Hard Light Productions Forums
General FreeSpace => Multiplayer => Topic started by: Shade on February 18, 2008, 04:42:14 pm
-
Old feature requests and comments, minus any off-topic posts, have been moved to http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php/topic,58050.0.html - Shade
By FUBAR-BDHR:
I went through the old thread (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php/topic,58050.0.html) and tried to consolidate the requests. I've also tried to prioritize the list. Here's what I have so far. Green = priority, yellow priority but can wait, regular text can wait for future builds.
-Mission file handling. Prevent old versions from overwriting newer ones.
-In game joining
-Mission difficulty/spawns/time/kill limit defaults
-ship/weapon loadout restrictions per wing (Kara seems to have plans for this)
-Observer to player switching (feature of ingame joining)
-support for more then 8 or 12 players
-points and tracking for shooting down bombs
-points and tracking for subsystems and turrets
-goal and event scoring (think this is done but is it turned on?) [Note: Works in 3.6.10 - Requires aiprofiles.tbl to enable]
-way to tell what players are running which mod
-way to tell what players & servers are running which build/revision
-TvT kill limit warning (same as coop) Not sure about time since matches can be time based.
-pilot renaming (FS2netD side)
-stat and medal update from server
-Better mod handling as far as mission selecting goes especially for standalones. See Mantis 1853 (http://scp.indiegames.us/mantis/view.php?id=1853)
Shade: http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php/topic,58050.msg1062948.html#msg1062948
-recommendations per player
-lobby to game chat
-An extension of Improved Team Loadout to allow players (in coop) or teams (in TvT) to draw from a total ship pool instead of using the respawn count, and keep respawning until that pool is empty.
MP-Ryan: http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php/topic,58050.msg1054564.html#msg1054564
-The ability for players to assign themselves to wings, as opposed to the host.
-Working rearm/repair system, even after you've respawned (though it could cancel the current rearm/repair request). [Note: Works in 3.6.10]
-Client response improvements to accurately show missile hits and primary weapon damage registered, as opposed to the current system where you can pound the shields of an enemy vessel and see hits, but in reality you're missing on every shot.
andicirk: http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php/topic,58050.msg1054724.html#msg1054724
-an "In hud" scroll bar to see all your teams ships and status. Enemy teams too
Swantz: http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php/topic,58050.msg1054967.html#msg1054967
-Does the stand-alone server support "off-site" hosting for files needed on the server?
CP5670: http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php/topic,58050.msg1056428.html#msg1056428
-Better client targeting
feltoar: http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php/topic,58050.msg1062831.html#msg1062831
-How about the ability to see the ready status of players while you are still selecting loadout?
Mura: http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php/topic,58050.msg1177527.html#msg1177527
-Different colours for text in the lobby, like the ones we get when you are already in a game.
kir2yar: http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=52261.msg1374931#msg1374931
-Ability to continue a multiplayer campaign where it was left off.
MatthTheGeek: http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=52261.msg1476369#msg1476369
-Ability to set player spawn locations to 'near ship', 'docking bay' and such, same way AI arrivals can be.
These along with Shades original request list.
For some time now, I've had a little list on which I've written down any things and ideas that came to mind as being potentially nice to have for FS2 multiplayer. Most of it is stuff I know will likely never happen, but one can dream, right? So anyway, I'm curious about what ideas everyone might have about making multiplayer better, so I figured I'd start a thread about it and lead off with my own list. So here goes, listed roughly in the order I'd ideally like to get them - Now go ahead and add your own lists if you have them :)
- Seperate points tracking for Coop, TvT and Dogfight. 1
- Support for squadrons and tracking of their points in Dogfight and TvT. 1
- Support for tournaments, for both individuals and teams/squadrons. Would be nice if winners could get a trophy. 1
- A seperate "trophies" case to go along with the medals case, to hold tournament trophies. 1
- Expanded medal case to allow for additional achievements, both automatically granted on certain conditions (like ace badges) and given on a per-mission basis. Examples could be badges for 10, 30 and 50 kills in a single mission, surviving a dogfighting or TvT session without getting killed at all, having played 50% and 100% of all the validated missions at least once, and the like, as well as just a load of extra medals for use in new MP missions. 2
- Player limit bumped for both coop and pvp missions.
- A "validation council" of experienced players and FREDders that will create a set of guidelines that a mission must meet to be validated, and then handle the testing of new missions for the purposes of validation based on those guidelines. 3
- Revisit of validation for existing validated missions, either fixing up/rebalancing ones that are bad or removing their validation alltogether. 3
- Points bonus for the first 3 times one earns a medal in coop (say, 2000pts for the first time, then 1000 and finally 500), to take the focus away from constantly replaying easy missions like RI that require zero ability or practise and onto playing more challenging missions.
- Also a somewhat smaller points bonus for beating any coop mission for the first time on a given difficulty, but no bonus (not even reduced) for repeats. Something like 200pts per difficulty level would seem reasonable, with previously given bonus point on a mission subtracted from the bonus if it is later beaten on a higher difficulty. Ie. if the first win is on normal, that gives 600pts, and if it is later beaten on insane, that gives another 400 (1000-600) and will never give bonus points again. 4
- Finally, the number of validated missions beaten on each difficulty level should be displayed in the pilot profile. Perhaps even with a detailed list available that shows on which difficulty the player has beaten each mission. 4
- Automated match-making function for TvT (random people on each team, chosen from those using the function), arranged TvT (you form your own team, but opposing team is randomly selected from other teams using the same function), and dogfight. 5
- Seperate rankings that are only affected by wins from fights started through automatic match-making. 5
I used to have stand-alone servers and a multiplayer lobby at the very top of the list, but 3.6.10 seems to take care of this nicely. It's nice when your top two issues are taken care of before you even say anything ;)
1 Between them these will make the game hugely more interesting to competitive-minded players and squadrons.
2 This will add lots of flavour to new missions, as you wouldn't just have the same old medals to win.
3 We're sorta already doing this, but it's not at all organized, we're just getting annoyed at mission bugs during our games and agreeing to fix the worst issues we run into or ditch missions that are beyond repair. (No updates or removal of the original PXO validated missions)
4 Intended as an incentive to try all of the missions at least once, as well as to play them on higher difficulties.
5 If this sounds a lot like the way battle.net works, that's because I think that's the best system for random matches and non-coop rankings.
-
Hm... a separate list for scored assists, maybe?
It'd be nice to know if I damaged a given main target (corvette, destroyer, whatever) enough to at least have an assist on it (there IS a limit below which a few hits won't even record as assists, right? Of course, it should be kept that way...) .
That would also sort of aid the "list of played/won missions" that is mentioned somewhere in your list... :)
...though, admittedly, it propably would be a general pilot-change that also would carry over to SP and not only MP . Maybe some people would not like that? :confused:
-
there IS a limit below which a few hits won't even record as assists, right? Of course, it should be kept that way...
There is, and you can now set that to whatever you like via the AI_profiles table (http://www.hard-light.net/wiki/index.php/Ai_profiles.tbl#.24Percentage_Required_For_Kill_Scale:).
-
Ability to continue the campaign in multiplayer game.
-
That's a really big ask in such a short sentence actually..
-
Might not be as impossible as it sounds actually.
I'm not promising anything (or even trying to get people's hopes up) but I know Taylor's revamp of the pilot code will have an effect on how multiplayer pilots work. So it might be possible that the roadblocks to making that work have been removed or reduced.
I'll probably look into it at some point.
-
Yea I still have a feeling it will be difficult. First where do you continue if you have 8 people? The host's place? The person with the least completed levels? Also there is the restarting. Does restarting mean that you can't continue if you join a game that's past where you are now? What if the campaign has been updated or expanded since you played it last? What about branching/looping?
-
Probably. Just saying that possibilities are opened now that weren't there before.
-
Yea I still have a feeling it will be difficult. First where do you continue if you have 8 people? The host's place? The person with the least completed levels? Also there is the restarting. Does restarting mean that you can't continue if you join a game that's past where you are now? What if the campaign has been updated or expanded since you played it last? What about branching/looping?
Maybe this should store the state of the campaign in a separate file on the host?
-
It should probably be independent of actual identifying traits of the other players, so that anyone could pick up an open slot during the course of the campaign, not just the original players.
-
Agreed, that would make sense.
-
Well, now that I've finally gotten multiplayer online to work for me, (had to get a new computer, although I didn't do it just for this) I want to see the Parallax Online logo (in the online-lobby) replaced with a FS2NET logo.
-
Heh, this has already been done, but i don't remember where the file is. I have it changed for an FS2NetD logo... It must be burried somewhere in the millions of post in this forum, I have it at home, so when i get there and if i remember, i'll post it up.
-
New logo is in the mediavps.
-
I have a new one... when a player runs out of re-spawns, he goes to observe mode, which turns suoerboring... could it be possible to add a way to show stats of the game there? like point standings, kill-counts, or players / enemies integrity? Of course this would need to be different for tvt, so you don't get an advantage from being able to see enemy integrity and how many times they have died so you can relay the info to your team. :drevil:
-
That sounds good, here's another suggestion that probably should go somewhere else, but here it is anyways. In multiplayer only, a player should have the option to control a turret on a ship, this ship could be another player's ship like a bomber or it could be a turret on a larger ship like a capital ship or a destroyer or something smaller like a cruiser. The player should not be able to control the turret on a ship that is "piloted" by an AI. If the ship is set to follow a course laid out by waypoints then the player could control the turret. Or of course if the ship is stationary then the player could control the turret but, never should the player control the turret of a ship being actively piloted by an AI.
This probably should have been posted somewhere for the people who could work on adding a feature as big as this, but it is a Multiplayer Feature Request" so...
-
It's a good idea, but might be better suited for mod-only or new missions.
I think it is fairly possible to do gunner, as i've seen it already, there's would be a bunch of issues to fix in the loadout screen and the wing designation for it to not be too hack-ish, but i do like the idea, even better if the player can hop between turrets, just don't give him control of beams, cuz that would be super cheating :D
-
Yeah, well... If the AI used regular (not anti-fighter) beams on fighters, would the AI be cheating.
Also, switching between positions would be great, because the player could control multiple turrets or control a turret on a bomber and be able to fly the ship around too. Because, being a gunner in a turret for a whole round could get a little boring.
-
without counting when the turret gets blown up XD
Nah, being on a bomber and doing turret might be quite fun, since multi is usually played on insane, bombers get a LOT of AI attention.
Now, being turret on a capship, well that might be boring, but then again, this is where FREDing skills come in and save the day to make an interesting mission :)
-
Yeah, it depends if there is a capital ship on both teams and why it's there. If the capital ship is part of the mission objective, then having turrets to defend it with could be nice. (Kind of like in Star Wars BattleFront II)
But if the capital ship is more of a cruiser that's more maneuverable then it could be more interesting. It kind of depends whether we get a feature that let's players pilot capital ships.
What do you think about player's in turrets being multiplayer only. I think it doesn't have to be, but there should always be players in the ships. Since we all know that the AI isn't going to do very good without the players.
As for not counting a death when the turret gets blown up. That'd be great unless most mission objectives can be accomplished from the turret. Also the turret should have very little defense and should be easy to kill.
-
:bump:
Necrothreaded.
Sounds like it hasn't been requested already, so I'm putting it here :
- Allowing players spawn locations to be fredded the same way as for other ships, so you can set them for example near a ship, or in the docking bay of a ship, that could move during the missions, avoiding the player to have to travel 6k or so every time he dies because the action has moved somewhere else. That's a must-have for converting some SP missions to coop, and can also help the "everyone respawn at the same place" issue in dogfights.
-
help the "everyone respawn at the same place" issue in dogfights.
+1
This is an issue I run into frequently, Especially for Capship Dogfights.
-
Good one. Added to the list.
-
Simply put: the ability for host to see who has hacked files.
I find it somewhat strange that everyone playing but host can see who has hacked but not host him/her self. seems a bit counter productive even.
-
Did some posts disappear?
-
They were split into a new thread.
-
Did some posts disappear?
Splitted HERE (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=75195.0)
-
Not sure if these have been asked before but:
- training msg works on a per-player basis instead of for everyone
- when a player ship dies, the beams are not freed anymore if they respawn, I think it should still be beam-freed when they respawn.
- more players all around, especially for TvT
- the ability to assign players to any wing, and having more than 3 wings a player can be in, basically unlimited player wings.
- ability to have more than 4 ships in a player wing, Alpha wing, etc.
- The ability to have fighters or bombers to launch from player-controlled capital ships' hangar bays.
I think I had more things to ask for but I forgot so I'll post those here when I remember.
-
Does anyone know what kind of progress is being made on Squad Wars?
I know this isn't really the place for this, I was just wondering if any of you knew anything.
-
@ GameSlayersGS: Most likely NON AT ALL, unless you want to take a dip in the staggering ammount of notes or ask around more, i don't think we can now for sure, but i don't think multi has got any features in a while.
@Hades: People already complain about the netcode, adding more people might worsen it :/
Also, some of those seem to be more of bugs than features, like the first, second and sixth. Try reporting it in mantis or talk to a coder to see what they have to say about it, most likely you'll be requested to submit it in mantis.
-
I think improving cooperative gameplay should come first... remember we are in the era of 4-player cooperative games.
-We need more multiplayer campaigns, fix the retail one, that looks very bugged the last time i attempted to play it (if no-one is working at this, ill probably give it a go myself in April).
-Multiplayer campaigns need to save progress for all players (it has been already posted)
-We need command briefing and videos to multiplayer too!
-In-game joining(it will ever work?)
-a new game mode, 2 Teams cooperative, i has already making this kind of mission back in retail days at pxo... a good example is the SOC mission to rescue snipes in the nebula... one team has to go get to him, the other team are those hercs that where with the transport, fighting off the shivans. I used TVT mode to simulate this.
Once a good cooperative gameplay is stabilised, them the work can start in improving tvt and dogfighting.
-
-We need more multiplayer campaigns, fix the retail one, that looks very bugged the last time i attempted to play it (if no-one is working at this, ill probably give it a go myself in April).
If by that, you mean the SP Campaign as Multi, it's already being worked on. If you mean the Multi misisons as otherwise, that's part of what Team MULTI is about.
-We need command briefing and videos to multiplayer too!
May or may not be possible. While it should be a fact that people (in retail at least) will all have them, there may be issues on synchronizing progress through them. This is really only a concern in terms of the Single Player as CoOp Campaign though, as most regular missions just don't have any at all to start with, which make it less of a necessity or requirement to make the work in a multi environment.
-
The kind of things being requested in the last few posts take a LONG time to implement. It is very hard to justify implementation that will see more hours in development than hours being enjoyed by actual users.
Why people haven't gotten interested in multiplayer is beyond me, but in order to be fair to coders, I think it's important to wait for multiplayer to pick up. That means more players on IRC actively asking for and setting up games. If you REALLY want to see multiplayer change into something exciting here's what needs to be done.
1. Try to see if you can forward your ports so you can host.
2. Log onto IRC regularly and try to setup games. Weekends are best, but anytime can work.
3. Post on the multiplayer thread about your experience or if you have questions, and give it some more activity.
These things NEED to happen before we can even think about going to coders and asking them to spend their months on these features. The_E has mentioned earlier that there are maybe 12 or so players who regularly seek multiplayer games on IRC. That number, as much as I don't like to admit it, is not inaccurate.
Edit: This post sounds a little more angry than it should. Multi is a fun experience though, and it is more so with more people.
-
Well, a while back I began the process of figuring out the old PXO SquadWar code, even went so far as setting up a ColdFusion server in my basement. It's occasionally up and running (http://the4cags.homeip.net:8080/pxo/squadwar/), when the box it's on hasn't crashed.
More recently, I began converting some pages, and modeling out the old database stuff in PHP as a starting point. Just today I managed to get enough of the database stuff modeled to port over the home page. Everything in the image is being pulled from the database, nothing is hardcoded, any more than the original SquadWar.
(http://swc.fs2downloads.com/img/squadwar_php.png)
-
excellent stuff massive :yes: to you
-
I want to add a little wish to avoid something that has caused me much pain in other games in the past:
-Implement proper automatic mod downloading that allows the mod to be picked up from the server the game is being hosted on OR an external server as specified in the server's configuration. Serious bonus points if the downloader has the brains to go out and search for a mod automatically from a default list of sites (ex. fsmods, f2s, HLP).
-
That has been considered before, but rejected because it is unreasonable to hold up a game for the several hours it might take a player to download a new mod. All mods that currently have a multiplayer component are huge, so it is simply not feasible.
There's already a request on the list to inform players about which mods are being run by who, though, so if that gets implemented down the line it might be a good idea to include a link to a download location as well. But auto-downloading mods in multiplayer is not going to happen, because of the time involved.
-
I still think it would be more than worth it to make it an option. Possibly make it inform the player of the size of the file, and the time needed for download. This is standard behavior for many very popular games, and I don't hear too much complaining.
-
There's a difference. When you join a game in Freespace, the other players can't play until everyone is ready.... including the guy who is just now downloading, say, Blue Planet+Blue Planet WiH+Blue Planet multi pack+MediaVPs 3.6.12 for a nice cozy 4.3 gigabytes worth of waiting. And even if it did download it and install it correctly, the game would still need to restart in order to use it, forcing the person to quit the server anyway. So really, this sort of thing should not happen as part of a game.
I'd love to see the ability to download and switch mods from within the game instead of having to use the launcher and needing a restart, but if it ever happens then it needs to take place before people join a game so it won't hold up other players.
-
What if we at least added a feature somewhere in the game to download and install mods and such from the game? Each server could then present the player with a list of required mods and a button to go download them. He player could then leave the server to go on with the other players while the player went and downloaded the mods. Then the player could attempt to join again, once the mods were installed and the game was restarted.
-
If we get in-game joining working (again?), that would be more feasible. It's currently an 'experimental' option, but I'm pretty sure it just crashes you out if you try it.
-
Mostly it just causes extra lag for the people in-game, currently. And the occasional crash too. It really should either be fixed (preferable) or, if it will never be fixed, ripped out or at least having the command line flag removed for the time being so people aren't misled about it being an option.
-
A more robust "Player has hacked tables" (maybe with version/mod used) warning that the host can actually see would be really nice.
It'd be along the lines of what was mentioned a few posts back about directions for people to pick up the mods.
In-game joining should probably be ripped out of the launcher(for now) as it does currently cause catastrophic problems if used.
-
I still think that certain types of mods could be done, if nothing else just table edits and perhaps a few custom textures. All that would have to be downloaded in the lobby, and anyone taking too long to download could just be kicked. By the time the game is started there shouldn't be any more downloading going on. Warcraft 3 custom games would often have to be downloaded by the clients, or they'd be told where to get it on the internet, kicked, and then someone else would join. The host should know if he's hosting a game that might take a while for people to download. If we had the ability to enable some level of client-side mod downloading, I don't think we should rule it out just because it might take too long. That's not really for us to decide. It would still take quite a bit of work to code though, I'd imagine.
-
I don't mind client side mod downloading, as long as it is done in a way that doesn't force the rest of the players to wait for hours :p
If the interface was more sane, it would be an easy choice to just say that besides the 'Join' and 'Join as observer' buttons, there should be a 'Game Info' button as well which let you see which mods were used (if any) and an option to auto-install and enable them, as well as various other stuff like which players are in the game and perhaps even a message from the game host to anyone who views that screen. But the interface isn't sane, and I suspect that adding such a functionality would be a vastly bigger job than it sounds.
That said, if anyone wants a crack at it, the multi community will cheer you on until you either succeed or give up.