Weekly Debrief

BFV dedicated servers

13468971

Comments

  • BetaFief
    655 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    BetaFief wrote: »

    Do to the inequality in performance over multiple GSP's and the fact that one GSP violated their contract and exposed the core files, EA decided to lock down files and go AWS EC2 cloud. Outcry from the community is what eventually got us the RSP.

    Wait, isn't that partially why Battlefield: Bad Company 2 servers are still up and running?

    No, BFBC2 servers are completely GSP rentals via contract with EA. Same format as BF3, 4 and hardline. BC2 was the game that literally ended self hosting in the BF franchise.

    Some contracted GSP had staff that exposed the dedicated server files to a clan of friends. This exposure led to a slew of new cheats and leaderboard hacks.

    "empty servers showing as mostly full" ... ring any bells?

    Server file core exposure isn't a good thing if you plan on having a ranking/progression system. It just leads to cheats/hacks and other issues.

    Ah, I'm not so big on ranking or progression systems I guess, seems to me like the bigger problem had to do with the ranking system being over-emphasized in importance, and/or the part of the software that reported a server's player-count being easily bugged/messed with.

    I was also probably confusing the base/vanilla game, with something else.
  • Rev0verDrive
    6727 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    BetaFief wrote: »
    BetaFief wrote: »

    Do to the inequality in performance over multiple GSP's and the fact that one GSP violated their contract and exposed the core files, EA decided to lock down files and go AWS EC2 cloud. Outcry from the community is what eventually got us the RSP.

    Wait, isn't that partially why Battlefield: Bad Company 2 servers are still up and running?

    No, BFBC2 servers are completely GSP rentals via contract with EA. Same format as BF3, 4 and hardline. BC2 was the game that literally ended self hosting in the BF franchise.

    Some contracted GSP had staff that exposed the dedicated server files to a clan of friends. This exposure led to a slew of new cheats and leaderboard hacks.

    "empty servers showing as mostly full" ... ring any bells?

    Server file core exposure isn't a good thing if you plan on having a ranking/progression system. It just leads to cheats/hacks and other issues.

    Ah, I'm not so big on ranking or progression systems I guess, seems to me like the bigger problem had to do with the ranking system being over-emphasized in importance, and/or the part of the software that reported a server's player-count being easily bugged/messed with.

    I was also probably confusing the base/vanilla game, with something else.

    If you give a coder access to your code they can bypass and or manipulate the data. This is the number 1 reason why client-side anti-cheat is a joke of a failure long term.
  • BetaFief
    655 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    BetaFief wrote: »
    BetaFief wrote: »

    Do to the inequality in performance over multiple GSP's and the fact that one GSP violated their contract and exposed the core files, EA decided to lock down files and go AWS EC2 cloud. Outcry from the community is what eventually got us the RSP.

    Wait, isn't that partially why Battlefield: Bad Company 2 servers are still up and running?

    No, BFBC2 servers are completely GSP rentals via contract with EA. Same format as BF3, 4 and hardline. BC2 was the game that literally ended self hosting in the BF franchise.

    Some contracted GSP had staff that exposed the dedicated server files to a clan of friends. This exposure led to a slew of new cheats and leaderboard hacks.

    "empty servers showing as mostly full" ... ring any bells?

    Server file core exposure isn't a good thing if you plan on having a ranking/progression system. It just leads to cheats/hacks and other issues.

    Ah, I'm not so big on ranking or progression systems I guess, seems to me like the bigger problem had to do with the ranking system being over-emphasized in importance, and/or the part of the software that reported a server's player-count being easily bugged/messed with.

    I was also probably confusing the base/vanilla game, with something else.

    If you give a coder access to your code they can bypass and or manipulate the data. This is the number 1 reason why client-side anti-cheat is a joke of a failure long term.

    so why isn't CS:GO, Team Fortress 2, and Basically every non-AAA game released for the PC just overflowing with cheaters to the point of being unusable/unplayable?

    I mean I'm not saying server-side anti-cheat is a bad thing (nor am I failing to recognize that there's a certain amount of compromising that comes about when you've got access to even just the compiled files of anti-cheat software, as opposed to the source-code), what I don't like is saying "severs and their inner workings should be kept away from everyone because it will lead to hackers". because that to me seems awfully reactionary/knee-jerk, and ignores that hackers will be a thing almost regardless.
  • Ferdinand_J_Foch
    3388 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    BetaFief wrote: »
    BetaFief wrote: »
    BetaFief wrote: »

    Do to the inequality in performance over multiple GSP's and the fact that one GSP violated their contract and exposed the core files, EA decided to lock down files and go AWS EC2 cloud. Outcry from the community is what eventually got us the RSP.

    Wait, isn't that partially why Battlefield: Bad Company 2 servers are still up and running?

    No, BFBC2 servers are completely GSP rentals via contract with EA. Same format as BF3, 4 and hardline. BC2 was the game that literally ended self hosting in the BF franchise.

    Some contracted GSP had staff that exposed the dedicated server files to a clan of friends. This exposure led to a slew of new cheats and leaderboard hacks.

    "empty servers showing as mostly full" ... ring any bells?

    Server file core exposure isn't a good thing if you plan on having a ranking/progression system. It just leads to cheats/hacks and other issues.

    Ah, I'm not so big on ranking or progression systems I guess, seems to me like the bigger problem had to do with the ranking system being over-emphasized in importance, and/or the part of the software that reported a server's player-count being easily bugged/messed with.

    I was also probably confusing the base/vanilla game, with something else.

    If you give a coder access to your code they can bypass and or manipulate the data. This is the number 1 reason why client-side anti-cheat is a joke of a failure long term.

    so why isn't CS:GO, Team Fortress 2, and Basically every non-AAA game released for the PC just overflowing with cheaters to the point of being unusable/unplayable?

    I mean I'm not saying server-side anti-cheat is a bad thing (nor am I failing to recognize that there's a certain amount of compromising that comes about when you've got access to even just the compiled files of anti-cheat software, as opposed to the source-code), what I don't like is saying "severs and their inner workings should be kept away from everyone because it will lead to hackers". because that to me seems awfully reactionary/knee-jerk, and ignores that hackers will be a thing almost regardless.

    I've played CSGO for over 100 hours, and I've encountered a lot of cheaters and smurfs in Asian/Indian/Dubai servers ... it's definitely not perfect. Basically, any popular game will have a lot of cheaters ... just look at PUBG and Rainbow Six Siege. Hell, CoD games were absolutely (and still are) infested with cheaters on almost every platform back during CoD's heyday.
  • BetaFief
    655 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    BetaFief wrote: »
    BetaFief wrote: »
    BetaFief wrote: »

    Do to the inequality in performance over multiple GSP's and the fact that one GSP violated their contract and exposed the core files, EA decided to lock down files and go AWS EC2 cloud. Outcry from the community is what eventually got us the RSP.

    Wait, isn't that partially why Battlefield: Bad Company 2 servers are still up and running?

    No, BFBC2 servers are completely GSP rentals via contract with EA. Same format as BF3, 4 and hardline. BC2 was the game that literally ended self hosting in the BF franchise.

    Some contracted GSP had staff that exposed the dedicated server files to a clan of friends. This exposure led to a slew of new cheats and leaderboard hacks.

    "empty servers showing as mostly full" ... ring any bells?

    Server file core exposure isn't a good thing if you plan on having a ranking/progression system. It just leads to cheats/hacks and other issues.

    Ah, I'm not so big on ranking or progression systems I guess, seems to me like the bigger problem had to do with the ranking system being over-emphasized in importance, and/or the part of the software that reported a server's player-count being easily bugged/messed with.

    I was also probably confusing the base/vanilla game, with something else.

    If you give a coder access to your code they can bypass and or manipulate the data. This is the number 1 reason why client-side anti-cheat is a joke of a failure long term.

    so why isn't CS:GO, Team Fortress 2, and Basically every non-AAA game released for the PC just overflowing with cheaters to the point of being unusable/unplayable?

    I mean I'm not saying server-side anti-cheat is a bad thing (nor am I failing to recognize that there's a certain amount of compromising that comes about when you've got access to even just the compiled files of anti-cheat software, as opposed to the source-code), what I don't like is saying "severs and their inner workings should be kept away from everyone because it will lead to hackers". because that to me seems awfully reactionary/knee-jerk, and ignores that hackers will be a thing almost regardless.

    I've played CSGO for over 100 hours, and I've encountered a lot of cheaters and smurfs in Asian/Indian/Dubai servers ... it's definitely not perfect. Basically, any popular game will have a lot of cheaters ... just look at PUBG and Rainbow Six Siege. Hell, CoD games were absolutely (and still are) infested with cheaters on almost every platform back during CoD's heyday.

    This is sort of what I was attempting to say, any popular game will have cheaters, so why bother with trying to lock everything down to such a high-degree? As far as I'm concerned it does more harm that good.
  • S1ngular1ty
    801 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Member
    edited June 2018
    I don't think anyone cares if they have a full box or not. We just want the level of control over the server we had with BF3 and BF4 where we could access server files and use admin tools like procon. I would be fine with servers running on ANY platform like AWS or Azure if we had access to server files and the ability to use 3rd party admin tools.
    ..
    There is no reason why this can't be done.
    ..
    I rarely had problems running virtual servers with NFO and like you said, they were running multiple instances on 1 box.

    1. It wa just a clarification. Too many people think dedicated server means one server has the resources of a whole physical box.
    2. Server admins did not have access to Server files in BF3 or BF4. You only had access to a basic config. Not the core game files.

    Do to the inequality in performance over multiple GSP's and the fact that one GSP violated their contract and exposed the core files, EA decided to lock down files and go AWS EC2 cloud. Outcry from the community is what eventually got us the RSP.

    3. NFO does not use VDS for BF3 or BF4. The use a service daemon to run multiple game server instances as services under a single OS. Each service instance is allocated dedicated CPU and RAM via the service daemon. You know this, we've been through this before.

    NXVDTpe.jpg

    It makes no different if the server is "virtual" or not. We can still have access to the necessary files for customization and the use of admin tools like procon. The only reason we don't is because DICE removed that functionality or never added it to the new server design.
    .
    So once again your "clarification" doesn't really help the discussion. You know full well I ran servers in BF4 so I'm aware you can't access the actual server files and I was talking about the CONFIG files.
  • Rev0verDrive
    6727 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    BetaFief wrote: »
    BetaFief wrote: »
    BetaFief wrote: »

    Do to the inequality in performance over multiple GSP's and the fact that one GSP violated their contract and exposed the core files, EA decided to lock down files and go AWS EC2 cloud. Outcry from the community is what eventually got us the RSP.

    Wait, isn't that partially why Battlefield: Bad Company 2 servers are still up and running?

    No, BFBC2 servers are completely GSP rentals via contract with EA. Same format as BF3, 4 and hardline. BC2 was the game that literally ended self hosting in the BF franchise.

    Some contracted GSP had staff that exposed the dedicated server files to a clan of friends. This exposure led to a slew of new cheats and leaderboard hacks.

    "empty servers showing as mostly full" ... ring any bells?

    Server file core exposure isn't a good thing if you plan on having a ranking/progression system. It just leads to cheats/hacks and other issues.

    Ah, I'm not so big on ranking or progression systems I guess, seems to me like the bigger problem had to do with the ranking system being over-emphasized in importance, and/or the part of the software that reported a server's player-count being easily bugged/messed with.

    I was also probably confusing the base/vanilla game, with something else.

    If you give a coder access to your code they can bypass and or manipulate the data. This is the number 1 reason why client-side anti-cheat is a joke of a failure long term.

    so why isn't CS:GO, Team Fortress 2, and Basically every non-AAA game released for the PC just overflowing with cheaters to the point of being unusable/unplayable?

    I mean I'm not saying server-side anti-cheat is a bad thing (nor am I failing to recognize that there's a certain amount of compromising that comes about when you've got access to even just the compiled files of anti-cheat software, as opposed to the source-code), what I don't like is saying "severs and their inner workings should be kept away from everyone because it will lead to hackers". because that to me seems awfully reactionary/knee-jerk, and ignores that hackers will be a thing almost regardless.

    I believe it boils down to overhead costs.
    I don't think anyone cares if they have a full box or not. We just want the level of control over the server we had with BF3 and BF4 where we could access server files and use admin tools like procon. I would be fine with servers running on ANY platform like AWS or Azure if we had access to server files and the ability to use 3rd party admin tools.
    ..
    There is no reason why this can't be done.
    ..
    I rarely had problems running virtual servers with NFO and like you said, they were running multiple instances on 1 box.

    1. It wa just a clarification. Too many people think dedicated server means one server has the resources of a whole physical box.
    2. Server admins did not have access to Server files in BF3 or BF4. You only had access to a basic config. Not the core game files.

    Do to the inequality in performance over multiple GSP's and the fact that one GSP violated their contract and exposed the core files, EA decided to lock down files and go AWS EC2 cloud. Outcry from the community is what eventually got us the RSP.

    3. NFO does not use VDS for BF3 or BF4. The use a service daemon to run multiple game server instances as services under a single OS. Each service instance is allocated dedicated CPU and RAM via the service daemon. You know this, we've been through this before.

    NXVDTpe.jpg

    It makes no different if the server is "virtual" or not. We can still have access to the necessary files for customization and the use of admin tools like procon. The only reason we don't is because DICE removed that functionality or never added it to the new server design.
    .
    So once again your "clarification" doesn't really help the discussion. You know full well I ran servers in BF4 so I'm aware you can't access the actual server files and I was talking about the CONFIG files.

    Clarification was for everyone else that reads the posts. You know to stop the spread of misinformation.
  • BetaFief
    655 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    BetaFief wrote: »
    BetaFief wrote: »
    BetaFief wrote: »

    Do to the inequality in performance over multiple GSP's and the fact that one GSP violated their contract and exposed the core files, EA decided to lock down files and go AWS EC2 cloud. Outcry from the community is what eventually got us the RSP.

    Wait, isn't that partially why Battlefield: Bad Company 2 servers are still up and running?

    No, BFBC2 servers are completely GSP rentals via contract with EA. Same format as BF3, 4 and hardline. BC2 was the game that literally ended self hosting in the BF franchise.

    Some contracted GSP had staff that exposed the dedicated server files to a clan of friends. This exposure led to a slew of new cheats and leaderboard hacks.

    "empty servers showing as mostly full" ... ring any bells?

    Server file core exposure isn't a good thing if you plan on having a ranking/progression system. It just leads to cheats/hacks and other issues.

    Ah, I'm not so big on ranking or progression systems I guess, seems to me like the bigger problem had to do with the ranking system being over-emphasized in importance, and/or the part of the software that reported a server's player-count being easily bugged/messed with.

    I was also probably confusing the base/vanilla game, with something else.

    If you give a coder access to your code they can bypass and or manipulate the data. This is the number 1 reason why client-side anti-cheat is a joke of a failure long term.

    so why isn't CS:GO, Team Fortress 2, and Basically every non-AAA game released for the PC just overflowing with cheaters to the point of being unusable/unplayable?

    I mean I'm not saying server-side anti-cheat is a bad thing (nor am I failing to recognize that there's a certain amount of compromising that comes about when you've got access to even just the compiled files of anti-cheat software, as opposed to the source-code), what I don't like is saying "severs and their inner workings should be kept away from everyone because it will lead to hackers". because that to me seems awfully reactionary/knee-jerk, and ignores that hackers will be a thing almost regardless.

    I believe it boils down to overhead costs.

    What do you mean? The overhead costs of what?
    Are you referring to Valve's VAC-system? or are you referring to the overhead costs of privately/3rd-party-run servers?
  • Rev0verDrive
    6727 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    BetaFief wrote: »
    BetaFief wrote: »
    BetaFief wrote: »
    BetaFief wrote: »

    Do to the inequality in performance over multiple GSP's and the fact that one GSP violated their contract and exposed the core files, EA decided to lock down files and go AWS EC2 cloud. Outcry from the community is what eventually got us the RSP.

    Wait, isn't that partially why Battlefield: Bad Company 2 servers are still up and running?

    No, BFBC2 servers are completely GSP rentals via contract with EA. Same format as BF3, 4 and hardline. BC2 was the game that literally ended self hosting in the BF franchise.

    Some contracted GSP had staff that exposed the dedicated server files to a clan of friends. This exposure led to a slew of new cheats and leaderboard hacks.

    "empty servers showing as mostly full" ... ring any bells?

    Server file core exposure isn't a good thing if you plan on having a ranking/progression system. It just leads to cheats/hacks and other issues.

    Ah, I'm not so big on ranking or progression systems I guess, seems to me like the bigger problem had to do with the ranking system being over-emphasized in importance, and/or the part of the software that reported a server's player-count being easily bugged/messed with.

    I was also probably confusing the base/vanilla game, with something else.

    If you give a coder access to your code they can bypass and or manipulate the data. This is the number 1 reason why client-side anti-cheat is a joke of a failure long term.

    so why isn't CS:GO, Team Fortress 2, and Basically every non-AAA game released for the PC just overflowing with cheaters to the point of being unusable/unplayable?

    I mean I'm not saying server-side anti-cheat is a bad thing (nor am I failing to recognize that there's a certain amount of compromising that comes about when you've got access to even just the compiled files of anti-cheat software, as opposed to the source-code), what I don't like is saying "severs and their inner workings should be kept away from everyone because it will lead to hackers". because that to me seems awfully reactionary/knee-jerk, and ignores that hackers will be a thing almost regardless.

    I believe it boils down to overhead costs.

    What do you mean? The overhead costs of what?
    Are you referring to Valve's VAC-system? or are you referring to the overhead costs of privately/3rd-party-run servers?

    security overhead for 3rd party hosting. EA backend connections, FairFight API connections etc.
  • Axlerod1
    1378 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    I would gladly pay extra to bring back 3rd party servers as would many others.
  • Rev0verDrive
    6727 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    Axlerod1 wrote:
    I would gladly pay extra to bring back 3rd party servers as would many others.

    I would too, but I don't think it's ever going to happen again with the BF franchise.
  • Reverend-1313
    178 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Member
    Yeah EA has consolized it to death. Nothing but CoD simplistic crap now.
  • BetaFief
    655 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    BetaFief wrote: »
    BetaFief wrote: »
    BetaFief wrote: »
    BetaFief wrote: »

    Do to the inequality in performance over multiple GSP's and the fact that one GSP violated their contract and exposed the core files, EA decided to lock down files and go AWS EC2 cloud. Outcry from the community is what eventually got us the RSP.

    Wait, isn't that partially why Battlefield: Bad Company 2 servers are still up and running?

    No, BFBC2 servers are completely GSP rentals via contract with EA. Same format as BF3, 4 and hardline. BC2 was the game that literally ended self hosting in the BF franchise.

    Some contracted GSP had staff that exposed the dedicated server files to a clan of friends. This exposure led to a slew of new cheats and leaderboard hacks.

    "empty servers showing as mostly full" ... ring any bells?

    Server file core exposure isn't a good thing if you plan on having a ranking/progression system. It just leads to cheats/hacks and other issues.

    Ah, I'm not so big on ranking or progression systems I guess, seems to me like the bigger problem had to do with the ranking system being over-emphasized in importance, and/or the part of the software that reported a server's player-count being easily bugged/messed with.

    I was also probably confusing the base/vanilla game, with something else.

    If you give a coder access to your code they can bypass and or manipulate the data. This is the number 1 reason why client-side anti-cheat is a joke of a failure long term.

    so why isn't CS:GO, Team Fortress 2, and Basically every non-AAA game released for the PC just overflowing with cheaters to the point of being unusable/unplayable?

    I mean I'm not saying server-side anti-cheat is a bad thing (nor am I failing to recognize that there's a certain amount of compromising that comes about when you've got access to even just the compiled files of anti-cheat software, as opposed to the source-code), what I don't like is saying "severs and their inner workings should be kept away from everyone because it will lead to hackers". because that to me seems awfully reactionary/knee-jerk, and ignores that hackers will be a thing almost regardless.

    I believe it boils down to overhead costs.

    What do you mean? The overhead costs of what?
    Are you referring to Valve's VAC-system? or are you referring to the overhead costs of privately/3rd-party-run servers?

    security overhead for 3rd party hosting. EA backend connections, FairFight API connections etc.

    what do you mean by security overhead? I'm talking about like people being able to host/run dedicated servers on their own machines/hardware (or hardware they themselves directly rent and just decide to host a dedicated server on).

    It just seems weird to me that Valve and many other companies have managed to create profitable games that grant access to server-core-files and yet aren't rendered entirely unplayable by hackers. Yet EA cites this as being such a concern that they keep their core-files tightly under lock and key, while having only regressed/doubled down with each iteration of the game in question.
  • CrashCA
    1036 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    BFBC2 onward allowed customization without server file access, EA's "improved player experience" in BF1 is anything but.
  • Rev0verDrive
    6727 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    BetaFief wrote: »
    BetaFief wrote: »
    BetaFief wrote: »
    BetaFief wrote: »
    BetaFief wrote: »

    Do to the inequality in performance over multiple GSP's and the fact that one GSP violated their contract and exposed the core files, EA decided to lock down files and go AWS EC2 cloud. Outcry from the community is what eventually got us the RSP.

    Wait, isn't that partially why Battlefield: Bad Company 2 servers are still up and running?

    No, BFBC2 servers are completely GSP rentals via contract with EA. Same format as BF3, 4 and hardline. BC2 was the game that literally ended self hosting in the BF franchise.

    Some contracted GSP had staff that exposed the dedicated server files to a clan of friends. This exposure led to a slew of new cheats and leaderboard hacks.

    "empty servers showing as mostly full" ... ring any bells?

    Server file core exposure isn't a good thing if you plan on having a ranking/progression system. It just leads to cheats/hacks and other issues.

    Ah, I'm not so big on ranking or progression systems I guess, seems to me like the bigger problem had to do with the ranking system being over-emphasized in importance, and/or the part of the software that reported a server's player-count being easily bugged/messed with.

    I was also probably confusing the base/vanilla game, with something else.

    If you give a coder access to your code they can bypass and or manipulate the data. This is the number 1 reason why client-side anti-cheat is a joke of a failure long term.

    so why isn't CS:GO, Team Fortress 2, and Basically every non-AAA game released for the PC just overflowing with cheaters to the point of being unusable/unplayable?

    I mean I'm not saying server-side anti-cheat is a bad thing (nor am I failing to recognize that there's a certain amount of compromising that comes about when you've got access to even just the compiled files of anti-cheat software, as opposed to the source-code), what I don't like is saying "severs and their inner workings should be kept away from everyone because it will lead to hackers". because that to me seems awfully reactionary/knee-jerk, and ignores that hackers will be a thing almost regardless.

    I believe it boils down to overhead costs.

    What do you mean? The overhead costs of what?
    Are you referring to Valve's VAC-system? or are you referring to the overhead costs of privately/3rd-party-run servers?

    security overhead for 3rd party hosting. EA backend connections, FairFight API connections etc.

    what do you mean by security overhead? I'm talking about like people being able to host/run dedicated servers on their own machines/hardware (or hardware they themselves directly rent and just decide to host a dedicated server on).

    It just seems weird to me that Valve and many other companies have managed to create profitable games that grant access to server-core-files and yet aren't rendered entirely unplayable by hackers. Yet EA cites this as being such a concern that they keep their core-files tightly under lock and key, while having only regressed/doubled down with each iteration of the game in question.

    Last time I checked Valve doesn't have a server-side anticheat. BF does (FairFight). Although that server-side AC isn't worth the paper it's written on nor is it really a server-side cheat, its integrated with the server files.

    If they released server files for anyone to download then all server-side AC efforts that FF does provide would be exposed. How it works, what triggers it etc. Then EA/DICE would need to spend more money countering need crap.

    They'd also have to develop a way to counter forced modding....and update that routinely.

    They'd also have to provide a backend connection for a server browser that's open to the public. Which leaves IP's exposed ... which leads to an increase in DDOS.

    So it's not that they CAN'T DO IT. It's they don't want to.

    Going with contracted GSP's (server renter do not access files) is a lot better, but it isn't bullet proof as seen with BF3 and BF4.
  • BetaFief
    655 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member

    Last time I checked Valve doesn't have a server-side anticheat. BF does (FairFight). Although that server-side AC isn't worth the paper it's written on nor is it really a server-side cheat, its integrated with the server files.

    If they released server files for anyone to download then all server-side AC efforts that FF does provide would be exposed. How it works, what triggers it etc. Then EA/DICE would need to spend more money countering need crap.

    They'd also have to develop a way to counter forced modding....and update that routinely.

    They'd also have to provide a backend connection for a server browser that's open to the public. Which leaves IP's exposed ... which leads to an increase in DDOS.

    So it's not that they CAN'T DO IT. It's they don't want to.

    Going with contracted GSP's (server renter do not access files) is a lot better, but it isn't bullet proof as seen with BF3 and BF4.

    I'm sorry if I'm annoying you, I'm just sort of curious, but like with "forced modding" do you mean like "custom maps, game-modes, total-conversion-mods"-like old mod communities were able to produce? Or are you referring to something else?

    I think you're right btw, it's mostly because they just don't want too.

    Though I'm not sure if the reason's you've listed are really rational justifications for not wanting too, especially now that DICE isn't going to be locking maps behind DLC.
  • Rev0verDrive
    6727 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    BetaFief wrote: »

    Last time I checked Valve doesn't have a server-side anticheat. BF does (FairFight). Although that server-side AC isn't worth the paper it's written on nor is it really a server-side cheat, its integrated with the server files.

    If they released server files for anyone to download then all server-side AC efforts that FF does provide would be exposed. How it works, what triggers it etc. Then EA/DICE would need to spend more money countering need crap.

    They'd also have to develop a way to counter forced modding....and update that routinely.

    They'd also have to provide a backend connection for a server browser that's open to the public. Which leaves IP's exposed ... which leads to an increase in DDOS.

    So it's not that they CAN'T DO IT. It's they don't want to.

    Going with contracted GSP's (server renter do not access files) is a lot better, but it isn't bullet proof as seen with BF3 and BF4.

    I'm sorry if I'm annoying you, I'm just sort of curious, but like with "forced modding" do you mean like "custom maps, game-modes, total-conversion-mods"-like old mod communities were able to produce? Or are you referring to something else?

    I think you're right btw, it's mostly because they just don't want too.

    Though I'm not sure if the reason's you've listed are really rational justifications for not wanting too, especially now that DICE isn't going to be locking maps behind DLC.

    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.
  • smokintom214
    1794 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Who knows this is the first battlefield without premium... But I am sure there will be on launch.
  • Pro4TLZZ
    24 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Member
    No, ban rented servers. Bad admins always ban players and ea / dice don't review the server reports
  • CrashCA
    1036 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Pro4TLZZ wrote: »
    No, ban rented servers. Bad admins always ban players and ea / dice don't review the server reports

    Please go play on "Official" servers and leave us alone. Pretty simple !
Sign In or Register to comment.