Please solve the PVE and PVP server issues intelligently.

EA, wake up! Can't you even understand the difference between PVE and PVP servers right now? You have no idea what players really need. Let me tell you about the core needs of players: many players don't like intense PVP combat. They might just want to play against AI with friends casually after work in the evening, while getting familiar with maps and controls.

I believe most players have such needs. Of course, there are also some players who love high-intensity battles and prefer player-versus-player combat (PVP). Since you know these two groups of players exist, is it really that hard to set up separate PVE and PVP servers? You can totally allow players to freely create PVE servers and invite familiar friends to play together via in-game codes. Such servers should be temporary and not open to the public. Moreover, the server should automatically shut down when the creator leaves, which helps save server resources. The key point to remember: PVE servers must be temporary—this is extremely crucial!

As for the other group of players who love PVP, you can follow the model of previous games. Let creators rent servers at a low cost and support permanent operation of these servers. Allow creators to manage maps and organize players independently, and display the servers in the community server list so that PVP-loving players can find them easily. What's so difficult about this?

In addition, I want to emphasize that both PVP and PVE players should be able to unlock accessories and gain experience as long as they play the game. You can appropriately reduce the experience gain for PVE players, considering the lower difficulty of PVE tasks. But look at what you're doing now? When players say the task values are too high, you just simply lower the values. Whatever players ask for, you only do superficial work and never solve the fundamental problems.

The root cause of server abuse earlier was that you set PVE servers to permanent mode, which allowed people to take advantage of the system. If you had set AI-enabled servers to temporary mode from the start—with servers automatically shutting down after PVE players finish playing and leave—would there still be a series of server overcrowding issues?

To solve a problem, you need to focus on its core, not just take a simplistic and rough approach that only addresses the surface. EA! Please take my suggestions seriously. Stop running around like a headless chicken doing useless work, which only makes things worse in the end!

22 Replies

R1ckyDaMan19
Seasoned Ace
2 days ago
So you are saying that the MAJORITY of players bought BATTLEFIELD for the PVE? 🤣
GGA-lukis
New Traveler
2 days ago
Whether they are in the majority or minority, they are all players. Maybe I’m in a good mood today and want to play the high-intensity PVP mode with others; or maybe I just want to play against AI alone for a while. When I feel like playing PVE mode, I can just create a temporary room and play—what’s the problem with that? Does Battlefield only allow playing PVP, or only PVE?
R1ckyDaMan19
Seasoned Ace
2 days ago
Bots need removing from online modes including portal.
Dice need to add an offline/coop mode where people can play bots all day, the mode needs its own progression though because as long as bots exist in the online arena people will abuse it, having pve offline would mean no servers need to be spung up.
As for backfilling how did any rented server ever get off the ground without bots in previous battlefield games?
Because they were rented and supported by a community, now you have a single player scratching their head why the experience they made doesn't get any traffic.
sham4fame
Seasoned Novice
2 days ago
They already solved this problem in 2042 with the solo mode options just need to put it back in
ghostflux
Seasoned Ace
2 days ago
I don't believe that a majority of the Battlefield players bought the game for PvE, but this friction between PvP and PvE players is not new. Games like Dune: Awakening, Star Citizen, Escape From Tarkov all had significant significant discussions within the community regarding the desire to be able to disable PvP in some way or another. It's been a growing trend for developers to cater to both types of players.
I don't believe that a developer is necessarily obligated to cater to PvE players, but I do think that if you're going to advertise PvE in your game, that you can't really go half way. Either you make it perfectly clear that it's not a PvE game, or you do your best to ensure that PvE receives enough attention to stand on its own.
GGA-lukis
New Traveler
2 days ago
I don’t understand why there should be conflicts between PVE and PVP players in a game. I don’t want to play with you—I just want to quietly fight against AI. How does that affect the rights and interests of PVP players? Do you know the game Command & Conquer: Red Alert? Many players fight against the computer, but they can also battle other players. Both are for entertainment, so what’s the difference?
BigShottt
Seasoned Ace
2 days ago
R1ckyDaMan19 Actually, PvE gamers greatly outnumber the PvP'ers. This is not an opinion, but true fact.

What you see as player comments on internet forums accounts for less than 1% of the actual sales and people who bought the game. So what you see on forums is not necessarily indicative of who is actually buying and playing that game.

As far as people commenting and visiting the game forums, the pvp'ers are the majority squeaky wheels... but thats because they tend to be younger, have less responsibilities and have alot more free time on their hands to do so.

which is more popular, pve or pvp? - Google Search
GGA-lukis this was never a server issue, or a server shortage issue. The only reason there "seemed" to be a shortage issue was because they were intentionally shutting down the servers and leaving them off so that new bot farms could not be started, thereby affecting all of us from starting even legit servers. Why? it's all about the money, or loss of potential skin sales, etc. i.e....the longer the grind (time it takes you to unlock stuff) the more likely you are to just open your wallet and purchase it instead of earning it...and this is their overall goal. Bot farms kill skin and weapon pack sales, period.
ghostflux
Seasoned Ace
2 days ago
No matter which side of the coin you're on, there's always the question of focus. Developers have to work within a budget and have a limited amount of time. It influences the amount or type of content, as well as specific game design decisions.
So if you end up focusing on PvE, it inevitably means that you in some way have to compromise on PvP. This may translate into less PvP content, or perhaps specific gameplay mechanics that impose limitations on PvP. Obviously it also applies the other way around, where focusing on PvP inevitably means that there's less PvE.
Ugganaut
Seasoned Hotshot
2 days ago
Their focus seems to be on Redsec and Battlepass.
PvE all they have to do is reinstate it to what was advertised, and change it so if bots are weakened the xp gets terminated.
PvP has big issues with cheaters, TTK vs TTD, exploits etc.
The Redsec game has a big map, so hopefully Battlefield will get that soon.
GGA-lukis
New Traveler
2 days ago
Your doubt is naive and not well-considered. PVE and PVP are not opposing concepts. A player who plays PVE mode won’t stick to PVE forever—they might also play PVP. Similarly, a player who mainly plays PVP mode could also try PVE. These are two distinct gaming experiences, not an "either-or" choice. If PVE and PVP players end up being neglected due to an unbalanced focus, won’t the game lose players who enjoy the other mode entirely under a single-mode setup? If there’s only PVP mode, it will definitely lose players who like PVE. Conversely, if there’s only PVE mode, it may also lose players who favor PVP completely.