Server tickrate
It may seem strange, but why even in advancing modes by EA in 16v16 or 32v32 is the same 45Hz tick rate used (not 60 or higher)? Okay, maybe in 128 player modes this worked very badly and increased t...
Forum Discussion
@Ironhead841
That is without a doubt true. We did run our own server (or briefly two) and with Procon and all plugins we could craft the experience we wanted and keep the server cheater free for the most part (also thanks to Metabans).
But I see no (technical) problem with having persistent server instances (that you will have to pay for of course --we as a clan would certainly be willing to do that again) alongside those cloud hosted servers the number of which would be scaled on player demand.
And even persistent server instances we are all asking for would be possible with cloud hosting. The only difference is that after a round is over the SAME server would be reused instead spawning a new instance for every new match. This would be still cloud based and from a cost perspective would incur the same cost as the MM/new server per match method they use now.
That is without a doubt true. We did run our own server (or briefly two) and with Procon and all plugins we could craft the experience we wanted and keep the server cheater free for the most part (also thanks to Metabans).
But I see no (technical) problem with having persistent server instances (that you will have to pay for of course --we as a clan would certainly be willing to do that again) alongside those cloud hosted servers the number of which would be scaled on player demand.
And even persistent server instances we are all asking for would be possible with cloud hosting. The only difference is that after a round is over the SAME server would be reused instead spawning a new instance for every new match. This would be still cloud based and from a cost perspective would incur the same cost as the MM/new server per match method they use now.
I'm not sure if I'm following what you are saying, do you mean renting a cloud server from EA/Dice?
I mean I guess that would be ok as long as you could still maintain admin controls, I'm not sure how that would all work.
I would still prefer if we could host our own servers and since that wouldn't cost EA/Dice any extra money I don't understand why they would be against that.
@Ironhead841
Yes, what I meant was paying for an (persistent) server instance managed by EA/Dice where they would have to act as a reseller. It would be in the cloud infrastructure they currently run their other (Portal) servers in. Otherwise it would be a big overhead on their end and I guess they would not be willing to invest that.
We have to be realistic -- the option to get your hands on the server executable and host this on your own hardware will most likely never come back. The best you can hope for is the state we had up to BF4 with dedicated server hosting companies that would offer servers that could be rented from them (and they would manage the server along with the server executables provided by Dice). The system worked pretty well for us. But I also doubt that this will make a return anytime soon.
So the best and at least somewhat realistic option would be to have Dice divide their portal servers in two pools. One of the pools could be persistent server instances that they would be available 24/7 (or at least visible in the server browser -- they don't have to actually be running if nobody is playing on them). From a player perspective, there is no difference in a server that is REALLY running 24/7 and one that only starts up on demand as soon as the first player connects and gets destroyed once the laster player leaves -- exactly like the current Portal servers. The only difference would be that it is visible 24/7 in the server browsers. The rest would be identical to the current Portal servers.
