Can we have a half time option in multiplayer

[Renagade 0]

When playing a large mission on OFP online i sometimes get cut off from my shitty 56k modem and when a couple of other ppl go too then when we reconnect the guy whos hosting the server has to restart server meaning we have to start from square one

Is it a reasnoble idea to have a half time option so that instead of a full restart of a mission OFP saves like in a single player mission so when the host starts the mission up again ,having picked up the players who just connected, everyone starts off at the same place with the same status,damage,ammo etc.

[bluelaser 0]

Half time kind of idea is quite clever. Though I see it for more than just people who got disconnected. It would be good so that more people could join a game in the middle of it. Since OFP can't have a join in-game option. If something like that could be implemented it would be a major step though.

[Tovarish 0]

Great idea, great reasons.

[Antichrist 0]

Only half-time?

What about doing it every time host wants to?

[JustinCase 0]

bump

This might be more feasible than JIP. With this system of saving/pausing the server's state at a certain point, it would even be possible to save a multiplayer match... But then again, I would be really happy if it was possible to "pause" the game and let people join in.

Maybe Suma could comment on this. I know JIP is not doable because you can't just send things over incrementally especially when the same data keeps changing while doing this. But this is a different approach. It's like a pause button and let everybody get in sync.

Bis, what do you think?

[Die Alive 0]

Would there be a half time show? I want to be entertained, maybe by some USO girls or Bob Hope.

Great idea, by the way. Hope it happens.

-=Die Alive=-

[Placebo 29]

Moving to MP

[suma 8]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">This might be more feasible than JIP. With this system of saving/pausing the server's state at a certain point, it would even be possible to save a multiplayer match... <span id='postcolor'>

Unfortunatelly our current approach to saving game does not work in MP at all. There are many object properties (like ownership) that are hard or impossible to save in our current architecture. Implementing it to work would be almost as difficult as implementing JIP (you correctly state it is easier, because with JIP "you can't just send things over incrementally especially when the same data keeps changing while doing this", but it still very difficult).

[JustinCase 0]

It would have been a nice feature to have, maybe something to put on the requirements list of BIS next product then?

Anyway, I think the design of a non directplay multiplayer network architecture (that works on linux) is much more important than this "pause/save and (re)connect" feature. If the basic architecture is flawed (directplay) then continuing to work with it is like standing in quicksand... the more you do, the deeper you get and the more difficult it gets to get out and go stand somewhere else.

I always notice in programming that if you want to program something well, you need to have done it once before...

BIS: keep up the very nice work! Looking forward to future developments!

[mahuja 12]

Another use for this is resyncing. I mean, there is a "desync" value for each player, that tells of how much difference there is between the gamestate of the server and the player. If this goes too far up, the game won't proceed correctly. This would be a viable way of re-syncing...

Suma, I don't understand what the problem is with the ownerships. Seems simple to me (having done some game engine programming) But then, I do not know the architecture you are speaking of either. Would you please tell us enough that we might understand why it is so hard?

What kind of ownership are you talking of?

Such as "who placed that satchel"?

Or "which side used that tank last time"?

Perhaps "which computer processed this object"

    i.e. which computer would evaluate "local object" as true?

AFAICS much of the point of such a save would perhaps be exactly that which player played as this or that soldier isn't saved.