@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.
@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.
