The server browser topic has gotten a lot of traction but I dont see it ever being a possibility for all out warfare due to how the game is built and it being a huge undertaking.What I think people actually want is for players to remain in the next match if they don't quit. The current system sends everybody back to matchmaking after every match. This causes games to feel empty at the beginning of most matches and it takes longer to get into the next match.What should happen is any players that don't exit the match during the post match screens should automatically be put into the next match together with scrambled teams. This is similar to past bf games. That way the game does not start with a bunch of AI and you get into a match faster.If a server browser is an unrealistic ask, this is the next best thing and is essential to improving the Aow experience and keeping players playing together.

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.

@SpudBug Nope I strongly disagree, we NEED a server browser AND persistent servers in AOW, doesn't have to be one or the other.I want to pick where to play based on ping, region and stability with an option to favorite servers I like so I don't have to keep searching for them.Settling for just persistent servers is wrong-headed we shouldn't have to settle for whatever option they deem is easiest or because the right option (Server browser AND persistent servers) is just too hard.I ponied up my hard-earned paycheck for this game and I expect them to do what is hard despite it being a "huge undertaking" nothing less.

@RayD_O1 wrote:@FlibberMeisterYeah it looks like somebody threw away the formula and started from scratch.I imagine to capture a new younger market audience that have different wants and needs. juat a shame the new direction doesn’t fully support groups of players that want to play together more than once and the existing player bases that would have lapped up bf2042 if it weren’t for the current match making solution. someone ask what real bf is. I’d say it’s a game that brings people together rather than forces them apart. neither AOW nor portal do this sufficiently well to really get the community going. alienating clans. In favour of loan players is possibly the most inane thing about bf2042

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.

We need a Server Browser geez. That is the way into the persistent servers and lobbies.MM is not the way to go because it creates non-persistent instances.

We don't need server browser, we need persistent matches that keep players

57 Replies

protoman23
4 years ago
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.
Zhukov211
4 years ago
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.
Ironhead841
Hero
4 years ago
@SpudBug
Nope I strongly disagree, we NEED a server browser AND persistent servers in AOW, doesn't have to be one or the other.
I want to pick where to play based on ping, region and stability with an option to favorite servers I like so I don't have to keep searching for them.
Settling for just persistent servers is wrong-headed we shouldn't have to settle for whatever option they deem is easiest or because the right option (Server browser AND persistent servers) is just too hard.
I ponied up my hard-earned paycheck for this game and I expect them to do what is hard despite it being a "huge undertaking" nothing less.
A-RAF2019
4 years ago
@SpudBug We need browsers with server ID to tell our friends to join, even if we are on opposite teams.

What you mean would not address a manual selection of the server with the lowest ping.
SpudBug
4 years ago
@Ironhead841 I would love to be proven wrong but the server browser for all our warfare is something I don't think will ever happen due to the amount of work involved on a game that should be focusing on content at this point
protoman23
4 years ago
Portal basically has a server browser and offers persistent lobbies from map to map. The only issue with portal is it doesn't have the squad or team management that was a part of older titles. Removing AoW all together would allow the opportunity for the community to police themselves and balance lobbies as they see fit. This would give Dice more time to invest resources into adding new maps, weapons, and other features instead of having to focus so much on trying to balance random matches in AoW.
Adamonic
4 years ago
We need a Server Browser geez. That is the way into the persistent servers and lobbies.
MM is not the way to go because it creates non-persistent instances.
Ironhead841
Hero
4 years ago
@SpudBug
I don't know about that, as others have said there is already a server browser in portal.
If it is too much of an ask to one for AOW (due to it originally being setup for battle royals I guess) then I would say shut that crap down and run "official" servers in portal or let us run our own rental server program or something. This random matchmaking $#%@ has got to go.
As far as "content" goes I don't see why adding a server browser would affect new content, you would think that since "nearly everybody" at Dice is working on this game they could spare a few folks to implement a server browser without interrupting all this awesome "content" we got coming down the pipe. By the way when were we supposed to be getting them portal guns brought over to the AOW again?
Just to be clear @SpudBug I ain't trying to start anything with you personally, it's just that no server browser and no persistent servers is something that has been brought up since Day 1, they have had MORE than enough time to address it.
ATFGunr
Legend
4 years ago
@SpudBug I think if you have persistent servers then a browser is a given. They already have the architecture for the browser (in portal), and a persistent server would have a persistent address that could then be listed. I don’t think you can have a browser without persistent servers, and persistent servers would allow a browser.
RayD_O1
Hero
4 years ago
@Ironhead841 wrote:
@SpudBug
Nope I strongly disagree, we NEED a server browser AND persistent servers in AOW, doesn't have to be one or the other.
I want to pick where to play based on ping, region and stability with an option to favorite servers I like so I don't have to keep searching for them.
Settling for just persistent servers is wrong-headed we shouldn't have to settle for whatever option they deem is easiest or because the right option (Server browser AND persistent servers) is just too hard.
I ponied up my hard-earned paycheck for this game and I expect them to do what is hard despite it being a "huge undertaking" nothing less.
Yeah 100% this, we definitely need both.
As you rightly say : I want to pick where to play based on ping, region and stability with an option to favorite servers I like so I don't have to keep searching for them.
A lot of the current problems with BF2042 could well be rectified if we were able to play on local servers.