Re: The next BF game needs BF3/4 style servers

Fully agreed @DingoKillr  and all above,

We need absolutely DICE to be serious about penalizing the cheaters in the game!

As server owner/renter we see the same glitchers coming back for more cheating and point harvesting again and again.

And we can only ban 100 players on the server at a time, which is not sufficient to keep them out.  As none are removed by DICE despite the glitchers repeated cheating and them being reported with clear evidence and log reports. 

For the consoles, I would welcome the same weapon controls for the admin as is available for the PC servers.

And can we please also get the player latency indicator and the hard filter setting of this to avoid the very deliberate OOR players.

With regards to avoiding abuse of server-settings to easy ranking up, then private servers should not add XP for ranking/weapon unlocks, and certain server parameters should be kept as default for the XP-ranking to function.  Lots of other parameters available still to make some great servers for enjoyable gameplay, so dont see that as any problem!

I really hope they learned from their mistakes at BF1 and BF5. We want the rented server with our plugins running thus we need a working anticheat.

Sorry to say, it never happened even though they promised it would in bf5 so I wont hold my breath on it...

Now - back to BF4 🙂

@0ld_yell0w   EA just needs to be serious and truly ban off the cheating glitchers that we report to them!

---

@DingoKillr wrote:

---

@ragnarok013 wrote:

---

@DingoKillr wrote:

While good customization of a server for communities(fun, competitive) is needed.  Limits on points or unlock needs to be there,  what would be the point of Multiplayer if 3 or 4 players adjusting setting so they could extreme rank up.  

However extreme rank up servers should not be needed if the grind to unlock all does not take 1000+ hours.

Note : all and every server needs to be able to contact an admin to kick distributive players. 

---

I totally agree. I think that DICE must deliver something on par to BF3\4's Procon/Rcon functionality andt anything short of that will be a disappointment. There's no reason to tie a server owner's hands as much as they did in BF1\5.

---

I am not just talking about local admin that are on community servers,  I am talking about an EA or DICE admin that could look at players behavior. They would have the power to kick or ban(24 hrs or like that).  I not asking to ban for life right then without investigating.

I am tired of having to keep switch servers after a round with a distributed player. 

---

@DingoKillr I understand the desire, but realistically I don't think we'd get anything like that given the current size of the anti-cheat team and how many people would be required for that tasking.

custom servers cant change xp or other settings legally in bf3 or bf4 and those "modded" servers that does it gets beaten down by the community when found.

The level system/unlock in bf3 and bf4 somewhat works so why not keep it ?

I hereby mean why invent something not

needing a change ?

---

@stabbinhobo wrote:
@ragnarok013

Based on the results the "current size of the anti-cheat team" is zed. Unless they want to put the paying customers they have asked to do their jobs for them via the report function on payroll.

Either actively police the servers or let your customers who want their own servers do it.

If we had that choice now EA would not need their own servers, no one would willingly play on the current hot mess if there was a viable option.

---

@stabbinhobo  I know a member of the AC team so it's more than zed; we may not be happy with the results in BF5 but they are working hard with the system they have. 

I understand that everyone rightly wants a silver bullet for the AC discussion, but at the end of the day EA is a for profit company so hiring what would equate to an entire studio to actively monitor and police servers 24\7 wouldn't be cost effective. In my opinion the best we can hope for is a solid automated anti-cheat client better than what we have now as the active AC measure with the AC Team to re-actively assess reports from the community to ban cheaters.

If we get BF3\4 style servers with a procon\rcon equivalent Server admins can also manage their servers by kicking and banning suspected bad actors which further reinforces the studio level AC Client and AC Team.

We really need to host servers again... Not through EAs way either. Our community has been known to hosting the best 1v1 Pistol and Knife Tournaments, BF1 it was tough but still possible, BFV it was pretty much impossible which was sad for us.

Tho we did we a nice Jousting Tournament out of BF1 we hope DICE will step it up and actually allow us to have these fun events once again.

https://youtu.be/Pf1E33KIYoU

https://youtu.be/A-yQi2wNt6c

@ragnarok013

It takes a whole team to get the current result? Where do I sign up for that job.. it's painfully clear competence is not a requirement for employment. 

No one need look for a silver bullet... we ALL know what works.

We all know what they are currently doing DOES NOT.

If they won't let us purchase/rent and moderate our own servers then the onus is on them to keep the servers we are compelled to play on clean.

How about we just not participate in insanity for BF6? 

BF5 is officially abandoned. Ok. Let's work with what we have then. We're not asking to reinvent the wheel here. As I've noted many times.. these forums have active moderation... I'm led to believe this is not a paid position. Why not enlist some of the willing to clean up the game servers? If they perma banned "disruptive" players off the game servers as fast as they lock down any discussion of that word that starts with a "c" on the forums... the servers would be squeaky clean in a few weeks. Seems like an entirely reasonable and doable solution.  

EA.. pretty please... with sugar on top.. stop with the "Our Anti-Cheat Approach in Battlefield V" boilerplate... it's downright patronizing at this point.  

---

@stabbinhobo wrote:

@ragnarok013

It takes a whole team to get the current result? Where do I sign up for that job.. it's painfully clear competence is not a requirement for employment. 

No one need look for a silver bullet... we ALL know what works.

We all know what they are currently doing DOES NOT.

If they won't let us purchase/rent and moderate our own servers then the onus is on them to keep the servers we are compelled to play on clean.

How about we just not participate in insanity for BF6? 

BF5 is officially abandoned. Ok. Let's work with what we have then. We're not asking to reinvent the wheel here. As I've noted many times.. these forums have active moderation... I'm led to believe this is not a paid position. Why not enlist some of the willing to clean up the game servers? If they perma banned "disruptive" players off the game servers as fast as they lock down any discussion of that word that starts with a "c" on the forums... the servers would be squeaky clean in a few weeks. Seems like an entirely reasonable and doable solution.  

EA.. pretty please... with sugar on top.. stop with the "Our Anti-Cheat Approach in Battlefield V" boilerplate... it's downright patronizing at this point.  

---

@stabbinhobo  You can always throw your hat into the ring at ea.com/careers   ;-)

Regarding forum moderation there are two types of moderators, volunteer forum moderators like me who don't get paid, and then paid EA Community Managers.  I'm sure EA legal would probably have issues with volunteer server admins on official servers but who knows, maybe they'll see your suggestion and look into it more. I just hope that we go back to the servers and admin rights that we had in BF3/4 instead of the highly ineffective BF1 and 5 systems.

@ragnarok013

Doubt I would make the cut for EA or DICE's corporate culture. I'm not nearly woke nuff and being in retail I think of the customer first. 

Eh.. the "disruptive" players are clearly in charge at the moment. Doubt EA gives what is happening on their servers any thought at all. Based on their actions to date they think the BF5 player base are all obsessed with new skins instead of issues that ruin gameplay. 

Here's to hoping we either get BF3~4 admin controls back -or- this franchise dies the death it needed after BF1. 

I seem to be living in an alternate universe to the rest of the Battlefield community ????   The  BFV platoon that I am gaming with have a server. We have the ability to remote admin the server with half a dozen admins that can monitor the server and remove disruptive players.   We are able to keep the server online even when it's empty so the ban list preserves over multiple days. We can change the servers settings and map rotations  (not wholesale changes but turn settings like ff on or off,  add maps, just not change between 64p and 32p) without having to close down the server.

Now this is about half the functions of the BF1 solution but does allow our platoon to play in the evening peak hours without being trolled by the disruptive players out there whose only gaming objective is empty the server..  

And if you can't work out how to do this with your own clan then how you going to work procon ??   

---

@ShevermiN wrote:

I seem to be living in an alternate universe to the rest of the Battlefield community ????   The  BFV platoon that I am gaming with have a server. We have the ability to remote admin the server with half a dozen admins that can monitor the server and remove disruptive players.   We are able to keep the server online even when it's empty so the ban list preserves over multiple days. We can change the servers settings and map rotations  (not wholesale changes but turn settings like ff on or off,  add maps, just not change between 64p and 32p) without having to close down the server.

Now this is about half the functions of the BF1 solution but does allow our platoon to play in the evening peak hours without being trolled by the disruptive players out there whose only gaming objective is empty the server..  

And if you can't work out how to do this with your own clan then how you going to work procon ??   

---

@ShevermiN  and BF1's RSP had far fewer admin tools that even the Console versions of BF3\4 so those of us who've admined servers for years see how much DICE has tied our hands in recent entries and that is precisely what we want and need to correct by being vocal about needing an equivalent to procon\rcon and not the recent watered down admin tools. In fact the guy that created procon now works for DICE - if only they'd use him in that role.

Games like BF2, BC2, BF3 and BF4 had large thriving community years after the official end of life specifically because of robust server tools to build and maintain communities and events.

---

@ragnarok013 wrote:

---

@stabbinhobo wrote:
@ragnarok013

Based on the results the "current size of the anti-cheat team" is zed. Unless they want to put the paying customers they have asked to do their jobs for them via the report function on payroll.

Either actively police the servers or let your customers who want their own servers do it.

If we had that choice now EA would not need their own servers, no one would willingly play on the current hot mess if there was a viable option.

---

@stabbinhobo  I know a member of the AC team so it's more than zed; we may not be happy with the results in BF5 but they are working hard with the system they have. 

I understand that everyone rightly wants a silver bullet for the AC discussion, but at the end of the day EA is a for profit company so hiring what would equate to an entire studio to actively monitor and police servers 24\7 wouldn't be cost effective. In my opinion the best we can hope for is a solid automated anti-cheat client better than what we have now as the active AC measure with the AC Team to re-actively assess reports from the community to ban cheaters.

If we get BF3\4 style servers with a procon\rcon equivalent Server admins can also manage their servers by kicking and banning suspected bad actors which further reinforces the studio level AC Client and AC Team.

---

Indeed, BF3/4 did not had that problem because the policing of the servers was crowdsourced amongst the players who managed them as well as the automated admin procon stuff.

This should had been the free/profitable solution for EA since the players pay instead of being paid.

So I am really scratching my head here about why they stopped that starting with BF1 and after?

What have they gained with that which offsets the loss of a healthy and sustainable community?

Was it about having absolute control about when an existing game lives or dies when they decide to end its support? That sounds really petty and counterproductive. Fandoms and communities are free advertisement.

---

@UP_Hawxxeye wrote:

---

@ragnarok013 wrote:

---

@stabbinhobo wrote:
@ragnarok013

Based on the results the "current size of the anti-cheat team" is zed. Unless they want to put the paying customers they have asked to do their jobs for them via the report function on payroll.

Either actively police the servers or let your customers who want their own servers do it.

If we had that choice now EA would not need their own servers, no one would willingly play on the current hot mess if there was a viable option.

---

@stabbinhobo  I know a member of the AC team so it's more than zed; we may not be happy with the results in BF5 but they are working hard with the system they have. 

I understand that everyone rightly wants a silver bullet for the AC discussion, but at the end of the day EA is a for profit company so hiring what would equate to an entire studio to actively monitor and police servers 24\7 wouldn't be cost effective. In my opinion the best we can hope for is a solid automated anti-cheat client better than what we have now as the active AC measure with the AC Team to re-actively assess reports from the community to ban cheaters.

If we get BF3\4 style servers with a procon\rcon equivalent Server admins can also manage their servers by kicking and banning suspected bad actors which further reinforces the studio level AC Client and AC Team.

---

Indeed, BF3/4 did not had that problem because the policing of the servers was crowdsourced amongst the players who managed them as well as the automated admin procon stuff.

This should had been the free/profitable solution for EA since the players pay instead of being paid.

So I am really scratching my head here about why they stopped that starting with BF1 and after?

What have they gained with that which offsets the loss of a healthy and sustainable community?

Was it about having absolute control about when an existing game lives or dies when they decide to end its support? That sounds really petty and counterproductive. Fandoms and communities are free advertisement.

---

@UP_Hawxxeye I don’t think DICE wanted community runs servers in BF1/5 at all as they seemed to really want to recreate their Battlefront Quick Match formula in Battlefield. Further proof of this is how DICE even tried hard to bury the server browser and make it as difficult as possible to use compared to previous Battlefield entries in BF5 to encourage us to use Quick Match.  Instead the Community demanded RSP loudly both times and eventually DICE checked the box and gave us the bare minimum to quiet the discontent.

@ragnarok013
I agree.
Quickmatch is what makes the servers spin up, so If no one joins via quickmatch, no servers turn on.
They mentioned before that they want to use the Battlefront II system, so I would not be surprised if the advanced search is not an option for BF6.