Forum Discussion

Seasoned Ace

3 years ago

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

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...

discussion

AngrySquid270

3 years ago

Server browser trades one set of problems for another.

Some negatives with server browser that I'm not seeing discussed:

1) People preferring to wait in queues rather than seed new servers.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Battlefield/comments/7z0xb6/bf1_why_does_everyone_wait_in_a_queue_instead_of/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share

2) Out of region players. The MM in BF2042 seems pretty aggressive at keeping players in region.

3) Team stacking/unbalanced teams match after match.

The MM only approach for BF2042 is a crude solution to those problems, but it is a solution. Ideally there could be a server browser added that could also provide solutions for those problems.

Ironhead841

Hero

3 years ago

@AngrySquid270

There is always pros vs * to consider as you say, but I would much rather control my own experience in regards to where and with who I want to play with. I would happily deal with the "*" you've listed for server browser and persistent servers.

Battlefield has had a server browser since its inception and it just feels like matchmaking was a solution looking for a problem.

It and the fact you can only play with a maximum of four friends is a big part (not the only reasons, I know) of the reason this game has been so negatively received.

RayD_O1
Hero
3 years ago
@Ironhead841
Yeah me too, the pros definitely outweigh the * and the low player count reflects that the vast majority of players feel this way too .