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.
@FlibberMeister wrote:
@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.
This is not how cloud service work my friend. IaaS or PaaS is pay what you use and they have dynamic scaling. I have no idea what kind of infra they have setup but the reasoning to cloud service is that that you pay for what you use, I use both Azure and AWS at work. You dont pay for 100 servers slots, this is not the 1990 to reserve vm slots, the data centers these day can accommodate a lot. The main factor for the price is the dynamic range for the resources you will use (ram / cpu / bandwith) and the type of disks used and the amount ofc
@OzzLink wrote:
@FlibberMeister wrote:
@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.
This is not how cloud service work my friend. IaaS or PaaS is pay what you use and they have dynamic scaling. I have no idea what kind of infra they have setup but the reasoning to cloud service is that that you pay for what you use, I use both Azure and AWS at work. You dont pay for 100 servers slots, this is not the 1990 to reserve vm slots, the data centers these day can accommodate a lot. The main factor for the price is the dynamic range for the resources you will use (ram / cpu / bandwith) and the type of disks used and the amount ofc
It is how some set ups work. I don’t disagree that there are alternatives.
having priced up servers to secure availability and meet expected peak demands, this is a common pricing strategy.
my point is, there isn’t really a justification for a rubbish poorly executed game flow. You can set up the most optimised server architecture you want and pricing shouldn’t really make much of a difference.
For Example, pre-game lobbies don’t need to be actual game servers. They could/should just be a database. I.e a list. There is zero reason why you couldn’t bring all previous players from a game into the next game, and send them to a newly spun game server together.
@FlibberMeister wrote:
@OzzLink wrote:
@FlibberMeister wrote:
@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.
This is not how cloud service work my friend. IaaS or PaaS is pay what you use and they have dynamic scaling. I have no idea what kind of infra they have setup but the reasoning to cloud service is that that you pay for what you use, I use both Azure and AWS at work. You dont pay for 100 servers slots, this is not the 1990 to reserve vm slots, the data centers these day can accommodate a lot. The main factor for the price is the dynamic range for the resources you will use (ram / cpu / bandwith) and the type of disks used and the amount ofc
It is how some set ups work. I don’t disagree that there are alternatives.
having priced up servers to secure availability and meet expected peak demands, this is a common pricing strategy.
my point is, there isn’t really a justification for a rubbish poorly executed game flow. You can set up the most optimised server architecture you want and pricing shouldn’t really make much of a difference.
I never said I disagree with you, the MM system is a total mess, I was just trying to figure out how they have it set up and this is the most logical/usual/ less cost way they can have it setup.
TBH at the current state of the game persistent servers and a better balance to the Condor/Hind are the only things I am interested in, so yeah you wont get any argue from me that the MM is utter BS.
As long as DICE does not disclose how the system behind the matchmaking and the servers works, I can only speculate and the in the core I have already tried to make explanation about the BF MM a few months ago.
let's say DICE would give us a server browser for the matchmaking what would we see?
I would say 98% full servers where no one or only 1-2 players can join on running round anyway.
the matchmaking has been created in such a way that it always tries to create round that is filled with 100% human players. Which I find very good as a solo player.
Of course, this also has disadvantages for some players (bigger groups are problem or server join afterwards into an round is nearly impossible, permanent server no longer exist) but still I think for 90% of the current BF players the system is perfect.
The only Thing is that DICE need to add additions features to the matchmaking like a Preferred Maps list so that you can avoid maps you don’t like. Also, they need to fix that you join the same map back-to-back (if you have a map list with more than one map)
Also, I think that there are no permanent sever in the background, only session that will be created as needed. So, for a server browser you normally need permanent server but for this they need to change their system in the background.
At the moment the system is for them mega effective in using resources on the back end, if they establish permanent server this will need more permanently bound resources on the server. (Which will create more costs for them)
So, I have doubts that there will be a sever browser system as we know it
I know this is an unpopular opinion but that is the way I see it.
I 100% disagree this matchmaking they are cramming down everybody's throat is absolute crap and NOT an adequate substitute for a fully functioning, proper server browser and persistent servers.
"I think for 90% of the current BF players the system is perfect."
Where in the hell did ya get that impression? Entire Clans and Platoons refuse to play this title because of the lack of these features, not to mention only being able to play with only four friends MAXIMUM at one time.
I mean I'm happy you're happy playing as a solo player and everything is hunky-dory for YOUR playstyle but for a big chunk of the BF community it feels like we got shafted pretty friggin' hard.
I must confess I don't even get why this needs to be discussed at length.
BOTH! a server browser AND persistent servers with a proper map rotation ALREADY EXIST! in BF2042. They are in Portal.
ALL they have to do is to run them with the same configuration the current AoW modes use. And maybe add a label 'official' to the name and put a button for faster access in the main menu.
That is literally one developer could do if she is any good in a very short period of time. You can even leave the current MM as an alternative to be placed into said servers. With that you would have some solution that NOBODY would be worse off (even the players that like the current system) and ALL OTHERS would be MUCH better off.
There is no reason other than Dice wanting to annoy the community at this point why this is not in the game. If there is, it was not posted here before. And Dice being completely radio silent on this is also VERY telling if you ask me.
I wouldn't mind seeing them just scrap the whole AOW tile configuration and run the whole game through Portal. And you could leave a little quick-match tile for those that can't be bothered to use the browser.
To be honest I’m just waiting for map rotation and squad controls to be updated before I bother playing again.
Portals ok. But still less than ideal. Can you make exp progression in portal? Are servers actually long running? I thought the owner of the server had to be logged in for it to run?
@Ironhead841 wrote:I wouldn't mind seeing them just scrap the whole AOW tile configuration and run the whole game through Portal. And you could leave a little quick-match tile for those that can't be bothered to use the browser.
100% this, where do I cast my vote for this and when is it happening. !
@Ironhead841 wrote:I wouldn't mind seeing them just scrap the whole AOW tile configuration and run the whole game through Portal. And you could leave a little quick-match tile for those that can't be bothered to use the browser.
They need to just scrap AoW. The 4 tile system is unaccommodating to the ways players could potentially enjoy this game. Its holding Breakthrough as a game mode hostage, and its splitting the playerbase.
Server browser trades one set of problems for another.
Some negatives with server browser that I'm not seeing discussed:
1) People preferring to wait in queues rather than seed new servers.
2) Out of region players. The MM in BF2042 seems pretty aggressive at keeping players in region.
3) Team stacking/unbalanced teams match after match.
The MM only approach for BF2042 is a crude solution to those problems, but it is a solution. Ideally there could be a server browser added that could also provide solutions for those problems.
@X-Sunslayer-X wrote:
@AngrySquid270sure it has its downsides but i think the benefits outweigh them by a lot
Certainly some people will prefer the advantages of the server browser, but I think the ultimate preference will come down to the individual.
Personally I'm 55/45 for keeping things the way they are. And I'm 100% for a solution that adds a server browser AND manages to solve the classic server browser problems.
There is always pros vs * to consider as you say, but I would much rather control my own experience in regards to where and with who I want to play with. I would happily deal with the "*" you've listed for server browser and persistent servers.
Battlefield has had a server browser since its inception and it just feels like matchmaking was a solution looking for a problem.
It and the fact you can only play with a maximum of four friends is a big part (not the only reasons, I know) of the reason this game has been so negatively received.
