EA Survey: Share Your Thoughts on Battlefield 2042

I filled mine in last night and man did I let them know what I think, especially when it came to specialists (everything disagreed). Whether or not the read these surveys is a different story

The survey questions shows just how much EA/Dice have ignored the playerbase regarding feedback we have already been giving for the last 6-8 months or so, and just how little they seem know their own franchise and what a BF game means. Absolutely shocking

Tell them to add more maps and weapons

No way are they still sticking with the "legacy features" label and placing the onus on the player. How insulting

---

@Adamonic wrote:

What do you consider still needs to be improved in Battlefield 2042? Why - how would this improve your game experience?

HOLY CRAP, in 400 characters?

---

400 characters is quite hard lol. I thought it said 400 words. .

Match making and squad selection

matchmaking needs to carry over your team to the next map and maps need to cycle without repetition. officials servers would be nice as well.

individuals and clans need to be able to self organise through better squad management.

 these changes would bring significant enjoyment to the game as people would be able to play properly.

roughly 400 I think. .

@OskooI_007I imagine this question regarding persistant servers is more likely to be aimed at determining whether persistant server rental availabilty can actually be used as another way of increasing the monetisation of BF2042.
A quiet discussion at EA between two suits goes like this......
"We know players want persistant servers and a server browser......
Do they want it badly enough that they will PAY for it?"
Kap.

---

@edgecrusherO0 wrote:
@AdamonicGood lord...they put no marketing behind the 4.0 patch and are asking if folks even know what it included?

I mean, that they're at least doing something finally is great, but good lord is this kinda embarassing to read : |

---

Indeed, this is both embarrassing; and showing how tone deaf and arrogant that EA/DICE really are!

It is not like EA/DICE do not have all these answers already from their active BF customers/players.  We have posted the feedback to all these questions already since the early design phase of the BF2042 game.  Again very intense during both the closed technical play test and again during the entire beta testing period.  And last but not least, very substantial and very consistent customer feedback since game launch in November 2021.

One can also question why they now only choose to go out with a survey invite to a very narrow part of their customer base to get feedback from.  From our gaming and related EA accounts they already have the email address of all that ever played this game.  So why not simply invite everybody in to answer, to show they are inclusive and care to listen to all their customers/players!

That is of course if EA/DICE care to get the true voice of the full customer base and not just from the few cherry picked ones, they for some reason privilege above others.  Yes, I got the invite myself, but would still prefer this to go out to absolutely as many customers as possible!

Special thx to @Adamonic for posting all the questions/answer options here, for all to read and relate.  👍

Like one can ponder:  Why do EA/DICE not simply put a hyperlink to the survey here on this very EA BF Forum, so all registered users could participate and share their opinion? (while ensuring unique voting by having to quote their origin BF account) 

Maybe it's for the best that I didn't get the survey. There is nearly nothing I'm satisfied by...☹️

---

@Lancelot_du_Lac wrote:
@filthy_vegansdidn't get the survey, but I'm guessing it is largely quant. Maybe they use a programme to pick out 'trigger' words (but, without context...)?!
This reeks of an in-house survey monkey approach. Garbage in, garbage out.

---

I'd love to know their methodology - there's a lot you can't infer from the questions themselves.

I suspect that the results are categorised based on the closed answer questions, then sorted by the particular research question they want answered. A lot depends on staffing. For instance, if this was actually a marketing department survey for the next Battlefield, I'd expect a solid allocation of people to processing and interpreting the data. For 2042... I dunno. That would depend on EA/DICE's commitment to the game.

---

@OskooI_007 wrote:

Only one question asked about persistent servers, and it mentions server rentals. Which to me suggests DICE doesn't view map rotation and persistent servers/lobbies as a highly requested and sought after feature.

Looks like they plan on continuing to use Battle Royale style matchmaking, where lobbies are disbanded at the end of every round and player thrown into a new lobby that's probably playing the same map as the old lobby they were just in.

Bummer. I know Battle Royale style matchmaking is great for saving money on server hosting fees, but non-persistent lobbies don't work well in game modes like conquest and breakthrough where customers desire map rotations and lobbies that stay together through those map rotations.

There's something to be said about the social gaming aspect of persistent lobbies that seems to have been lost in the era of Battle Royale games. Different game modes require different lobby structures. For example, map rotation usually isn't a problem for Battle Royale lobbies because most only have one map in rotation at a time...

---

I'm not sure that's a justified conclusion. Battlefield hasn't done rented servers since BF1 - a 5 year old game. Even then, the servers were hosted by EA/DICE. This means that independently hosted rental servers haven't been a thing since BF4, which came out in 2013. EA/DICE clearly haven't been interested in that for a long time.

This doesn't mean they plan to continue with a pure matchmaking approach - the BFV style semi-persistent server would address many of the issues raised by players, such as squads being disbanded at the end of every round.

I personally would love to see persistent, player-run servers in the game. After BFV and its community games feature, I just don't see it happening. EA/DICE don't want to pass the costs of running a server onto the players, because they don't want the players to have the kind of control that they once had, while they don't want to pay for persistent servers.

The problem with Portal is the same problem that community games had - it's an order of magnitude more difficult to build a comminuty around a server that isn't running 24/7. EA/DICE aren't passing the hosting costs on to players, but they're effectively asking players to pay to run their own server (electricity) while also preventing the vast majority of players from doing much else with the machine they choose to use to "host" the server - BF2042 is a very CPU-intensive game. How many customers have a spare machine they're happy to leave running 24/7 with an instance of 2042 running? I suspect that the answer is "lol".

@filthy_vegans 

Gawd I would love to see rental servers like BF1942-BF4 had, that was the golden age of community building and involvement around the BF series.