Originally posted by Axehilt

Originally posted by PatchDay

Anyway the main kicker against MMOFPS is why should I pay $15 a month for something I can get done very well for free in an FPS? Hell, FPS gamers can even get PVE done much better then MMOs without the grind. We beat Halo 3 a bunch of times and Left 4 Dead is killer fun 

Basically it boils down to Planetside offering something no other FPS has offered - incredibly epic warfare.  I've played a huge variety of FPSes, and even if you include every non-FPS I've ever played Planetside still stands head and shoulders above any other game in terms of the epic warfare it offered.

It's like the futuristic equivalent of the Warcraft 3 intro cutscene where Humans and Orcs pour over hillsides in vast swarms to engage each other.

This thread is the first I've heard of MAG.  If it's released for PC, it may be the first game to really offer the epic warfare Planetside did, and I'd likely subscribe for quite a while to it.

The majority of MMOFPSes seem to provide similar experiences to those found in FPSes, which is sort of disappointing when the best MMOFPS was the one that provided something truly unique, and really capitalized on being an MMO.

 

M.A.G is PS3 only sadly.

It also uses CSHD, and is made by Zipper. But i guess thats makes it not a FPS even though zipper is responceable for one of the most sucessfull FPS titles ever, little thing called SOCOM. Isn't that right PatchDay?

I think its safe to say PatchDay never played planetside. Grind? PvE? What did planetside have over other FPS of the time? Really?

I watched my friend play PS and he always complained about being around on other side of a building but mysteriously he'd still get hit due to CSHD. I pretty always ignore anything that relies on client a bit too much. SSHD FPS have enough problems as it is dealing with cheaters. Now, for a console title I'll take a chance on CSHD

At least in WoW, one normally does not have to worry bout being 1-2 shotted because someone cheated. I hate to imagine losing my loot and such due to some exploit. And that's all I like to play- games like EVE where something grand is at stake for every fight I engage in

There is a reason why typical MMORPG, though vastly inferior combat-wise, simply crush MMOFPS. What's sad I'd love for a true MMOFPS. I love playing twitch games.

But I want it done right with SSHD. The same tech used to power hits like Quake, Unreal, Counterstrike, Battlefield, and all the other hits us true fps gamers love to play

Originally posted by PatchDay

I watched my friend play PS and he always complained about being around on other side of a building but mysteriously he'd still get hit due to CSHD. 

Exact same thing happens in HL:Source games.  Go reread the article you linked to find out why! :P

I got killed around a corner twice this morning playing TF2.  Sad business, but the price is worth it to get weapons that reliably hit opponents.

MMORPGs don't "crush" MMOFPSes for the reasons of cheating/security (I'm pretty sure I've seen more cheaters in 1.5 years of TF2 than 2.5 years of Planetside).  Instead they crush MMOFPSes for the reason of Planetside being the only MMOFPS to capitalize on the primary advantage MMOFPSes have over FPSes - being massive!

Having cshd or not PS to me is an fps, not only that but a fkin great one, one of a kind. But since its conception things havn't changed.

Saying continually that it doesn't matter if a game has cshd or not is simply not true. It depends on the nature of the cshd it uses and what checks are done in conjunction server side, but there are very real, very hard restrictions on what can be done. Remembering that everytime you add any checks or anything like that you are taking a hit to performance and increasing your server costs. This is the crux of the matter, as it currently stands in order to have 133v133v133 fights, the tech and network is not there to make it secure and worth adding any other mmo features to it. Imagine playing PS where you have to make your equipment but everytime you die the guy gets to loot your armour, nearlly everyone playing will be cheating under those circumstances when its so easy, beneficial and widespread.

The thread title is about the validity of mmofps's and on that score to some degree yes they are, to the level of planetside. But any other mmo features can't really be added without severe exploitation and hacking to the point that their introduction becomes more of a hinderence and reason to stop playing than anything.

This thread is pretty correct about the combat can only be so fast passed.  But with the right design and mechanics clunky combat can be fun.  I enjoy it way more then your normal MMO combat.  DF TCOS WWII online are a lot more fun then hotbar auto aim and heal for me.

Originally posted by PatchDay

Anyway the main kicker against MMOFPS is why should I pay $15 a month for something I can get done very well for free in an FPS? Hell, FPS gamers can even get PVE done much better then MMOs without the grind. We beat Halo 3 a bunch of times and Left 4 Dead is killer fun

 

Who said you have to pay 15 a month....huxley will be "Free" .....that beats regular multiplayer games by um 50 bucks?

The thing i hate most about new mmofps is that they are turning towards levels, instead of a guild based world domination, or econmic warfare. If you want to have a real PvP game then levels should not come near it.

I guarentee that mmo's with fps view will take over the mmo market eventually. Just wait till a cod, cs, or halo mmo  is released.

Firstly, the single player thing, I know, I was taking the piss. Now on with the rest of the discussion. Why do you think they use cshd? You got it! They have NO CHOICE. For an mmofps to work they HAVE TO use cshd, the internet simply isn't in a possition to support anything else with results that would be playable. Edit: After rereading this Irealised it would be possible but it would require a server array so vast in size that the game would become unprofitable or have subs in the $100's, even then with diminished returns I'm not convinced.

It would still be possible to use a combination of server side and client side hit detection which I'd assume (but don't know from actual experience) that's what they use in current MMOs.  Have the client do most of the work and have the server run some checks to look for cheating.

This leads to a few points, what is the reason that all non fps mmo's use serverside? Because people cheat, plain and simple, they cheat whilst even playing single player games. So when they are given the chance to port everywhere and pwn peeps they do. Now in some games that may not be a big thing as it may not impact other peoples game, but in an mmofps is absolutely gamebreaking, as DarkFall is finding out.

This isn't true at all.  WoW for instance doesn't use server side to check for collision.  This is why teleport hacks, model editting to hack past things like the BG gate and using various exploits, being able to slip through thin walls (though it takes loads of persistance to do most of the time), etc. are all possible.  Speed hacks and such are possible also because the client handles movement and collision.  The same goes pretty much every MMO.  It's simply easier to use client side collision.  I'm sure there are plenty of server side checks in place (and other client side cheat prevention methods such as WoW's Warden).

Now lets take planetside as an example, I still play and have done since beta because I can accept that there are a huge number of hackers playing but from experience I can still beat them if they are crap or new. But it really doesn't matter how experienced I am if they can instant 2 shot bolt driver me while cloaked. Unless a dev or GM is actively watching at the time they hack there is no way they are getting banned. For most people this is where they hit the unsub button.

I agree that hackers are a real problem, but laggers are far more common (the average person isn't going to go to great lengths to cheat) than hackers and are just as bad.  Encountering either heavily in a FPS are going to cause players to uninstall.

Now lets take Darkfall which also uses cs but also has more traditional mmo features such as loot and grinds etc then we are talking a whole new level of fked up. Instead of just invisibly one shotting me he can also loot all my gear and cash. Once people realise (as they eventually did in ps) how easy it is to hack, they leave after pissing around for a bit themselves, the game loses any value or sense of acheivment.

It's up to the devs to find a way to deal with hackers.  They need to keep up to date on the types of hacks used in their game and try to counter it.  No matter how much anti-cheating software or code you throw in, how many GMs you have watching the game, and how vigilant your community is you are going to have hackers.  The goal is to minimize it enough so it won't become a problem.  Look at Blizzard and the methods they use:  Preventing model-editting, Warden program running silently in the background looking for malicious code and programs, Suing companies that take part in gold message spamming and running hacking software (like the Glider or whatever it was called program), etc.  They are doing a far better job at it than most companies are (like ones using Gameguard, which is horrible at prevent hacks and more often prevents you from using completely legitimate programs such as Ventrillo Overlay) and should be a model companies strive for.

Thats why serverside is not only superior to clientside in an mmo but is imo vital. Now while its true that in games like cod and cs it is still possible to hack it is not possible to port about the place, fly, alter damage values, go invisible. In fact the only aspects of those game that you can hack are.... wait for it.... clientside. But there obviously always has to be a degree of clientside processing the trick is to keep it to a minimum and have no vital data there.

CS and CoD also use clientside hit detection and it's possible if I'm not mistaken to wall hack.  It's also definitely possible to aimbot.  I agree 100% that clientside processing should be kept to as much as a minimum as possible (that's why a mix of both serverside and clientside is best), but for the main aspect:  hit detection, clientside is far superior to serverside at the moment for several reasons such as laggers and serverload.  Note that Gunz uses server side hit detection and all those hacks you mentioned are possible in the game due to poor programming (the vital data as you put it is kept on the client side).

Originally posted by PatchDay

Originally posted by Axehilt

In my 2.5 years of Planetside, perhaps 2-3 fights out of tens of thousands involved cheating. A ridiculously low number. Perhaps things have changed since I played, but 2.5 years is a damn long time to see that little cheating.

So Planetside's "disadvantage" for using CSHD is 2-3 cheaters out of tens of thousands of fights, while its advantage is that in each of those tens of thousands of fights my weapons were responsive, accurate, and landed shots reliably on the enemy. F PS games live or die based on weapon responsiveness - based on seeing your shots hit and knowing they hit. Current SSHD tech is simply incapable of achieving that.

If the naysayers cannot cite example games that use SSHD successfully, they're full of crap.  Because 99.9% of FPSes out there use CSHD, and it's not by accident: it's because it's better.  And the 0.1% of games that try to use SSHD?  They're terrible!

From all I've heard, DFO is simply a poorly managed game.  Poor coding is poor coding.

..which of course brings up the possibility that Gunz is poorly coded -- except that unlike DFO there aren't hundreds of examples of SSHD working in a FPS setting, but there are hundreds of examples of CSHD working.

 

Counterstrike uses SSHD just like any other source title: www.worldofpwnage.com/pg/networking.php

Unreal Tournament and Gears of War use SSHD

Battlefield series always have used SSHD

The list goes on and on.... These games use client/server architecture otherwise they would be overrun with hacks galore. The server is the authority because clients cannot be trusted reliably of course.

Think about it:

We have a player named Jimmy that has a hit radius of 10 in a Deathmatch:

 

Client A sees Jimmy at (34,50) and fires

Client B, due to lag, sees Jimmy at (10, 5) and fires

 

What just happened? Clients, unless they are 0 ping with the server, do not have an accurate representation of the world. In reality, they are merely running local simulations of 'what they think' the actual world is like. The server replicates velocities of all objects in the world to the client to keep them in sync.

Only the server has the 'real world' in client/server architecture. Everyone else are like dumb terminals, only outputing their representations of the game world. Thus, the server only trusts the bare minimum of information coming from the client and constantly runs checks to validate they are not running through walls (server side collision detection) and verifying hits

 

Here is an excerpt from the CS document I'm quoting for clarity:

"This screenshot was taken on a listen server with 200 milliseconds of lag (using net_fakelag), right after the server confirmed the hit."

 

 

That's interesting and always thought CS (and other Source games) used client side.  Wonder how well it would work in a MMOFPS.

You have to admit though the less critical data is communicated to a client the less subject to hacking a client is. You can't intercept, data mine and alter packets that aren't sent to the client or from the client to the server. Ideally the client only recieves data needed to display the game and only communicates the inputs it recieves. The price you pay in server overhead is the problem. I just don't have faith in the ability of anyone to build an unhackable client with completely secure communications. All checks need to be serverside for me to be comfortable with the security. Server security is easier because you can program servers not to accept anything it doesn't expect to see for a client and that data can be vetted for security.

Originally posted by Magnum2103 

That's interesting and always thought CS (and other Source games) used client side.  Wonder how well it would work in a MMOFPS.

Well the article outlines what you and I described as CSHD - which is a combo of client-side input prediction and Lag Compensation.  Just a terminology mixup really.

Planetside used a very similar solution, so it *has* been used in a MMOFPS :P

Nobody talked about neocron 2...

This is the pure mmofps.

No more =)

Originally posted by Josher

Originally posted by blackwolf82

Originally posted by Josher

Originally posted by Mrbloodworth

 

---

Originally posted by Josher

 

Planetside LOOKED like an FPS but that was it.  Aiming was just a replacement for a target lock.  It was just a target check, which is VERY different than a real FPS.   Stats still decided hit/miss and damage.   You could miss over and over again, even if it looks like you're aiming perfectly. 

 

---

You dont know what you are talking about.

 

 

---

Originally posted by Karbonoid

 

Planetside didn't work like a real shooter, I am fairly certain it didn't trace the paths of individual bullets serverside for example. The client just checked if the player was aiming more or less in the right direction, a bit like it worked in tabula rasa, although not as obvious.

 

---

You too. Stop talking.

 

And yes, Planetside was the next evolution of Tribes, made by the same people (Different game play however). The engine is a custom one, that is now available to buy if you want to. But its KIN, is the Torque game engine, also, made by the people who made the Tribes series.

 

Also, keep your eye on M.A.G

 

http://www.massivefps.com/

 

 

So the server/client sucked bad enough, that I would still miss over and over again, even though my target is right on the button.  Maybe it did work like a real FPS in theory.  It still played like molasis, so who cares in the end?   Maybe it got better overt the years.  It still didn't compare to a real FPS.   At the time, I could jump into a 40 vs 40 UT2k3 match and get pretty accurate performance in a much cooler looking playing field, with FAR better models, guns, ect.  So why play Planetside?    Nobody did.

Wow. You must have sucked at aiming.

 

I played Planetside for years. It is an FPS system. No stats, no "hit checks". None of that crap. There wasn't even a single "hit scan" based weapon in the game (unlike various other "real shooters" like the CoD series). Most people who played Planetside and didn't like it just plain sucked because they suddenly had to compensate for bullet travel times.

 

Yup, YEARS of UT and CS and I just sucked at aiming.  Not to mention MOST people who tried PS thought it was bad...but its all me.  The critics sucked too.  Everyone sucked except the 10k who actually paid for it=)  Millions of people play CS, COD and other FPSs, but only hate PS because they sucked at it, hehe.  The game stunk.  You liked it.  Thats OK. 

I've gone up against players in Planetside who supposedly played CS on a proffessional level in tournaments. I wasn't impressed. The reason is that Planetside is not CS, yeah big shock. CS like UT was a tourney style game. Just like Battlefields, Tribes, and any other FPS that pitted the customary 2-64 players in a tiny cubicle with a collection of guns.

You can spend half your life studying CS and still suck in Planetside. You can also spend years of your life studying semi trucks and not have a clue about basic automobile maintenence. Two completely different games barely linked together by a common (and obsolete) genre tittle.

So, I don't much care about your false sense of "I know everything" and your insecure need to be the best at everything. You know nothing of Planetside, I'll thank you to stop posting stupid crap about it that doesn't even come close to the truth.

Originally posted by blackwolf82

Originally posted by Josher

Originally posted by blackwolf82

Originally posted by Josher

Originally posted by Mrbloodworth

 

---

Originally posted by Josher

 

Planetside LOOKED like an FPS but that was it.  Aiming was just a replacement for a target lock.  It was just a target check, which is VERY different than a real FPS.   Stats still decided hit/miss and damage.   You could miss over and over again, even if it looks like you're aiming perfectly. 

 

---

You dont know what you are talking about.

 

 

---

Originally posted by Karbonoid

 

Planetside didn't work like a real shooter, I am fairly certain it didn't trace the paths of individual bullets serverside for example. The client just checked if the player was aiming more or less in the right direction, a bit like it worked in tabula rasa, although not as obvious.

 

---

You too. Stop talking.

 

And yes, Planetside was the next evolution of Tribes, made by the same people (Different game play however). The engine is a custom one, that is now available to buy if you want to. But its KIN, is the Torque game engine, also, made by the people who made the Tribes series.

 

Also, keep your eye on M.A.G

 

http://www.massivefps.com/

 

 

So the server/client sucked bad enough, that I would still miss over and over again, even though my target is right on the button.  Maybe it did work like a real FPS in theory.  It still played like molasis, so who cares in the end?   Maybe it got better overt the years.  It still didn't compare to a real FPS.   At the time, I could jump into a 40 vs 40 UT2k3 match and get pretty accurate performance in a much cooler looking playing field, with FAR better models, guns, ect.  So why play Planetside?    Nobody did.

Wow. You must have sucked at aiming.

 

I played Planetside for years. It is an FPS system. No stats, no "hit checks". None of that crap. There wasn't even a single "hit scan" based weapon in the game (unlike various other "real shooters" like the CoD series). Most people who played Planetside and didn't like it just plain sucked because they suddenly had to compensate for bullet travel times.

 

Yup, YEARS of UT and CS and I just sucked at aiming.  Not to mention MOST people who tried PS thought it was bad...but its all me.  The critics sucked too.  Everyone sucked except the 10k who actually paid for it=)  Millions of people play CS, COD and other FPSs, but only hate PS because they sucked at it, hehe.  The game stunk.  You liked it.  Thats OK. 

I've gone up against players in Planetside who supposedly played CS on a proffessional level in tournaments. I wasn't impressed. The reason is that Planetside is not CS, yeah big shock. CS like UT was a tourney style game. Just like Battlefields, Tribes, and any other FPS that pitted the customary 2-64 players in a tiny cubicle with a collection of guns.

 

You can spend half your life studying CS and still suck in Planetside. You can also spend years of your life studying semi trucks and not have a clue about basic automobile maintenence. Two completely different games barely linked together by a common (and obsolete) genre tittle.

 

So, I don't much care about your false sense of "I know everything" and your insecure need to be the best at everything. You know nothing of Planetside, I'll thank you to stop posting stupid crap about it that doesn't even come close to the truth.

PS doesn't take anywhere close to the skill it takes to excell in tournament style FPSs.  The aiming and twitch reflexes aren't on the same level at all.   PS is SLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOW and you can rely on zerging and unfair numbers.   Again, I don't know everything, nor did I ever claim to.  I just know most people didn't think PS was any fun.  If they didn, it would've sold more.  Just look at the sales.  Numbers don't lie.  That must burn you up=)

Originally posted by Josher

PS doesn't take anywhere close to the skill it takes to excell in tournament style FPSs.  The aiming and twitch reflexes aren't on the same level at all.   PS is SLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOW and you can rely on zerging and unfair numbers.   Again, I don't know everything, nor did I ever claim to.  I just know most people didn't think PS was any fun.  If they didn, it would've sold more.  Just look at the sales.  Numbers don't lie.  That must burn you up=)

Yeah uh huh, as I said I fought CS tourney players and laughed at their hate tells after I killed them. I laughed because they had every advantage they could ask for in the situation and died like a dog. You really know nothing about the game, so stop acting like you do. As another poster stated, PS peaked at 60k players and much of their loss came from mistakes made by the DEVs such as Aftershock and BFRs.

PS doesn't take the same level of skill? On the contrary it takes more, because it is slow. You can't simply react, you have to anticipate and plan. As for zerging? Meh all PvP games have zerging. CS didn't, but then again CS isn't an MMO. It is, in fact, on the verge of becomeing an obsolete gamestyle. The zerg numbers never ensured victory, in fact it often caused defeat because large numbers are harder to coordinate and the 3 way battles were often won by the small band of defenders holed up in their only base on the continent for hours on end.

What it amounts to is that CS just required muscle memory and reflex. PS required a brain.

I would take a look at Huxley,Crimecraft,APB and The Agency if people are interested in shooter type games. 

Originally posted by nirvanet

Nobody talked about neocron 2...

This is the pure mmofps.

No more =)

I love the game, it's also an RPG as well as fps... just wished Reakktor would re-release it with updated graphics, but it looks like they're going the Black Prophecy space-shooter route. :(

/yawns

Originally posted by Josher 

PS doesn't take anywhere close to the skill it takes to excell in tournament style FPSs.  The aiming and twitch reflexes aren't on the same level at all.   PS is SLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOW and you can rely on zerging and unfair numbers.   Again, I don't know everything, nor did I ever claim to.  I just know most people didn't think PS was any fun.  If they didn, it would've sold more.  Just look at the sales.  Numbers don't lie.  That must burn you up=)

Counterstrike doesn't require you to lead targets, so the skill depth in CS tends to actually be LESS than other FPSes (like Planetside) where you actually have to lead shots.

But Planetside's actual FPS mechanics admittedly were a bit shallow.  Compared to CS it might've broke about even, but compared to another non-hitscan game like Unreal Tournament it's trash.

But Unreal Tournament only has FPS mechanics.  It lives and dies on those.

Planetside offered a huge mix of other mechanics.  Vehicles, base vs. open fights, the strategy of which base to capture, the character progression system, the implant system, and more.  After these other mechanics are considered, Planetside's skill depth was superior to Unreal Tournament, and way superior to Counterstrike.  Like many great games, Planetside was the sum total of many simple systems combining to create an impressive depth.