Add optional server region button

---

@Ironhead841 wrote:

@cso7777 

Nope, gotta disagree MM is an abomination and is a *-poor substitute for a functional server browser and persistent servers.

If it is about saving themselves money, they could just go back to letting people host their own servers and EA/Dice's server costs could be limited to "official" servers.

There was/is a reason BF4 is so popular to this day and a lot of that has to do with being able to host and admin your own server, run whatever maps/modes/restrictions (e.g. ping limitations) as well as banning players that are cheating or griefing other players.

Along with those perks is the ability to easily play with friends and favorite servers you like, something EA/Dice has apparently deemed not worth considering.

Leave matchmaking for other titles, provide a "quickhatch" button for players that like it but let the rest of us play with who/where/when we want.

---

Boom! Drop the mic and walk away...

@Echo6Echo

He is right, there are many pc players in Asia who use cheat software, some cheaters use it high profile so you can't play properly and some cheaters use it low profile so you don't notice.

This is a big reason why I choose to use consoles to play multiplayer games. Even with consoles, there are players who use tools like XIM to give themselves an advantage. But overall the console environment is still much better than PC.

@OskooI_007 

---

@OskooI_007 wrote:

@Echo6Echo Cheating in online games is popular in Asian culture. They refer to it as 'helper software', not cheating.

@OldFriend-Wang DICE made an official statement saying they listened carefully to community feedback regarding server browser, matchmaking, persistent servers/lobbies, console only crossplay, and map rotation.

After giving our feedback careful consideration, they decided the answer is no for all our requests. DICE community managers have also tweeted that the majority of Battlefield players are enjoying the matchmaking experience in 2042. Which leads me to believe we'll see the exact same thing in the next Battlefield game too.

---

So why not let ps4 xbox1 players can crossplay with ps5 xbx xss players in 64-player mode? What confidence does dice have that the number of players is so high that it can split the console community, is it an illusion?

---

@Ironhead841 wrote:

@cso7777 

Nope, gotta disagree MM is an abomination and is a *-poor substitute for a functional server browser and persistent servers.

If it is about saving themselves money, they could just go back to letting people host their own servers and EA/Dice's server costs could be limited to "official" servers.

There was/is a reason BF4 is so popular to this day and a lot of that has to do with being able to host and admin your own server, run whatever maps/modes/restrictions (e.g. ping limitations) as well as banning players that are cheating or griefing other players.

Along with those perks is the ability to easily play with friends and favorite servers you like, something EA/Dice has apparently deemed not worth considering.

Leave matchmaking for other titles, provide a "quickhatch" button for players that like it but let the rest of us play with who/where/when we want.

---

Pretty much says it all really, this should be the blueprint for all future BF's. 

---

@ATFGunr wrote:
@Ironhead841OldFriend raised a good issue though, about VPN use on online gaming. Although some VPN providers claim to have lag free services, we know that’s BS. I’m not blaming anyone for just trying to find occupied servers to play a game they paid for, but it’s one of the reasons why MM is such an abysmal failure and why 2042 servers suck *. Dice could do something about this, and are choosing not to.

---

Agreed and the easy "fix" to that is of course that EA/DICE show show each player's ping on the scoreboard!

Or even better, allow the server owner to set max allowed ping limit for players to be able to join and play on it!

Soo sick and tired of the many far out of region players we are troubled by, who joins with pings 800 miliseconds and above.  Some even up in the 1,400-1,800 range.  They totally destroy the pleasure of the gameplay for everybody else on the server.  That will continously rubberband and lag for everybody on it.  Not to mention the obvious total lack of proper hit registration as result.

Regarding the point mentioned by some above that VPN companies claim to near zero lag from their usage, that is often quite accurate.  But that does not mean that the combined latency then suddenly by miracle becomes good and they appear to have a latency as good as if they physically and actively were indeed located in the geographic location they now use via the VPN.  E.g. a Shanghai located user will still have his/her signal travelling from Shanghai to the VPN provider and then from there e.g. to the US located game server.  So the total latency will still also appear in the game as being e.g. 450 ms or above.  Because no matter how good the VPN is, the gaming signal still needs to travel that physical distance and its actually that time it takes for the data packages to travel from the game platform to the game server that all adds up no matter if using a VPN or not.  One can even argue that the VPN will always matter of fact even add just a bit more nodes in that data journey versus going direct.  But what the VPN does provide is obfuscation of the geographic IP location of the gamer using this setup.  But no matter, the high latency will be there and also being the main cause for the trouble of these abusive far-out-of-region players.