The next BF game needs BF3/4 style servers
From my experience since BF3 I feel the customized server experience has really declined in the last couple of BF titles, especially in BF5. Community servers of good quality help increase the repla...
Forum Discussion
@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.
@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.
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 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/Pf1E33KIYoUIt 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:
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 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.
