In the Battlefield 1 Incursions Closed Alpha? If you're unable to see the forums, log out and log back in.
Having trouble accessing the forums? Try logging out of the forums completely - clear cache, cookies, and temp files - then restart the browser and log in. Thanks!

BF1 Servers - Thread for discussion of server rentals and settings*

1457910143

Comments

  • Capt_B_L_Willard
    30 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    Read this -
    http://www.anarchygaming.uk/Forum/battlefield-5/bf1-server-rentals/
    its been posted before, nothing new, but there are no more BF communities, bibi BF1!
  • Capt_B_L_Willard
    30 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
  • Sk1lld
    295 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Member
  • labtud
    260 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    limited settings and no procon omfg

    well there goes any variety of servers. I have no idea why any clan would spend over £500 for a 64 player server and have such limited control over it.

    Good bye any chance of a game being balanced (yep 2 clan squads on one team other team pugs) that is going to be so so one sided.

    Now this reminds me of the death of COD on PC. When they got rid of dedicated servers and modding.

    Oh well Dice it has been a fun ride from 1942 but good luck in the future with your console love.
  • Noodlesocks
    611 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    From what I've read, it's going to be like the console server rental. Instead of renting from server providers, you will have to rent from EA and you will have limited control over them.
  • -SCW-KiNG
    53 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    Where is the information about dedicated servers, prices, nothing i can find.

    Also what happens if you get a 64 man server and the game switches to a rush mode, does it kick out over half the players ??
  • -SCW-KiNG
    53 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    well this game will go like battlefront if this is the case, and last about 2-3months.
  • l-Snowblind-l
    102 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    The only new information I've read (Not Confirmed) is that EA will be the RSP/GSP versus multiple 3rd party companies under contract and NDA .... AND that procon will not be viable.

    For the record this has not been confirmed.

    Regarding EA as the GSP I do not see this as an issue. It'll work the same as it did with any other GSP but with some added benefits.
    1. EA/DICE fully control the server files. No 3rd party leaks.
    2. EA/DICE fully control the performance of the servers and the hardware used.
    3. Potentially lower slot costs and gained performance.

    I have read the same thing Rev... and ya its not confirmed but its prob the best bit info we will get until proper info is released.

    All this means is we will not be able to custom control the servers as have had in the past. Yes we can rent them from EA and EA will control all the host files ETC..

    We will be at the mercy of what EA has and the only choice we will have is what part of the world its in East/West EU RU JP.

    Custom options you had mentioned before is custom enough but the days of PROCON and 3rd party hosting is gone :(

    In other words we will not get what we want as a PC community. :( but we will get DEDICATED RENTABLE SERVERS so ... yay???
  • labtud
    260 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    I remember another very popular old PC FPS that took any kind of admin ability/modding away from it's PC version of the game. I seem to remember it not doing to well afterwards. cough cough.

    cod%20decline_1.png

    Please do not limit the EA servers to much for admins that rent them or BF will end up like this.
  • PPNSteve
    53 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    RIP BF

    its been fun but now you are done.
  • Rev0verDrive
    5904 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    I have read the same thing Rev... and ya its not confirmed but its prob the best bit info we will get until proper info is released.

    All this means is we will not be able to custom control the servers as have had in the past. Yes we can rent them from EA and EA will control all the host files ETC..

    We will be at the mercy of what EA has and the only choice we will have is what part of the world its in East/West EU RU JP.

    Custom options you had mentioned before is custom enough but the days of PROCON and 3rd party hosting is gone :(

    In other words we will not get what we want as a PC community. :( but we will get DEDICATED RENTABLE SERVERS so ... yay???

    Yay to a degree. The options (settings) in the beta aren't the complete list. There may be additionals for the "Rules" section. Ping limit etc. DICE may have it's own rcon utility. But for now we can say with a 90% certainty there will be rentable servers. That's still a plus.

    We know BF4 and BFH are going to use the same UI. And we know BF4/BFH will still be able to use procon. If the new tools aren't up to snuff and there's enough backlash from the community things could change.
  • labtud
    260 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    I will just leave this here as well for EA/DICE to consider.

    another very popular old title that started to remove pc modding/admin abilities/procon from it's game and force it in line with console.

    cod%20decline_1.png

    That shows the decline in player base right from when they removed true dedicated servers and mod(procon) support on PC.
  • ukste
    37 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    edited September 2016
    The end of private servers will be the end of EA/DICE .... Many people will get bored like thay did with battlefront.
  • labtud
    260 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    exactly. Limited variety and being forced in line with console rules.

    It is totally going to kill off BF clans that select procon settings to set themselves apart from generic servers.
  • Rev0verDrive
    5904 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    TML8 wrote: »
    Regarding EA as the GSP I do not see this as an issue. It'll work the same as it did with any other GSP but with some added benefits.
    1. EA/DICE fully control the server files. No 3rd party leaks.
    2. EA/DICE fully control the performance of the servers and the hardware used.
    3. Potentially lower slot costs and gained performance.
    What does 1. refer to? No leaks of content in upcoming DLC or what? Surely that is something that RSPs would have NDAs for. Or do you mean something else?

    About 2 and 3, I'd imagine the opposite will happen at least with performance, or it is definitely a possibility.
    RSP's compete with other RSP's. The fact that their servers work well is what sells their product. A single entity selling via EA does not have that pressure. Also I'm sure EA would love to increase the profit margin there.
    Yeah it probably would mean lower slot costs, but at a cost. Alternatively it's the same but more money is taken in the middle.

    Don't like being cynical, but I just think it's a fairly likely scenario. :)
    Or at least it is one possible scenario, likelihoods being a coin toss.

    This is nothing on DICE, as I believe the choices made in regards to RSP's and making a stripped down monopoly of the business is something EA would have their hands in.
    I would imagine DICE has plenty of die hard gamers, and they would most likely fall into the category of community driven rental servers.
    Who knows.

    Whatever it may be that happens, some information should really be given soon enough. At least before the game is released.
    @TML8

    1. Refers to the actual dedicated server files. DICE has to turn those files over to the GSP's so they can set up servers. Server files get leaked. It happens with just about every game. Remember BF is Client Register -> Server Authenticate. The server has the final say in whether or not your hits count. Having access to server source code gives you insight into what the server checks and how it checks. You and everyone else that plays has the client side. Having the server side completes the puzzle. EA/DICE being the one and only GSP almost guarantees those files aren't seen by anyone lacking authority.

    2 & 3. You need to understand how GSP's work and a few term clarifications to avoid confusion. You may know all of this, but others might not.
    • Server / Physical machine - Refers to the actual server itself. motherboard, ram etc.
    • Server Rack - Basically a shelving system that the physical machines are set up in. Racks hold multiple servers.
    • Game Server - This refers to an installation or instance of a game's server files (bf4 dedicated server file install). Generally referred to as a "Game Instance". Many instances of many games run on a single server. For example you could see a single server hosting 5x CoD (linux) and 4x BF3 (windows) on the same physical machine.

    GSP's are middle men. They all use the same data centers. e.g. Chicago based servers for NFO, GS, Fragnet etc are all in the same data center.

    Hardware and Performance
    Most GSP's own their hardware (servers), but not all. They purchase the hardware, assemble and ship it to the datacenter for rack installation. Some GSP's lease full servers or VPS's from the data centers.

    A single full machine will host many game instances. The average GSP server will house anywhere from 280 to 320 slots (games dependent). Your clans BF3/4 server could infact be on the same machine hosting CoD/CSS etc servers.

    BF is a high resource game. It requires a lot of cpu. The higher the tick the more cpu it eats. This is why most GSP's will have servers dedicated to the BF title. No other titles and in some cases series of games (BF3/BF4) are on the same physical machine. All BF3 or All BF4 etc. NFO is one of those GSP's. GameServers (gsp) will infact host BF4 on a VPS to negate purchasing more servers. BF4's server files are windows based. CoD and other games offer Linux versions which most GSP's use over their Windows counterparts. Better performance.

    Based on hardware and the games required resources a max slot count can be determined for a server. BF4 for example is roughly 3/4x 64p instances or 192 - 256 slots equiv per box on average. In layman's a GSP will know that a 64p server on X processor will eat 12% of the cpu @ 30hz and 22% @ 60Hz. EA/DICE will know the range of resources (avg/peak) a server will require and thus the hardware needed to absolutely guarantee performance. There will not be VPS's or other games on these servers. They will be strictly dedicated to BF1.

    Now EA/DICE are 100% responsible for game performance. In the past servers could be blamed for code performance issues and vice versa. Now there's no scapegoat. Server performance has got to be a priority and they know it.

    GSP Competition
    GSP's do compete for business. But they are all under contract with pricing limits. A minimum and a maximum. Gameservers for example doesn't offer high tick and they cost more than NFO which does offer high tick. This is the case because NFO owns all their hardware which enables them to provide better performance at a lower price.

    So in my opinion having EA as the GSP will pretty much guarantee a static performance baseline across all regions and a relative pricing system. They will not be purchasing hardware. It will be leased, but at specific specs and at a reduced price.
  • dwysywd
    123 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    edited September 2016
    EA saw the value ($$$$) in not giving up code to the GSP's. They see it as a huge revenue maker and they want the whole pie, not just a piece.
  • Rev0verDrive
    5904 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    dwysywd wrote: »
    EA saw the value ($$$$) in not giving up code to the GSP's. They see it as a huge revenue maker and they want the whole pie, not just a piece.

    If it means consistent quality server performance I'm all for it. Have the whole F'n pie. But it better run great.
  • VonReisler
    422 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    In AU I play BF4 on game community servers. They run about 5 instances and have a great Forum /site. Yes they are customised, Yes they have a 120 ping limit. Yes they perma ban hackers and cheaters when reported and investigated (you won't last more than a round or 2 before you are suspended pending explanation, bans can be appealed). Yes they are the best running and most popular servers in the country. Yes almost no one plays any other.

    It's the cheaters and high pingers that I fear will ruin BF1 if there is not this immediate way to deal with them.
  • dwysywd
    123 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    dwysywd wrote: »
    EA saw the value ($$$$) in not giving up code to the GSP's. They see it as a huge revenue maker and they want the whole pie, not just a piece.

    If it means consistent quality server performance I'm all for it. Have the whole F'n pie. But it better run great.

    Agreed, but add the full control RCON gives us and I'll continue to invest my monies in BF, though I supported NFO for many years and never had issues.

    Glad to see 60hz as the minimum now. Definitely different player experience between 30hz and 120hz, though 120hz was hard to find. Hope they give the option to buy up.
  • Rev0verDrive
    5904 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    dwysywd wrote: »
    dwysywd wrote: »
    EA saw the value ($$$$) in not giving up code to the GSP's. They see it as a huge revenue maker and they want the whole pie, not just a piece.

    If it means consistent quality server performance I'm all for it. Have the whole F'n pie. But it better run great.

    Agreed, but add the full control RCON gives us and I'll continue to invest my monies in BF, though I supported NFO for many years and never had issues.

    Glad to see 60hz as the minimum now. Definitely different player experience between 30hz and 120hz, though 120hz was hard to find. Hope they give the option to buy up.

    NFO is my go to as well. Especially for BF titles. Rock solid hardware and support.
This discussion has been closed.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!