Weekly BF

Do you agree that EA and DICE have made a massive mistake? Yes or No to 5 questions.

CrimeSceneKitty
712 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
Simply reply with YES or NO to the questions, let's get a baseline feel of what we the community think about RSP.

Should EA and DICE keep control of renting out servers?
Should EA and DICE add in Procon and allow us access to plugins?
Should EA and DICE give us access to 3rd party servers (reverse this whole mess)?
Should EA and DICE give us access to 3rd party servers while also working on making the RSP better in the meantime?
Should EA and DICE hire previous plugin makers to help the RSP?


To be honest with everyone, I was kinda excited to hear about RSP, knowing that we would get at least the same quality in server performance as the official servers, even for those that rent 1 server. Sure some of the 3rd party options could give us much better servers, but overall costs would be lower and access to the RSP would be more easy as you did not have to shop around for the plan and price that fit your budget. But I feel that EA and DICE have lied to us and that they are attempting to push for no non official servers. I feel that DICE and EA have really let us down as a community and they do not care. Overall DICE have made some really bad choices and when we tell them about it, they act like we are in the wrong.

Comments

  • kL-SnAjP
    497 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha Member
    from player s pov, yes to all ofcourse
    EA and DICE arent players tho, they are project creators and distributors
    what matters are the initial sales, sooner the product dies, the better

    I am stuck with ping 60 ms min to nearest servers, this is where we got since 15 years ago and 5ms in cs
    unacceptable
  • CrimeSceneKitty
    712 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    kL-SnAjP wrote: »
    from player s pov, yes to all ofcourse
    EA and DICE arent players tho, they are project creators and distributors
    what matters are the initial sales, sooner the product dies, the better

    So you are happy if BF1 and maybe even BF as a whole dies?

    Sure EA is all about money, but here we are willing to toss countless thousands at EA and DICE for servers, but we dont because of the state that the system is in.

    EA and DICE have to listen to us, they would honestly do just about anything to keep this game alive, and if we do not clearly and directly tell them what we want, they will do whatever they THINK we want.

    Also 60 ping is fairly acceptable for a non competitive game. Sure there are groups that do have competitive matches, but that is not the main focus of the game.

    Also ping is subject to change and no two games will have the same ping unless they are on the same server. 1 extra hop can give you higher ping, 1 slow hop can mess it all up.
  • CrashCA
    1060 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    edited April 2017
    New here?
    We have been doing this for 5+ months
    Check this:. https://forums.battlefield.com/en-us/discussion/41981/battlefield-1-rental-server-questions-master-list#latest
    And YES to main question

  • tldr_baz
    45 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    It doesn't matter what your answers are, because...
    1. They don't listen to us anyway
    2. Implementing the changes you've listed would take longer that fixing the mess we have now, and they've already demonstrated how low priority that is.
  • Px-Progdogg
    442 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    Should EA and DICE keep control of renting out servers? - It doesn't really matter who rents the servers out, they are cheaper currently so I think regardless of who rents them out the fact the exist at all is what matters.

    Should EA and DICE add in Procon and allow us access to plugins? Too late for that, they are trying to build in-game admin functions that run within the game and give us the same level of functionality.

    Should EA and DICE give us access to 3rd party servers (reverse this whole mess)? No - at this point its too late, it would take ages to implement that and get the Procon guys to sort the mess. It would cost more.

    Should EA and DICE give us access to 3rd party servers while also working on making the RSP better in the meantime? IMO no, RSP is available already, kick/ban exists, other features are likely in the final stages, pulling pin now and handing over server rental to 3rd parties would cost too much.

    Should EA and DICE hire previous plugin makers to help the RSP? Anyone can make a plugin for Procon, this isn't Procon. They already have Phogue from Procon at DICE so I imagine they have the bases covered there.
  • P1asma
    348 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Don't really need to answer the poll. the answer is a overwhelmingly YES they have made a huge mistake with this RSP
  • Axlerod1
    1380 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    I will give credit that DICE did try to make changes but this route they have chosen is really mind blowing. 3rd game in a row and the games really are not getting better. DICE needs to go back in history and see what made games like BF1942, BF2, BF3, BF4 great games to play and why people kept playing them for years.

    Now it seems like DICE wants people to play a game for about 6 months and then move on to another crap game that they make. I understand they want to make money selling games that they make but now it is to the point I don't want to buy anything that has DICE involved.
  • ATF_lateDENT
    304 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    BF1 is a game with amazing graphics and incredible sound, but the lack of server rental/control on PC is a horrible slap in the face to those of us who have spent years (and hundreds of dollars) playing Battlefield games on PC.

    In addition to the giant shaft they have shoved up our collective bums with the server issue, the way they have strangled the Operations game mode is particularly infuriating.

    My clanmates and I have repeatedly tried to join Operations lately, but only get matchmaked into empty servers. Since the servers need tons of people for the rounds to start, you end up sitting there staring at the loading screen with fingers crossed waiting for others to join until you give up and try again.

    Since there is no way to tell if a server has people on it, you just have to hope. After loading into empty servers time and time again, people generally drift off to something else.

    DICE, why in hell go to all the trouble creating an interesting and fun new game mode, then prevent people from actually playing it?

    Are you trying to be Activision so bad that you are willing to do anything to destroy your PC gaming base?
  • TFS_Punisher
    44 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha Member
    Of course, yes to all questions except number 1. BTW, DICE has Phogue, the maker of Procon although from what I understand they hired him to work on non-server related coding.
  • Trippl3x
    4 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    Yes to all Points!
  • CrashCA
    1060 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Yes to all but the first, EA has proven to be wholly incapable of the task
Sign In or Register to comment.