Re: MM vs Persistent Servers

@DuaneDibbleyWhat you say is true. I'm sure DICE could migrate everyone in the server over to a new instance after the game ends. But that probably adds complexity to the matchmaking system. We don't know if DICE is using Amazon's matchmaking system or their own implementation. Amazon's matchmaking system might not even have the capability of migrating players to a new instance.

Bottom line, DICE probably chose the easiest and cheapest solution. Which is shutdown the game instance when the round ends, dump all the players back into the matchmaking pool, and start a new game instance on the cheapest on-demand/spot server available.

@OskooI_007

Amazon does not offer ANY 'matchmaking' functionality. They provide you with a scalable cloud infrastructure in which you can run your K8S or whatever. The matchmaking is completely on Dice's end. After checking the AWS documentation provided below, this sentence is not true.

I personally could live without ANY matchmaking other than finding a running server in my region that has room for my party (usually 6-9 players in the evening) and put us all in this one server. Preferably on the same team, preferably not in a match that is close to the end of the round. Put us there and we will play the rotation together until we get tired or run out of our alcoholic beverages.

---

@DuaneDibbley wrote:
@OskooI_007

Amazon does not offer ANY 'matchmaking' functionality. They provide you with a scalable cloud infrastructure in which you can run your K8S or whatever. The matchmaking is completely on Dice's end.

---

Amazon does offer matchmaking. It's called FlexMatch.

Game developers value flexibility in their matchmaker to iterate quickly and identify the right set of matchmaking rules that make their games fun. But a matchmaker with that flexibility is difficult to build in-house and at scale because doing so requires expertise in distributed compute. FlexMatch lets developers skip that lengthy upfront development effort and dive right into optimizing their rulesets. Now, FlexMatch is also accessible in standalone mode so developers can place formed matches on any game server solution.

https://aws.amazon.com/gamelift/features/

Could someone explain in detail the potential costs in case of renting a server by a given player? How much does it translate to Server Browser, Addons, Procon Layer Tools, any infrastructure, software development involved? In possibly humane language.

---

@DuaneDibbley wrote:

@OskooI_007

Amazon does not offer ANY 'matchmaking' functionality. They provide you with a scalable cloud infrastructure in which you can run your K8S or whatever. The matchmaking is completely on Dice's end. After checking the AWS documentation provided below, this sentence is not true.

I personally could live without ANY matchmaking other than finding a running server in my region that has room for my party (usually 6-9 players in the evening) and put us all in this one server. Preferably on the same team, preferably not in a match that is close to the end of the round. Put us there and we will play the rotation together until we get tired or run out of our alcoholic beverages.

---

Yeah me too I could definitely live without ANY matchmaking.

That's all we want, the ability to get on a server of our choice and stay there.

Beats playing Hourglass 4 or 5 times in a row any day, once is one time to many on that map even after a few drinks. 😃

---

@DuaneDibbley wrote:
@RayD_O1

And -- at least if I remember correctly -- the dreaded match making even put us two together into one server and even in the same squad just a few days ago. What are the chances? Well given that we both are amongst the few player this game has left, not too low it seems. 😉

---

Yeah I posted about that on this thread : DICE add a Server Browser / Persistent Servers to AOW - Page 5 - Answer HQ

Hi m8, enjoyed our brief encounter in game earlier you are the first player from the forums I have actually met up / played with in BF2042 in game. 🙂

I was looking forward to a playing second map with our same squad but we got separated at the end of the round.

Not sure whether it was due to good old MM or if you had to leave.

I am sure if DICE ever get rid of MM and replace it with a proper server browser / persistent server system, all players / squads will have a lot more fun as they will be kept together through the whole map rotation instead of being separated after every round. 

We can only hope it is SOON.  😃 

---

@DuaneDibbley wrote:
@RayD_O1

Ah, thanks. Missed that reply of yours. Yes, I had to leave after that round. But given how MM works chances are very high that we would have been separated anyway as I was playing with a clan mate and we were in the same 'social' group that would at least have been kept together for the next round. I can't remember keeping other players in our squad for more than one round EVER if we play in a 'social group'.

One more reason to wish for this MM go bet replaced rather sooner than later by proper map rotations. Which I would STILL quit as soon as Hourglass comes up. 😉

---

Yeah I would say we probably would have been separated anyway thanks to good old MM,  enjoyed the game though.! 

Good to know I am not alone in my hate for Hourglass, I can't stand it.

And yes the sooner they replace it the better, MM and BF2042 is definitely not a match made in heaven. 😃

Back in the days when I played on PC, rented servers were very popular. Obviously, at no extra cost to EA.

What is the case on Console? I'm guessing that EA need to provide those. This would be a consideration to game companies as Consoles continue to grow at the expense of PC.

Imho unless DICE get rid of MM in AOW the BF franchise as we know it will be damaged beyond repair.

I tried getting into Kaleidoscope map a earlier this afternoon and it timed out waiting for players and I am in the UK.

BF2042 is definitely on life support and MM is making matters so much worse and needs replacing urgently. 

---

@Sc0tch_Whiskey wrote:
@RayD_O1Can’t get into a match again. But checked and the player count is 1,707 according to steam only. Spread that out to all the modes available and I can see why you can’t get Into a match.

---

Yeah as you rightly say the figures speak for themselves don't they.  ☹️

I would never have forecast this rate of decline for a BF title after only three months,

DICE have a major job on their hands to save this title and the sooner they spell out their roadmap for BF2042 the better, before it's too late.!

---

@Lancelot_du_Lac wrote:
@OskooI_007 so it would seem that MM is probably a part of the business case for developing BF2042, in addition to the strategy of tapping into the some of the Fortnite/Apex player base

---

@Lancelot_du_Lac conversely the business case for returning to the more expensive persistent servers is in the current player count. I think EA/DICE completely misread the community's likely reaction to a number of formula changes to the franchise and most likely suffered internal confirmation bias as to why they thought changes like this would be accepted by the community.

---

@ragnarok013 wrote:

---

@Lancelot_du_Lac wrote:
@OskooI_007so it would seem that MM is probably a part of the business case for developing BF2042, in addition to the strategy of tapping into the some of the Fortnite/Apex player base

---

@Lancelot_du_Lacconversely the business case for returning to the more expensive persistent servers is in the current player count. I think EA/DICE completely misread the community's likely reaction to a number of formula changes to the franchise and most likely suffered internal confirmation bias as to why they thought changes like this would be accepted by the community.

---

Very true, how anyone in their right mind ever thought they could sell BF2042 in it's current guise is beyond me.

It's like they took the blueprint of what BF stood for and shredded it. !!

I am not exactly sure who they thought BF2042 would appeal to as it's neither one thing or the other and it has ended up pleasing virtually no one judging by the player population stats.

BF2042 never gives me that feeling of "just one more round",  I am currently struggling to get the enthusiasm to go in and play at all. 

It's all fairly soulless imho, too little content, too many missing features, too much time wasted in menus & lobbies etc.....

As I said I don't really know why they made the decision to go down this route but I do know it has backfired big style. 

---

@OskooI_007 wrote:

Amazon's AWS website breaks down the cost of running dedicated vs on-demand servers.

Cost of continuously running servers		$36,270
Cost w/Autoscaling and On-Demand		$18,150	50% savings over continuously running servers
Cost w/Auto Scaling and Spot (estimated)		$5,430	85% savings over continuously running servers

EA is saving at least 50% using on-demand servers vs continuously running dedicated servers. They save even more if on-demand spot servers are available, which is unused server capacity Amazon offers at a discount.

https://aws.amazon.com/gamelift/pricing/

It's no wonder EA loves the new matchmaking system where servers are shut down at the end of every round.

---

I do t think it’s that simple though. I don’t  see any reason why what those servers are doing when up and running couldn’t be MM or Dedicated servers. 

Or some other configuration I.e a mix.

you can scale servers in all sorts of ways. And quite often th price is also broken down into pending and active. I.e based on how much bandwidth is being used.

also you tend to have to outlay a lot of money upfront when dealing with large numbers like BF. So your already talking dedicated servers farms to your business. 

basically cost might play.a part in it. But it really shouldn’t