They just have to remove AoW all together. You can play the 2042 experience just fine in portal. Portal has been the saving grace of this game and AoW completely undermines its potential.
It’s beyond comprehension how/why DICE is refusing to go with the tried and true, fan favorite formula of map rotations and persistent, Official DICE servers for AOW.
Honestly it defies all logic! It’s as if they want the game to fail.
If you wanted to kill the social aspect of the game you’d destroy the “select squad/change squad” menu that works so well in previous Battlefield titles and you’d kill squads staying together from one match to the next. DICE has managed to do both in 2042.
@Zhukov211 wrote:Honestly it defies all logic! It’s as if they want the game to fail.
From a spending POV I think it's logical for them. I think the model they have at the moment is something like: rise a cloud vm with the BF server and the moment the match is done it shuts down, and that repeats itself for the rest of the servers we get matched in. Instead of keeping the vm alive nonstop it will close it thus EA wont have to pay for the resources the vm is using. if persistent. In short you pay what you use and EA thinks it will lose money if the servers will be persistent. I'm 100% sure they could optimize costs if they put a little effort into it even if the servers are persistent but I have little hope with DICE.
@OzzLink wrote:
@Zhukov211 wrote:Honestly it defies all logic! It’s as if they want the game to fail.
From a spending POV I think it's logical for them. I think the model they have at the moment is something like: rise a cloud vm with the BF server and the moment the match is done it shuts down, and that repeats itself for the rest of the servers we get matched in. Instead of keeping the vm alive nonstop it will close it thus EA wont have to pay for the resources the vm is using. if persistent. In short you pay what you use and EA thinks it will lose money if the servers will be persistent. I'm 100% sure they could optimize costs if they put a little effort into it even if the servers are persistent but I have little hope with DICE.
@OzzLink Whilst I would agree, considering that Portal is a thing, the whole "to save money" notion doesn't make sense because there's loads of Portal servers with just handfuls of people on them, if they wanted to save money from a "server" point of view, they wouldn't have made Portal what it is.
I think it's more realistic that they wanted to brute force the Battlefield community into something that doesn't belong in Battlefield, Matchmaking.
Furthermore, when matches end in AoW, entire lobbies are disbanded, resulting in clients needing to send more data to find another game, that's more data being received on the server side, that's a lot of unnecessary wasted bandwidth when there was already a full lobby that simply needed to have its teams shuffled and continue onto the next map, instantly without kicking people to the menu.
@OzzLink wrote:
@Zhukov211 wrote:Honestly it defies all logic! It’s as if they want the game to fail.
From a spending POV I think it's logical for them. I think the model they have at the moment is something like: rise a cloud vm with the BF server and the moment the match is done it shuts down, and that repeats itself for the rest of the servers we get matched in. Instead of keeping the vm alive nonstop it will close it thus EA wont have to pay for the resources the vm is using. if persistent. In short you pay what you use and EA thinks it will lose money if the servers will be persistent. I'm 100% sure they could optimize costs if they put a little effort into it even if the servers are persistent but I have little hope with DICE.
100% this. !
@RayD_O1 wrote:
@OzzLink wrote:
@Zhukov211 wrote:Honestly it defies all logic! It’s as if they want the game to fail.
From a spending POV I think it's logical for them. I think the model they have at the moment is something like: rise a cloud vm with the BF server and the moment the match is done it shuts down, and that repeats itself for the rest of the servers we get matched in. Instead of keeping the vm alive nonstop it will close it thus EA wont have to pay for the resources the vm is using. if persistent. In short you pay what you use and EA thinks it will lose money if the servers will be persistent. I'm 100% sure they could optimize costs if they put a little effort into it even if the servers are persistent but I have little hope with DICE.
100% this. !
Well, yes and no. Are they trying to save money? Possibly. Is it justified? Not really..
you reserve say 100 servers and then at peak you have servers you can scale to. I.e 150 servers.
the 100servers you have two pricing options.
resting cost. Price per minute to keep the servers ready.
serving cost. Price on top, for streaming data. I.e people playing.
you pay for the 100 servers regardless.
during peak hours you then have servers spin up based on demand. And they will cost the full price.
Now dice /ea likely have 1000s of servers in there own data centres. Or under agreement with say Amazon.
so they are paying at least a fixed price for N servers
What you do with those servers is entirely up to you. There is zero justification from an server architecture point of view to not have the server run two rounds per match swapping sides.
there is no pricing justification for not having an in intelligent permemant lobby that groups and manages users and passes them of to game servers.
@OzzLink wrote:
@Zhukov211 wrote:Honestly it defies all logic! It’s as if they want the game to fail.
From a spending POV I think it's logical for them. I think the model they have at the moment is something like: rise a cloud vm with the BF server and the moment the match is done it shuts down, and that repeats itself for the rest of the servers we get matched in. Instead of keeping the vm alive nonstop it will close it thus EA wont have to pay for the resources the vm is using. if persistent. In short you pay what you use and EA thinks it will lose money if the servers will be persistent. I'm 100% sure they could optimize costs if they put a little effort into it even if the servers are persistent but I have little hope with DICE.
Of course you loose money on that. Cost optimisation already happened and it is cheaper to have in ot demand rather sit there the whole time.
