. ArmA was in development for barely over a year.

[sniper pilot 36]

This is light years away for BIS considering how long it's taken to develop AA, look for it in 2015.

Another ignorant wannabe know-it-all. ArmA was in development for barely over a year.

seriously now, people need to get their facts right.

[adumb 0]

This is light years away for BIS considering how long it's taken to develop AA, look for it in 2015.

Wrong, wrong and wrong again.

Why does everyone automaticlly assume that ArmA development started the second BI was finished with OFP:R.

ArmA as we know it only really came into existance in late 2005, infact I'm more inclined to suggest that in its current state it probably didnt come into existance until early 2006.

Look at it like this: in mid 2005 (at E3 or whatever expo it was) BI announced ArmA. Look at the screenshots of ArmA back then, it was the OFP:E engine brought back to PC. Look at ArmA now, it's totally different and looks a bit like Game2 was starting to look like ~10 months ago. What can we deduce from this? We can deduce this: ArmA as it was when it was announced, is NOT the same ArmA as we have now. Therefore, ArmA we have now is <1 year old. Not bad when you consider the dev time for most other games (excluding the bullshit movie tie ins and all that other crap)

A quote from a great man.

[max power 21]

I'm not sure that this is technically impossible. I mean, if they have a server that does maintenance on itself and stuff, and offers an option to save the state of the world while the machine reboots, I don't really see the problem. Even with an unstable program, if the machine saves the world state every so often, you could have a persistent albeit interrupted scenario. Even when there is noone in the server, you could have the AI doing what they do... either fighting the battles or not... accumulating on the front or not... spawning or not. I'm not sure what the problem is with this concept of a persistent battlefield.

The only thing I would be concerned with is that after a couple of days of harrier bombing runs through the streets of some of the heavily contested villages, there would not be much left to claim!

[Espectro (DayZ) 0]

This is light years away for BIS considering how long it's taken to develop AA, look for it in 2015.

Wrong, wrong and wrong again.

Why does everyone automaticlly assume that ArmA development started the second BI was finished with OFP:R.

ArmA as we know it only really came into existance in late 2005, infact I'm more inclined to suggest that in its current state it probably didnt come into existance until early 2006.

Look at it like this: in mid 2005 (at E3 or whatever expo it was) BI announced ArmA. Look at the screenshots of ArmA back then, it was the OFP:E engine brought back to PC. Look at ArmA now, it's totally different and looks a bit like Game2 was starting to look like ~10 months ago. What can we deduce from this? We can deduce this: ArmA as it was when it was announced, is NOT the same ArmA as we have now. Therefore, ArmA we have now is <1 year old. Not bad when you consider the dev time for most other games (excluding the bullshit movie tie ins and all that other crap)

A quote from a great man.

He is wrong, though.

We heard of ArmA in May 2005, and it's first release date was Q4 2005.

How I know this? Cause I started my website in August 2005 - which would be kinda weird if the game development started months after...