Re: MM vs Persistent Servers
@Lancelot_du_Lac Shouldn't make a difference cost wise. Matchmaking and spining up 8 MAP instances for a 1000 player pool or providing 8 servers for 1000 players should require the same amount of CPU, RAM and Bandwidth.
I still believe the matchmaking is an artifact from the Battle Royal base of the game, and they use this mechanism, because its there.
Since the requirements for a Battle Royal matchmaking are different from a Battlefield Players expectation, this is all so awkward.
The mechanism filling up map instances with players isn't really working either. I had several times that I started to play a map with 50% players, 50% AI that went to 100% near the end, and then ave the next round starting with 50%:50% again.
The simple matchmake procedure may work okay-ish for a huge player base, but now, that the match make pools are so tiny, either a more complex matchmaking algorithm is needed, or persistant servers.
Maybe it helps to create semi-persistent lobbies, and spinning up new servers like for matchmaking is an option.
I still believe the matchmaking is an artifact from the Battle Royal base of the game, and they use this mechanism, because its there.
Since the requirements for a Battle Royal matchmaking are different from a Battlefield Players expectation, this is all so awkward.
The mechanism filling up map instances with players isn't really working either. I had several times that I started to play a map with 50% players, 50% AI that went to 100% near the end, and then ave the next round starting with 50%:50% again.
The simple matchmake procedure may work okay-ish for a huge player base, but now, that the match make pools are so tiny, either a more complex matchmaking algorithm is needed, or persistant servers.
Maybe it helps to create semi-persistent lobbies, and spinning up new servers like for matchmaking is an option.
