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.
