A fairly decent MMOFPS

I started playing Combat Arms friday...for a free MMOFPS it's well planned out.There are a couple of things I noticed in the game though...
-the shotguns are horribly inbalanced
-these fucking kids go a little grenade happy...found myself getting fragged by my own teamates.It's not hard to find a server with people who actually play like they have some sense though.
-Some RPG elements...Ranking,the higher the rank the better the guns,armor,support(Flash grenades,H2 grenades,etc)
-all in all a great game
Check it out...it's free like I said.But Nexon asks you alot of fucking questions to start your account.Might as well as for my first born.

Whats the difference between a MMOFPS and a FPS that has multiplayer?

It looks very similar to WolfET - from the trailer I saw, it seemed to be using the same MP40 sounds from ET and the mines appeared to be identical.

Still, I'll download it tonight and see how it goes. If I'm not playing TF2.

Planky said:

Whats the difference between a MMOFPS and a FPS that has multiplayer?

The first M in MMO.

I started playing this last night and it's not bad at all. It's pretty good considering it's free-to-play. I don't know if I'd really call it an MMOFPS, though, because outside of ranking there isn't any persistence. Matches are limited to 8 vs 8, too. It's more like a free version of CS with a shop system.

It's definitely worth a try, but if you're put off by games that require you to either grind for in-game currency or buy stuff with real money instead, stay away.

You're talking about a MMO that doesn't suck?

No, you're hallucinating.

I've been looking for a good MMOFPS, but I've been disappointed. 8v8 defeats the purpose, I feel.

I tried Planetside a while back which seemed pretty cool in concept, but you could find yourself in a large empty expanse which isn't much fun. I didn't play long enough to get into the meat of the game, so I suppose there's a big curve involved. The game world is pretty unimpressive, too.

Bucket said:
I've been looking for a good MMOFPS, but I've been disappointed. 8v8 defeats the purpose, I feel.

I know what you mean. I wish there were games that can have at least 100 people at one time. I'll get ready to play Huxley once they announce when it comes out (the exact date, not some possible year); until then, it's TF2/COD4/ETQW for me. I like the concept of the Battlefield games, but all the games are built on the shittiest engines that I refuse to play anymore.

DeumReaper said:

I like the concept of the Battlefield games, but all the games are built on the shittiest engines that I refuse to play anymore.

Battlefield 2142 isn't so bad, and doesn't seem to suffer from as many balance issues as the previous BF games did. I still prefer ETQW, but 2142 runs better on my PC.

A good MMOFPS compareable to WOW in execution would be nice, though.

Edit: Another thing I forgot to mention in my previous post is that Combat Arms attracts the same sort of retards as CS, so beware.

halo trial is best mmo fps!

leileilol said:

halo trial is best mmo fps!

halo invented mmofps

Isn't there some WW2 game with a HUGE map based on a large part of europe (but really under-detailed, ie "cities" are just collections of generic buildings, "forests" are all made up of 3 types of tree etc etc) in which you can play a soldier and just fight FPS style (though there is also armour and aircraft and ((i think even)) ships as well).

I always thought a game like C&C, but where two players are the "generals" and give "orders", but each soldier (or most anyway, there'd be bots too, maybe the bots would be "normal troops" and the player controlled people "commandos") would be a player, tanks would be controlled by two players, planes flown flight-sim style etc. And the war would be fought that way... you'd be assigned a target to destroy by the general but how you get to it and what you do is your own choice, and when you get there you have to shoot your way in and plant "charges", rather than just retardedly shoot at the wall until it falls down...

However internet gamers are fucking stupid slug-like subhumans, so they'd just run around doing pointless shit instead.

deathbringer said:

Isn't there some WW2 game with a HUGE map based on a large part of europe

That would be World War II Online. I can't comment on it.

I always thought a game like C&C, but where two players are the "generals" and give "orders", but each soldier (or most anyway, there'd be bots too, maybe the bots would be "normal troops" and the player controlled people "commandos") would be a player,

For the most part, you just described the Battlefield series. Well, the last two installments at least. Maps support up to 64 players and there's squad-based play with a Commander giving out orders (which a squad can follow... or not).

However internet gamers are fucking stupid slug-like subhumans, so they'd just run around doing pointless shit instead.

Welcome to internet gaming. Don't like it? Try out for a clan or find a non-public server.

deathbringer said:

Isn't there some WW2 game with a HUGE map based on a large part of europe

I believe the guys who made 2142 (EA?) are making the game you speak of.I saw some screenshots and it reminds me of Team Fortress 2.But it does look fun.

Combat arms is the first MMOFPS that I've played that I actually like( I havent played ETQW)other than 1942 and 2142.I installed 1942 back on my comp after not playing it for a year and now that I got a better comp I turned up the amount of comp units...fucking insane.

No, DICE is making a game called "Mirror's Edge".

DICE is also making a game called Battlefield Heroes, which is the game Haloless described. It's basically the same thing as Combat Arms: a free-to-play game supported by microtransactions, such as purchasing custom gear or better weapons for your character. It doesn't look as good as TF2, though, and I don't like that they've changed the perspective from first to third person.

Even though servers cannot as of yet be chained together, an individual Odamex server can in theory hold up to 256 players or spectators or a combination of both. For full disclosure, we have not as of yet been able to test high player counts. If anyone could do it, I'd love to work with those people.

Mancubus II said:

Even though servers cannot as of yet be chained together, an individual Odamex server can in theory hold up to 256 players or spectators or a combination of both.

That sounds rather impressive, but there are very few maps that could support that many players comfortably. Maybe the original Deus Vult. :p And what would latency be like?

Except Battlefield Heroes won't have a HUGE map - it'll basically be Battlefield 1942 meets TF2. Personally, I am very much looking forward to it, because I love Battlefield 1942.

Which reminds me, damnit, I want Quake Live already! *sigh* Sorry, I kinda lump the two together because they're both free online shooters that are supposed to be coming out this summer.

Er, well, I prefer Battlefield 2 myself to be my favorite MMOFPS.