Remove the minimum amount of players to start a match
So many times a game could start but a few short, Fix.
Forum Discussion
11 Replies
- @K9_Dexter
I remember a long post on this, but EA didn't bother to respond. I agree lower numbers to start a match would be nice. But I think it is about money, so many servers starting up would be costly. - @sk1lld
Yeah I agree, I have always been an advocate for getting games started with lower numbers, even one player starts. I think this is the thread you were referring too :
https://answers.ea.com/t5/General-Discussion/Reduce-the-number-of-players-needed-to-start-a-round/td-p/12223059 - @K9_Dexter I'd be down for this too. They could backfill with the bots until there are enough players.
- @RayD_O1 Two years on and we’re still begging, this is getting ridiculous. People are speaking with their wallets and still Dice doesn’t listen. The diminished player count that begs for less restrictions on starts is the other way people are communicating and still Dice doesn’t listen. Will anyone still be playing when S7 comes out?
Pondhawk Superiority is another great example, 32 player start for a 64 player server, it takes way too long! Who at Dice comes up with these ideas, and do they analyze any data at all to base these decisions upon?
Needs to be lower. People would stay if you could just start playing
- @RayD_O1 We have been asking for this for too long. This is a big problem in smaller markets, like Oceania.
It is the middle of the school holidays in Australia, and I struggle to find active games at the best of times. I've given up waiting - I just load another game (Starfield for me). - @Lancelot_du_Lac
I agree, I am sorry to hear that you still struggle to get into games, this should not be happening in a BF title.
The one player start / AI backfill works well in Official Weekly Portal Experiences and imho it would work equally well in AOW. I also advocate for more time in play and less time waiting in empty lobbies.
Featured Places
