BFV dedicated servers

Comments

  • CrashCA
    1263 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Sixclicks wrote: »
    But DICE seemingly didn't want custom servers to be prosperous in BF1. There's hardly any populated custom servers on PC.

    Agree on EA (Dice) comment.
    Not so in custom servers, I have 6-7 favorites of which 4-5 are full with quece most evenings
  • Rev0verDrive
    6760 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    ShevermiN wrote: »
    ShevermiN wrote: »
    If there isn't any DS servers with admin tool I will cancel my BF5 purchase and never buy Battlefield again. EA and DICE doesnt care what we want they just want there money.

    There will be no dedicated servers... those days are gone and you can only expect to see half the gamemodes available to the RSP if it is continued with BFV.

    Are you under the impression that a "dedicated server" is when a game server is the only thing running on a physical box?

    If so you need to check the source of that information asap.

    I assume that when people are asking for dedicated servers they are referencing pro-con controlled servers hosted buy a 3rd party server provider. As it was done for BF4. I am aware that the current server solution is hosted on a dedicated server. Which I have no problem with. And I know it's not DICE's fault that two years after launch people still can't us the server browser and find custom servers, which if they could would make populating custom servers much easier.
    I again watched as a player wanting to join my server joined off a friend who was in a full squad on a full team in 24p server. DICE have fixed the bug which holds the queue up when this happens so he spent 30 min in the queue at position 2 as other players passed him joining the empty team keeping the server full.
    DICE is aware that 50% of complaints are from people that haven't read the instruction manual..

    Gotcha. I was starting to think you were one of those "dedicated server means my server is its own dedicated physical box" people.
  • -Antares65z
    1724 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited August 2018
    VBALL_MVP wrote: »
    .
    bf4 is still very much alive.

    I think though that's one reason why DICE doesn't want RSPs.

    Its exactly why they don't want rented servers. EA is in business to sell you a new game every 1-2 years. Not every 3-4 years. They figured out that making the games too polished combined with rented servers is creating too much longevity in a game, just like with BF4.
    Post edited by -Antares65z on
  • Sixclicks
    5075 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    edited August 2018
    CrashCA wrote: »
    Sixclicks wrote: »
    But DICE seemingly didn't want custom servers to be prosperous in BF1. There's hardly any populated custom servers on PC.

    Agree on EA (Dice) comment.
    Not so in custom servers, I have 6-7 favorites of which 4-5 are full with quece most evenings

    Might have been because it was the middle of the night, but I was searching for custom servers last night and only found 3 or 4 that were populated. Or maybe I just didn't use the right keyword - which is one of the biggest problems with finding custom servers imo.
  • BetaFief
    655 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    BetaFief wrote: »

    Another Business-based argument for "mod support" can be found by looking at this whole "Battle Royal"-thing and specifically ARMA 3 (a game that by all accounts should be very niche and have a very small playerbase), which currently has a higher daily average and peak playercount than Battlefield 1's PC version(a mass-marketed AAA game). Basically (I don't know how else to put this) DICE's attempts to merely chase after the trend of Battle-royal mode doesn't make any sense to me. That effort would be better spent trying to make/retrofit the engine to be more modifiable/flexible, so it could "catch" or even birth the next trend, (be it with only a crude "trial" or "test" setup for PC at first, or a more comprehensive project involving what would essentially be competitors to Steam Workshop and Bethesda-net).

    Isn't that because of the nature of ARMA III, though? It's a mil-sim sandbox experience, where you don't even have to kill anyone. You can find a lot of 'role-playing' servers in that game where things are completely different from any FPS ... there are some in particular that just focus on civilian life, or extracting civilians from an area that has been hit by a natural disaster. I'm not sure if you can compare ARMA to a BF game, since they are so fundamentally different in nature. That, and ARMA is quite the exception for a mil-sim/hardcore shooter ... most of them have daily concurrent player counts at a few thousand at best, and less than a hundred at worst (I'm looking at you Verdun/Tannenberg).
    ....

    my point as to why I keep bringing up ARMA is that there used to be a similar (though never to the same extent) scene in the battlefield community.
    I mean why else would BF2 be used as the basis for "Project reality" and a bunch of other mods if it wasn't for the somewhat sandbox-y nature of BF-1942-through-2142.
    You are right though, ARMA's success is somewhat of an anomaly, yet it's becoming less so with each iteration and/or "fad" it births out. (in the sense that "it's no longer an anomaly if there's a clear/set pattern between what a game does/offers and what the outcome is regarding it").


  • Diabolus_Musica
    788 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Same crap happened with BF1. EA told DICE not to say anything because they planned to not have community servers. But there was enough bad PR to force them into a halfa$$ RSP program which missed launch and took over a year to get even the most basic features wrong.

    I'd expect the same, nothing. Maybe we get the same absolute garbage RSP, but sadly I think the days of propper server management and control from EA as company are gone. I'll lurk around to get confirmation of that, but I never bought BF1 because of the server issue. It's sad, I had played ever PC BF game up till BF1...of well.

    Official servers are terrible because you have no power to remove hackers. Also people whine constantly since there are no admins to tell the to shut up and PTFO.
    Community servers are terrible because they're loaded with 12yo badmins that think you should respect them because mommy rented them a server. They'll ban you for ANYTHING (see TBG in BF4) including making comments in chat they don't like, or for simply playing better than them.

    I rented a server in BF4 and you know when I kicked or banned users? When they CHEATED. That's the only time. You could say whatever you wanted to me, I didn't command some fake respect for being an admin. That's the only time someone should be banned from a server, for CHEATING.
  • Diabolus_Musica
    788 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited August 2018
    Disruptive gameplay .....
    • chat spam
    • cheating
    • political/religious discussions (part of chat spam)
    • excessive player abuse (taunting is fine, but there's a limit)
    • Team Grieving (destroying friendly assets, repetitive vehicle theft, Team killing etc.)

    All come with warnings. If you don't understand the language, that's on you.
    Nope. None of those are valid reasons to kick or ban a player (except for cheating). Most badmins kick for all those things though and more.
  • Sixclicks
    5075 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    edited August 2018
    Disruptive gameplay .....
    • chat spam
    • cheating
    • political/religious discussions (part of chat spam)
    • excessive player abuse (taunting is fine, but there's a limit)
    • Team Grieving (destroying friendly assets, repetitive vehicle theft, Team killing etc.)

    All come with warnings. If you don't understand the language, that's on you.
    Nope. None of those are valid reasons to kick or ban a player (except for cheating). Most badmins kick for all those things though and more.

    They're definitely good reasons to kick if it goes against the server's rules. Which should be plainly visible on the server page before joining. If you don't like the server rules, then don't play on that server. If enough people agree with you, then the server won't be populated. If others like those rules, then it will be populated. Simple.

    I don't mind political/religious discussion, it makes chat more interesting, but the other stuff is definitely good reasons to kick imo.
  • CrashCA
    1263 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    edited August 2018
    It's a game, not a political, religious, ethnic or sexual preference debate.
    Stick to game relevant topics, if you want the others, try Twitter ;)
    Post edited by CrashCA on
  • -Antares65z
    1724 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    CrashCA wrote: »
    It's a game, not a political, religious, ethnuc or sexual preference debate.
    Stick to game relevant topics, if you want the others, try Twitter ;)

    Thank you. Can't begin to count how much political and religious rants I see in chat. It's a game server, not a soap box to preach your views on non-game related topics. It's hard to communicate via chat with your squad/team when there is a constant stream of crap polluting the chat box.
  • MyJetpack
    26 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Chances are they're going to monopolize server rentals under their own Rental Server Program like they did with BF1. They know this isn't a popular thing with the community so they won't go into anything regarding servers.

    I have a bad feeling this is true. The server program for BF1 has been universally seen as a mistake. If DICE had plans to revamp the system in a way that players would like it would have been designed, built and ready to announce by now. They seemed to listen to the community feedback in so many other areas I really hope we're wrong.
  • Metal_Jockets
    247 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    edited August 2018
    When loyal BF YouTubers like Westie say they have serious concerns about BFV it's time to stand up and take notes..he also mentioned his concerns in regards to the "Rental Server" program and will try to get some answers in the up and coming Gamescom..( Good Luck with that!! )

    I'm not sure what EA/DICE are thinking in regards to their silence in regards to critical issues their gaming community are asking...it seems to me it will backfire to their detriment.

    Post edited by Metal_Jockets on
  • -Antares65z
    1724 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    COD made the successful transition from offering rented servers and a server browser to matching making only and didn't lose much in sales. They continue to serve up an old game with a fresh skin and people continue to buy that garbage. Perhaps EA's realized that even though they'll lose sales to the dedicated BF fan who has bought their games since the beginning, they'll make up the lost revenue by saving on development costs. One BF game they remove rented servers and the next game they won't provide a server browser and we'll be on 100% Quick Match.
  • VBALL_MVP
    6177 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    I still dont see the necessity of having an RSP program. I mean the point of buying the game is to play the game as it was designed.

    While having the ability to customize is fun...in the end, from what I seen on rented servers, is people to have the ability to kick people who they loose to repeatedly (under the false pretense of hacking) and to change the game to be in their favor (i.e. limiting classes and weapons).

    To me it's more destructive than constructive.
  • -Antares65z
    1724 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited August 2018
    VBALL_MVP wrote: »
    I still dont see the necessity of having an RSP program. I mean the point of buying the game is to play the game as it was designed.

    While having the ability to customize is fun...in the end, from what I seen on rented servers, is people to have the ability to kick people who they loose to repeatedly (under the false pretense of hacking) and to change the game to be in their favor (i.e. limiting classes and weapons).

    To me it's more destructive than constructive.

    The thing about rented servers is it provides the ability to establish a server that gets traffic every day. That means that you can login in and know that there is a particular server you enjoy playing on that's going to have traffic. Every day. You don't get that with Official servers. It's rarely the same server going each day. Games die faster when you don't have established community servers to play on. In particular on the west coast where there is always less server activity than the east coast. I'm a west coast player and after 6 months of this game's release, I had to start going to east coast servers if I wanted to play DLC maps, which means that I had to tolerate a 90+ ping. That gets old really fast. I was losing interest in BF1. So I started my own server on the west coast, it managed to get popular and now today, players on the west coast can logon and know that they can find at least a couple of rented west coast All Maps servers to play on. I'm sure it helps maintain their interest in BF1, as most players don't like dealing with 90+ pings every time they want to play a game.
  • CrashCA
    1263 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    VBALL_MVP wrote: »
    I still dont see the necessity of having an RSP program.

    To see why we want a functional RSP, read this thread, many of us have stated reasons.
  • VBALL_MVP
    6177 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    VBALL_MVP wrote: »
    I still dont see the necessity of having an RSP program. I mean the point of buying the game is to play the game as it was designed.

    While having the ability to customize is fun...in the end, from what I seen on rented servers, is people to have the ability to kick people who they loose to repeatedly (under the false pretense of hacking) and to change the game to be in their favor (i.e. limiting classes and weapons).

    To me it's more destructive than constructive.

    The thing about rented servers is it provides the ability to establish a server that gets traffic every day. That means that you can login in and know that there is a particular server you enjoy playing on that's going to have traffic. Every day. You don't get that with Official servers. It's rarely the same server going each day. Games die faster when you don't have established community servers to play on. In particular on the west coast where there is always less server activity than the east coast. I'm a west coast player and after 6 months of this game's release, I had to start going to east coast servers if I wanted to play DLC maps, which means that I had to tolerate a 90+ ping. That gets old really fast. I was losing interest in BF1. So I started my own server on the west coast, it managed to get popular and now today, players on the west coast can logon and know that they can find at least a couple of rented west coast All Maps servers to play on. I'm sure it helps maintain their interest in BF1, as most players don't like dealing with 90+ pings every time they want to play a game.

    I get it can maintain interest, on a business side though it keeps people playing a older game instead of buying a new one (take BF4 for example).

    As a player, I get it and I would like to play a game I like forever. But I also get why DICE my be avoiding rented servers just for that reason as well....it doesn't give them the return to make a profit on it.
  • CrashCA
    1263 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    edited August 2018
    I understand the next game agrument. However, I and others still play BC2, BF3, & BF4, but bought BF1 and played it and would have bought BFV, variety of time periods is good. EA's approach has and will cost it sales going forward.

    Edit: well did play BC2 until EA moved to " new data center" and broke login process and servers.
  • StarscreamUK
    7432 postsMember, Moderator, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Moderator
    Disruptive gameplay .....
    • chat spam
    • cheating
    • political/religious discussions (part of chat spam)
    • excessive player abuse (taunting is fine, but there's a limit)
    • Team Grieving (destroying friendly assets, repetitive vehicle theft, Team killing etc.)

    All come with warnings. If you don't understand the language, that's on you.
    Nope. None of those are valid reasons to kick or ban a player (except for cheating). Most badmins kick for all those things though and more.

    I would kick for breaking those.
Sign In or Register to comment.