Forum Discussion

DPsx7's avatar
DPsx7
3 years ago
Solved

Go back to how it was.

Let's be honest, the game was good with its original vision. Just needed some tweaking to maps. I along with many others don't believe classes are necessary. They place artificial restrictions on the...
discussion
  • EA_Darko's avatar
    EA_Darko
    3 years ago
    And that's the end of that. 

    Locking this thread now as I had to remove a number of posts and it's clear that after my warning the conversation is still moving in the wrong direction.

    Please do not make further posts related to this topic.


    Going forward please take a read of the AHQ User Rules and Guidelines: https://answers.ea.com/t5/help/faqpage



    If you are unable to post without posting in a rude or abusive or dismissive manner then we would ask that you refrain from posting.


    Darko
RaginSam's avatar
RaginSam
Seasoned Ace
3 years ago
@ATFGunr wrote:
@RaginSamI agree with a lot of what you’re saying, I have to address your comment about the server browser. No they didn’t “promise” a server browser. They did have a browser in every BF since the first on 1942 20 years ago. It was entirely a reasonable expectation that the game would be similarly based on the past ones, especially as EA & Dice had talked about 2042 being a love letter to the fans / players. It was a staple of Battlefield. They didn’t promise to have a start screen, or an options screen, or ways to program your controller or keyboard. Why would they need to promise something that was always a part of the game. Instead what they should have dammed well said is that they were NOT including a browser for the main game. The sun doesn’t promise to come up in the morning yet we have a reasonable expectation it will.

I have mixed feelings about the lack of a server browser. On one hand, I totally agree with you, and it seems like a basic feature that should be included by default.

There's a couple of reasons why they might have left it out though. First reason would be to keep servers full and to keep people from just leaving matches constantly to go back to another map or something. I'm not saying that's a good solution to that hypothetical problem, just maybe why. The other is to keep big groups of players from taking over servers. I've played with big groups for short stints because it just got really boring if there were too many Platoon players on one team. Total slaughters isn't fun for anyone. For the main game those might be a couple of reasons. All speculation of course.

I think the best solution is give you guys what you really want, or from my understanding of it, so sorry if I'm getting this wrong. You guys would really like to see Rented Servers again with Admin abilities? To be honest I don't really play around in Portal much at all. I have no idea how much control or Admin like abilities you have once a server is running, I'm guessing not much if any.

BFV had a simple server browser that worked fine for my needs. I didn't really care for the majority of the maps in that game for some reason. I actually prefer 2042 maps. So I don't find myself wanting to skip maps, but that's just me. It could be argued that they need to make good maps and rework them if needed to keep people engaged with them? Again, on the other hand, if people keep leaving and killing a server right after a certain map, is that good for the game? I'm not sure.

ATFGunr's avatar
ATFGunr
Legend
3 years ago
@RaginSam Rentable servers are a dream that’s unlikely to come to fruition. The ATF clan I’m in always rented 2-3 servers and had admins on hand to deal with issues. Yes you could get into perceived clan stacking. With ATF, if one team was getting rolled we would switch some high scoring players over to create the balance Dice never could. Sometimes people might get mad about that, mostly we just moved ourselves. We’d shadow and record people we thought cheated before they would get kicked. They’d get banned from our severs. Many other clans, AoD, TBG etc all did similar. I’ve heard some others would be bad admins, but I admit I never personally experienced it. We wanted players to play on our servers, it gave us someone to play with, especially off hours. I’m sure some in these forums played on Hump ‘Em and Dump ‘Em ATF servers or those of other clans. You play on one enough maybe they ask you to join and get into comms, or you want to join and ask. We’d play other clans in friendly and / or competition matches. It was fun and really created a sense of community. I miss that. So yes, I’d like to see browsers where we could play where we wanted and who we wanted.
  • RaginSam's avatar
    RaginSam
    Seasoned Ace
    3 years ago

    @ATFGunrI'm all for rented servers and would definitely play on an ATF ran one!

    I've met a few bad admins that did abuse their role, but usually, the normal ones, you'll never even notice them because they're just running the server. Like you said, balancing the teams, watching for cheaters and kicking them when they're confident that they are in fact cheating. Bigger clans like yours I've never had a problem with. I'm pretty sure that you could report an abusive admin if it came down to it. There's more accountability with the bigger clans.

    When I was playing BF4 daily, it was almost exclusively on private servers. I get the appeal of them. My only concern was with the base game and people stacking one side to pub stomp. That's pretty toxic for the community in my opinion. A server filled with a clan isn't a problem, but sometimes people need to be shuffled a bit to balance things out.

About Battlefield 2042 General Discussion

Discuss the latest news and game information around Battlefield 2042 in the community forums.15,981 PostsLatest Activity: 14 minutes ago