Weekly Debrief

BFV dedicated servers

1568101171

Comments

  • llPhantom_Limbll
    5441 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Pro4TLZZ wrote: »
    VBALL_MVP wrote: »
    Out of curiosity. Why is RSP so important to have in the game?

    so you can ban players that are better than you

    Also ban every weapon that makes you upset. Put limits on vehicles and their spawns, class limits and so on.
    RSP system is purely made for crybabies who can't play vanilla game.
  • BetaFief
    655 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member

    Forced modding is when a coder bypasses core functionality to enable modification of the game. custom maps, modes etc. (see BF3).

    Rational justification or not. It's their franchise, their tools and services. Whatever they deem best in regards to whatever telemetry is what we get.

    I'm working on a game and how to handle servers is an issue I keep pushing off and will continue to do so until the prototype is complete. But when that day comes I will asking myself and Team some key questions. Do we want to track player stats?

    If we track stats then you want those stats to be valid and based on fairplay. So under that scenario I'd be very skeptical about allowing players to download server files to host their own. Otherwise I don't see an issue with it.

    I could set it up to have a ranked progression platform with stats, but only games played on officially hosted servers counted toward progression and stats. Self hosted servers would all be unranked. Similar to how BF2 worked.... BUT BF2 used a client-side anticheat. I fully intend to do a custom server-side anticheat.

    So with that in mind I couldn't verywell release server files unless I constantly wanted to be updating the anticheat. This costs time and money.

    In this regard proprietary hosting is the best option.

    What's wrong with just using Client-Side Anticheat?
    The game is going to need to be patched/updated anyway (it's a DICE game afterall), from the looks of patch notes they still have to update the anticheat every now and then.

    Just because it's their franchise doesn't mean they're immune from criticism in terms of the direction they're taking it. Since from what I've seen it's moddable games that have largely been at the forefront of popular trends in gaming. With ARMA 3 showing an average that is marginally higher than BF1's PC version.

    Why is it that we get the Worst of both worlds on the PC version of the game? (more hackers than consoles; but non of the features like mods/custom-content that makes up for it).
    Pro4TLZZ wrote: »
    VBALL_MVP wrote: »
    Out of curiosity. Why is RSP so important to have in the game?

    so you can ban players that are better than you

    Also ban every weapon that makes you upset. Put limits on vehicles and their spawns, class limits and so on.
    RSP system is purely made for crybabies who can't play vanilla game.

    It was made because BF-games pre-BC:2 had servers with far more comprehensive options/settings, and 3rd-party-server-rentals were sort of a compromise to allow for at least a facsimile of that sort of control for games Post-BC:2

    Regardless of how I feel (that 3rd Party Server rentals are inadequate and that the BF1 RSP borders on pointless) it seems odd to me that you can't just play a different server or rent your own if you don't like the current server's rules or admins?

    I mean I thought "playing Vanilla only" was what console games and official servers were for?
  • Rev0verDrive
    6725 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    BetaFief wrote:
    What's wrong with just using Client-Side Anticheat?
    The game is going to need to be patched/updated anyway (it's a DICE game afterall), from the looks of patch notes they still have to update the anticheat every now and then.

    Just because it's their franchise doesn't mean they're immune from criticism in terms of the direction they're taking it. Since from what I've seen it's moddable games that have largely been at the forefront of popular trends in gaming. With ARMA 3 showing an average that is marginally higher than BF1's PC version.

    Why is it that we get the Worst of both worlds on the PC version of the game? (more hackers than consoles; but non of the features like mods/custom-content that makes up for it).

    Client-side Anticheat (PunkBuster, Battleye etc) don't really work. They only catch low level cheats (coded poorly). Client-side AC resides on the client. Thus its code can be viewed and reverse engineered. That's why games that run CSAC are always updating it.

    Server-side AC resides on the server. Clients (players) do not have access to it, thus they cannot view, nor reverse engineer it. Server-side AC only requires minor tweaks here and there versus full on patch revisions and or updates. Upfront cost is a bit more, server resource requirements are a bit higher, but in the end it works better (prevents and catches more) than CSAC.

    From a business perspective you wouldn't want your product moddable. Modding increases longevity, thus it has the potential to lower future title sales. Look at each BF title as a version number. You want your client base to purchase the next version.

    As a consumer why would you purchase the latest version if the previous version still does what it suppose to? If it still entertains then why jump ship? If things in the new version can be ported over why purchase the new?

    I'm from the mod generation. I am a modder. BF going back to moddable titles would be incredible. But more than likely it will never happen again for the reason posted above.

    BF has a 2 year cycle. Rinse and Repeat. It's a business.
  • llPhantom_Limbll
    5441 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited July 2018
    BetaFief wrote: »

    It was made because BF-games pre-BC:2 had servers with far more comprehensive options/settings, and 3rd-party-server-rentals were sort of a compromise to allow for at least a facsimile of that sort of control for games Post-BC:2

    Regardless of how I feel (that 3rd Party Server rentals are inadequate and that the BF1 RSP borders on pointless) it seems odd to me that you can't just play a different server or rent your own if you don't like the current server's rules or admins?

    I mean I thought "playing Vanilla only" was what console games and official servers were for?

    The thing is only bf1 has proper OFFICIAL servers because previously those have been hosted by communities/clans which always means some sort of dumb rules will be applied no matter what.
    BF4 was full of such awful practices when for each "decent" server there were like 20 ridiculous and reasonable player had to spent quite some time searching for something without another "weapon X is not allowed, vehicle Y is also banned, you'll be kicked when VIP joins the server" kind of garbage.
    So no, RSP kids fully deserve what they got with bf1 custom servers and I truly hope bfv will be the same way. The amount of tears and denials will be endless and gorgeus.
  • CrashCA
    1027 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member

    The thing is only bf1 has proper OFFICIAL servers because previously those have been hosted by communities/clans which always means some sort of dumb rules will be applied no matter what.
    BF4 was full of such awful practices when for each "decent" server there were like 20 ridiculous and reasonable player had to spent quite some time searching for something without another "weapon X is not allowed, vehicle Y is also banned, you'll be kicked when VIP joins the server" kind of garbage.
    So no, RSP kids fully deserve what they got with bf1 custom servers and I truly hope bfv will be the same way. The amount of tears and denials will be endless and gorgeus.


    BFBC2, BF3, & BF 4 had Official servers on release, that they no longer exist illustrates the need for robust RSP.
    Can still always find a playable server in any of these [this may be Rev's point]
  • llPhantom_Limbll
    5441 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    CrashCA wrote: »

    The thing is only bf1 has proper OFFICIAL servers because previously those have been hosted by communities/clans which always means some sort of dumb rules will be applied no matter what.
    BF4 was full of such awful practices when for each "decent" server there were like 20 ridiculous and reasonable player had to spent quite some time searching for something without another "weapon X is not allowed, vehicle Y is also banned, you'll be kicked when VIP joins the server" kind of garbage.
    So no, RSP kids fully deserve what they got with bf1 custom servers and I truly hope bfv will be the same way. The amount of tears and denials will be endless and gorgeus.


    BFBC2, BF3, & BF 4 had Official servers on release, that they no longer exist illustrates the need for robust RSP.
    Can still always find a playable server in any of these [this may be Rev's point]

    Now let's count the things custom server needs. The ability to have any map rotation you want, the ability to kick/ban annoying people, the way to customize the amount of tickets or players on server. That's it. Everything else is just dumb and shows only the amount of insecurities server admin has. Gameplay should not be disturbed by another upset kid. You can try to agrue but that'll be the only true way at the end of the day.
  • Rev0verDrive
    6725 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    CrashCA wrote:
    BFBC2, BF3, & BF 4 had Official servers on release, that they no longer exist illustrates the need for robust RSP.
    Can still always find a playable server in any of these [this may be Rev's point]

    The server model for BF and most games since the mid 90's was to launch with official servers, release dedicated server files, let the community itself fill the server need and then slowly but steadily reduce official servers. At the end of service life there are only community servers.

    Release a new title, rinse and repeat.

    When BF2 released it's "Progression" platform changed the game. Ranked and Unranked servers became a thing. Only on a ranked server could have stats and progression. If you wanted Ranked you had to rent a server through a contracted GSP. Only the GSP had access to your servers dedicated files. If you went unranked you had access to them.

    The same trend followed in BF2142. When BFBC2 released they changed the platform once again. You could only rent a server from a GSP. No player had access to dedicated server files period. Ranked or unranked. This platform continued until BF1 in which instead of using 3rd party GSP's to host servers, only EA would host and all servers where run on AWS EC2 cloud.
  • BetaFief
    655 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    From a business perspective you wouldn't want your product moddable. Modding increases longevity, thus it has the potential to lower future title sales. Look at each BF title as a version number. You want your client base to purchase the next version.

    As a consumer why would you purchase the latest version if the previous version still does what it suppose to? If it still entertains then why jump ship? If things in the new version can be ported over why purchase the new?

    I'm from the mod generation. I am a modder. BF going back to moddable titles would be incredible. But more than likely it will never happen again for the reason posted above.

    BF has a 2 year cycle. Rinse and Repeat. It's a business.

    I'm going to agree to disagree with you on Anti-cheat; and focus on this part of your argument.

    While I've seen this argument before I think it's flawed reasoning, I mean under such logic I think DICE would've "pulled the plug" on pre-BF4 Bad-Company 2 and Battlefield 3 already, yet people report still being able to find servers for those games (and not the emulated ones either).

    I'm curious, what do you think the business case is for leaving these servers and/or their lobbies up, wouldn't it make more sense to close those servers and "force" their populations to buy new games? I mean they're entertained so they've got no reason to move on to the next version..

    While mods are good at extending a games life they generally lack the polish and amount of content that proper new-releases do, and thus really only "extend the life" of a game for those who wouldn't really "move on from it" in the first place. (which is a sort of "no change noted"-state).

    Regardless with the changes in EA/DICE's policies towards DLC, (BF:V is reportedly going to be like "Battlefront 2" in this regard, with DLC maps not being behind a paywall) it could very well be within DICE/EA's interest to support mods as a means by which to supplement and stretch already existing content in periods of "content drought" between patches or updates. (at least judging from complaints I've heard regarding battlefront II). (this could lead to a "positive change" from what might be a situation like Battlefront II)

    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).
  • VBALL_MVP
    6177 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    BetaFief wrote: »

    It was made because BF-games pre-BC:2 had servers with far more comprehensive options/settings, and 3rd-party-server-rentals were sort of a compromise to allow for at least a facsimile of that sort of control for games Post-BC:2

    Regardless of how I feel (that 3rd Party Server rentals are inadequate and that the BF1 RSP borders on pointless) it seems odd to me that you can't just play a different server or rent your own if you don't like the current server's rules or admins?

    I mean I thought "playing Vanilla only" was what console games and official servers were for?

    The thing is only bf1 has proper OFFICIAL servers because previously those have been hosted by communities/clans which always means some sort of dumb rules will be applied no matter what.
    BF4 was full of such awful practices when for each "decent" server there were like 20 ridiculous and reasonable player had to spent quite some time searching for something without another "weapon X is not allowed, vehicle Y is also banned, you'll be kicked when VIP joins the server" kind of garbage.
    So no, RSP kids fully deserve what they got with bf1 custom servers and I truly hope bfv will be the same way. The amount of tears and denials will be endless and gorgeus.

    That's what I was curious about because back in BF4 it seemed like RSP was used to cater to your strengths: aka 24/7 Shanghai/Golmund for vehicles....AH reserved for Admin....etc.

    I was just curious because I thought offical servers were fine except for the longest time you couldn't do mixed DLC maps.
  • Ferdinand_J_Foch
    3363 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V 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).

    I'll agree with you overall point about modding. Look at NFS Most Wanted, a game that came out in 2005 ... that game is still getting full-blown car mods and game mechanics mods. That game's longevity isn't just down to it's phenomenal gameplay, but it is also down to it's vast modding scene. I can guarantee that more people will play NFS MW/Underground/Carbon in the next few years than any of the crappy new NFS games.

    You can look at racing sims as well ... games that are decades old, like GTR2 (2005), rFactor (2005), RACE 07 (2007), Nascar Racing 2003, GP4 (2002), Richard Burns Rally (2004) and even GPL, a game that came out in bloody 1998, are getting mods to this day. Modern racing sims, like rFactor 2 and Assetto Corsa, are also getting a plethora of mods that will keep them going for years upon years. Compare that to the absolutely abysmal Project CARS, that did it's best to discourage modding, even if it's creator, Ian Bell(end), started his game dev career by modding ISI games. Project CARS is done and buried, even though it did get a few mods here and there ... they even released a sequel to that trash two years after release. The game was certainly not designed to be played for a long time, and now, it's been relegated to the scrap heap, notwithstanding the epic controversy that surrounded that game's development.

    I wish we could mod BF games nowadays ... I wasn't able to enjoy the so-called 'golden age' of BF modding, but from what I've seen, it looked fantastic. I mean, Day of Infamy, a WW2 FPS based on Insurgency, is about to get a full-blown WW1 conversion called Screaming Steel. There was even a Vietnam conversion for that game, though that has been abandoned for a while.

    Oh, and some modders absolutely do put out fantastic content that can rival the content produced by game devs. Some racing sim mods are so good that the mod's creators can charge money for them, and people will gladly pay. Some racing sim devs even end up hiring modders based on their work ... the makers of Assetto Corsa sometimes end up buying community made mods from modders, so that they can release the mods as 'official content' that is free for everyone. One can also look at the quality of flight sim mods as well ... those mods regularly cost as much as full-price AAA games, and nobody in their community complains about those prices. I once saw a MIG mod where the modder spent about $250,000 working on the mod. Mods can come in a wide variety in terms of quality: some are fantastic, some are decent, some are mediocre, some are horrible. The same can be said about official content produced by game devs ... you're not going to say that Operation Metro is a work of art, are you? I'm not going to play on that map ever again even if you paid me good money to do so.
  • llPhantom_Limbll
    5441 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    CrashCA wrote: »

    Now let's count the things custom server needs. The ability to have any map rotation you want, the ability to kick/ban annoying people, the way to customize the amount of tickets or players on server. That's it. Everything else is just dumb and shows only the amount of insecurities server admin has. Gameplay should not be disturbed by another upset kid. You can try to agrue but that'll be the only true way at the end of the day.

    Your options would not allow HC (reduced health, no health regeneration, etc) or any others (infantry only, etc)
    Most of all, you seem to want to control your gaming environment but not allow the actual paying server provider to control his. Again, if do not want admins, go play Official, leave the community who operate their own severs alone.
    Seems pretty simple to me.

    If by "controlling his environment" you mean add loads of restrictions to the way the game is played I'd not call it control. Forced limitations more likely. Also as I said before it was really hard to find official server during the latter days of bf3/bf4 and people had no other choice but joining all of those crappy community "environments" where you are forced to play by the rules provided by another miserable kid who can't adjust his "skills" to play the intended way.
    So yes, the amount of "flexibility" regarding custom server options should be limited and not interfere with actual gameplay. Period.
  • llPhantom_Limbll
    5441 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    CrashCA wrote: »
    So, EA fails to provide servers after a fixed period of time and all that is left are community paid for servers. Without these"crappy community" servers, you would have no where to play. You want to dictate to those providing them how they are set up, I suggest pay for your own.

    So it's ok for server owner to enforce the rules on others because he owns the server? Right?
    But why is it completely not ok for EA to enforce the rules on server owners regarding what they can and can't do because EA owns the system?
    Seems like a gigantic hyporcisy to me.
  • 0ld_yell0w
    406 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    No matter what DICE/EA already have their rules which we as server renters has to abide by otherwise your server goes into "private" mode with no recorded score. If EA haven't seen the light after the BF1 server failure there is nothing we can do but vote with our wallet. I am still enjoying bf4 on custom setup servers with silly rules like "be nice or be gone" ;) and other weapon/kit restrictions. Just read the serverrules and accept that some of us wants some modifications or find another server to play on. I pay for the server, if I dont like a player I can ban him all I like, I DO have the decensy to not write cheater as reason - but its still my call. I also have to behave when I visit some one else server and accept that my DAO 12 with bipod,laser and poison arrows isnt welcome.
  • Muzzy2222
    25 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    I really don't see the issue here for players who don't like it they can play official servers. It is only an issue for communities who like to play together, run events, have a non-toxic environment. And as other posters have commented communities have suffered from EA's former approach to servers with BF1. It is entirely reasonable for players to ask if they will get rentable servers and in what form before making the decision to purchase the game. EA must know not having these servers will mean many player will vote with there wallet and not buy. I think it is entirely reasonable for communities to want servers as for many players it enhances the entire experience of the game.
Sign In or Register to comment.