BFV dedicated servers

Comments

  • VBALL_MVP
    6177 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    VBALL_MVP wrote: »
    CrashCA wrote: »
    VBALL_MVP wrote: »

    Well since I3D hosts BF4 servers EA can have a contractual agreement that states they must keep BF4 available till X. Or they can have implied lifecycle guidelines as "we will continue to provide support for x years after launch"

    Microsoft for example provides 7-10 lifecycle support. My company provides support on our products up to 7 years after end of life is announced on hardware and up to two versions for software.

    But again who knows. EA ditched 50 games in 2014 just because it cost more than it was worth to hold them on. Maybe they truly keep them running until they really become a burden....without the financial numbers all of us are just speculating.

    I3D does not host BF4 servers, 3rd party rented servers only. Without them, there would be no BF4 servers.


    I3D was the DICE's official Battlefield server provider for BF4. They made news when they lost that "title" when EA decided to host their own servers for BF1. My point is that since they are a "offical server provider" (I wasn't referring to that they provide all the DICE offical serves) that they probably have a contract with DICE. Within this contract is a guarantee that they will get support and the right to host these servers for a set number of years....hence why it may not be easy to sunset titles.

    i3D was one of MANY official contracted GSP/RSP's for BF4 rentals.

    NFOServers, GameServers, MultiPlay, Fragnet, 4NetPlayers, Nitrado, GPortal .... just to name a few.

    i3D did end up managing BF1's servers though.

    I3d is handling their network. But they are not renting BF1 servers last time I checked their website.
  • Rev0verDrive
    6760 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    VBALL_MVP wrote: »
    VBALL_MVP wrote: »
    CrashCA wrote: »
    VBALL_MVP wrote: »

    Well since I3D hosts BF4 servers EA can have a contractual agreement that states they must keep BF4 available till X. Or they can have implied lifecycle guidelines as "we will continue to provide support for x years after launch"

    Microsoft for example provides 7-10 lifecycle support. My company provides support on our products up to 7 years after end of life is announced on hardware and up to two versions for software.

    But again who knows. EA ditched 50 games in 2014 just because it cost more than it was worth to hold them on. Maybe they truly keep them running until they really become a burden....without the financial numbers all of us are just speculating.

    I3D does not host BF4 servers, 3rd party rented servers only. Without them, there would be no BF4 servers.


    I3D was the DICE's official Battlefield server provider for BF4. They made news when they lost that "title" when EA decided to host their own servers for BF1. My point is that since they are a "offical server provider" (I wasn't referring to that they provide all the DICE offical serves) that they probably have a contract with DICE. Within this contract is a guarantee that they will get support and the right to host these servers for a set number of years....hence why it may not be easy to sunset titles.

    i3D was one of MANY official contracted GSP/RSP's for BF4 rentals.

    NFOServers, GameServers, MultiPlay, Fragnet, 4NetPlayers, Nitrado, GPortal .... just to name a few.

    i3D did end up managing BF1's servers though.

    I3d is handling their network. But they are not renting BF1 servers last time I checked their website.

    All BF1 server rentals go through EA - Amazon GameLift. i3D simply has a bare metal rack at each DC to manage them.
  • A_Cool_Gorilla
    1374 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited September 2018
    The only gameplay benefit I can think of, is to avoid overwhelming new players. Even then, a new player doesn't need 30+ hours to grow familiar with the features of the game... even if they've never played a multiplayer shooter, it won't take them that long to grasp features such as attachments, perks, or weapons.

    Another benefit outside of gameplay is to create a "sense of progression"... and when it comes to that, I'd argue that cosmetic unlocks are good enough for players that enjoy progression. If you want to have progression in the game, go for it... but it shouldn't hinder gameplay, in a genre that revolves around the gameplay...

    Aren't new players overwhelmed with stock/base weapons, attachments, gadgets etc versus those that have unlocked items?

    Yeah, I'd sure say so. Personally, I think campaign does a good enough job to ease a player into the content, so I don't think it could possibly outweigh the issue you just brought up here.

    I'd say the only relevant thing is to create that "sense of progression", particularly with short reward schedules... which I actually agree with despite hating progression. If I had my way to attempt to please everyone, I would add a prestige system to weapons. Everything's unlocked by default, but if you want those sweet, sweet cosmetic unlocks... you gotta jump through those hoops. I honestly don't see any downside to that... at that point, progression would be achieving it's only purpose in this genre - being an extension of the experience, instead of interfering with it.
    My issue with that, is that balancing 3 categories would be much harder to do. If there are just two categories - Official and Unranked, then those can be translated to Official and Community. I'd think of it similarly to CS:GO, or Black Ops 3. You have the matchmaking system that simply throws you onto an official server, and you have a "Community Servers" option beside a "Official Servers" option, which brings you to a list of unranked servers. Keep that stuff front and center, instead of hiding it behind the filters.

    If someone modifies the number of maps in the map rotaion, to be less than... let's say 5 maps, then it would become unranked (assuming the game launches with 9 or more maps). My logic there, being to keep progression tied to more consistent "Battlefield" experiences. If you enjoy meat grinder maps, that's fine... but imo, those should be treated like "Sniper only", or "Knife only" servers.

    The only thing I'm on the fence about, is whether or not certain stats should still be tracked on unranked servers. Such as "kills", "deaths", "SPM", etc. Stats that aren't inherently tied to progression. I'd definitely want those to be tracked, even if they threw them into a separate "Community Servers" category.

    Already have it in BFBC2, BF3, BF4 and somewhat in BF1. Official server cannot kick or ban. Wanting that ability you're pushed to ranked.

    If you limit the server types to simply official and unranked then you might as well not have RSP. "Ranked" allows for a lot of control but without changing the core settings that define the game. If you want to change those settings, then go unranked.

    How do you balance Official, Ranked, and Unranked so that none of them are hidden behind filters? Unranked as it currently stands, may as well not even be a thing. I'd say it serves no purpose outside of clan matches, since it's hidden away. Although, if your argument is to have "Official" and "Ranked" to become "Official" and "Community" in my example, then fair enough... I don't have any argument outside of "I don't think progression should be a thing in 'Knife only', or a variant of" type of servers. With how many players enjoy progression, I don't think an argument like that could stand very long... especially if the progression was cosmetic only / optional, like I suggested above.

    Every server browser has filters. You cannot avoid them. The default filters would be Official and Ranked checked. There game settings would be absolutely the same. The only difference is Ranked will have admins a few additional features.

    Avoiding filters is what Battlefield should strive to do. Include them in the server browser for the "power user", but strive to avoid them for the casual player.

    I honestly think having "Official" and "Community" server lists would be the way to go, to keep the developer intended experience alive far into the game's life cycle. Presentation is everything. There's a reason unranked is almost useless.
  • PvtJohnTowle
    1021 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    CrashCA wrote: »
    A tweet from @dan_mitre ...
    ""In a couple of weeks (give or take) you'll get a close look at Maps and Multiplayer features. Community Tools like RSP, Platoons, Squad comms, etc. are things we need to get into more - we're discussing how to do so and at what level we can detail them out."




    Yeah, "SOON™"

    Like Platoons still in Beta after 2 years.

    He didn’t say soon he said in a couple of weeks. What is so hard to understand about that?

    Please see the last 1-2 years of history around this situation. Those posts can be found stickied in the RSP forums and i believe mentioned numerous times in this thread as well. If you are going to call someone out try and educate yourself about the situation. If you believe anything EA/Dice says at this point.... as the saying goes "i've got a bridge to sell you".

    I feel sorry for your distrust anything a representative of EA states, however that's something you have to deal with. I will rely on what was said rather than assume the worst each time, until I am proven otherwise.

  • TheSacar
    1005 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited September 2018

    Avoiding filters is what Battlefield should strive to do. Include them in the server browser for the "power user", but strive to avoid them for the casual player.

    I honestly think having "Official" and "Community" server lists would be the way to go, to keep the developer intended experience alive far into the game's life cycle. Presentation is everything. There's a reason unranked is almost useless.

    I like the idea of having matchmaking use your server filter settings. If the game comes with the "official" filter settings pre-selected I don't see what the problem would be. You seem to be advocating for the extreme casual player who just wants to click a button and load into a game, which he can do if he never changes the default settings (or resets to default).

    I quite agree with @Rev0verDrive on the official-ranked-unranked-private classifications, with the single exception, that I would prefer if you could change ticket count in a certain range (say up and down 50%). In the past DICE has erred on ticket count for some modes and has taken a long time to correct that.
  • Reverend-1313
    178 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Member
    CrashCA wrote: »
    A tweet from @dan_mitre ...
    ""In a couple of weeks (give or take) you'll get a close look at Maps and Multiplayer features. Community Tools like RSP, Platoons, Squad comms, etc. are things we need to get into more - we're discussing how to do so and at what level we can detail them out."




    Yeah, "SOON™"

    Like Platoons still in Beta after 2 years.

    He didn’t say soon he said in a couple of weeks. What is so hard to understand about that?

    Please see the last 1-2 years of history around this situation. Those posts can be found stickied in the RSP forums and i believe mentioned numerous times in this thread as well. If you are going to call someone out try and educate yourself about the situation. If you believe anything EA/Dice says at this point.... as the saying goes "i've got a bridge to sell you".

    I feel sorry for your distrust anything a representative of EA states, however that's something you have to deal with. I will rely on what was said rather than assume the worst each time, until I am proven otherwise.

    Actions speak louder than words, simply basing my opinion on the factual and verifiable track record of every single person at EA/DICE related to this topic. But in the end its just my opinion. If time proves me correct, expect me to come back and gloat and rub it in your face. If by some act of biblical nature I am wrong I will shrivel up and hide in the true fashion of the internet. Nah i'll come back and give you a thumbs up and a kudos. We all want the same thing, a better game.
  • MigueTK
    679 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    MigueTK wrote: »
    MigueTK wrote:
    Every server browser has filters. You cannot avoid them. The default filters would be Official and Ranked checked. There game settings would be absolutely the same. The only difference is Ranked will have admins a few additional features.
    • Official -> No admin, pure dice settings, progression and stats
    • Ranked -> Admin, Dice settings, progression and stats, additional features (mix mode, vote map, vote mode)..... Not changing any of the predefined settings.
    • Unranked -> Admin, no progression or stats, all features/settings available to change.
    • Private -> Admin, password locked, no progression or stats, all features/settings available to change.

    Also you could force browser filter setting to be applied to matchmaking.

    I don't see anything complicated with this.

    By changing settings do you mean like damage modifiers, vehicle spawn delays? Because I would almost agree with your idea of a ranked server except keeping vanilla DICE settings.

    Yes, Any change to settings (ticket counts, spawn timers, FF, weapon restrictions etc) ........anything other than map rotation and modes would result in unranked.

    The only difference between Official and Ranked is Ranked server can Admin (kick/ban), set server messages, turn on map/mode vote, etc.

    Got it, I disagree with you then. I guess you're worried about boosting but I don't see it as a problem, I main TDM.

    I simply believe if you're changing the settings of a game mode then your bypassing/altering the intended/designed gameplay. Thus stats/progression shouldn't be tracked.

    I main BF4 TDM.

    Too bad you're on PC only :(
  • PvtJohnTowle
    1021 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited September 2018
    I feel sorry for your distrust anything a representative of EA states, however that's something you have to deal with. I will rely on what was said rather than assume the worst each time, until I am proven otherwise.

    Unfortunately you'll be learning some lessons in life the hard way. Corporations like EA are no different than politicians. They'll smile and seem completely sincere as they lie through their teeth to you.

    But according to your profile this hasn't changed your purchasing decisions has it?? BF3 , BF4 and BF1 and undoubtedly you will be buying BF V given your track record. It is clear you haven't learnt your own lessons that you are espousing.
  • Rev0verDrive
    6760 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    MigueTK wrote: »
    MigueTK wrote: »
    MigueTK wrote:
    Every server browser has filters. You cannot avoid them. The default filters would be Official and Ranked checked. There game settings would be absolutely the same. The only difference is Ranked will have admins a few additional features.
    • Official -> No admin, pure dice settings, progression and stats
    • Ranked -> Admin, Dice settings, progression and stats, additional features (mix mode, vote map, vote mode)..... Not changing any of the predefined settings.
    • Unranked -> Admin, no progression or stats, all features/settings available to change.
    • Private -> Admin, password locked, no progression or stats, all features/settings available to change.

    Also you could force browser filter setting to be applied to matchmaking.

    I don't see anything complicated with this.

    By changing settings do you mean like damage modifiers, vehicle spawn delays? Because I would almost agree with your idea of a ranked server except keeping vanilla DICE settings.

    Yes, Any change to settings (ticket counts, spawn timers, FF, weapon restrictions etc) ........anything other than map rotation and modes would result in unranked.

    The only difference between Official and Ranked is Ranked server can Admin (kick/ban), set server messages, turn on map/mode vote, etc.

    Got it, I disagree with you then. I guess you're worried about boosting but I don't see it as a problem, I main TDM.

    I simply believe if you're changing the settings of a game mode then your bypassing/altering the intended/designed gameplay. Thus stats/progression shouldn't be tracked.

    I main BF4 TDM.

    Too bad you're on PC only :(

    I have an Xbox One ... but I use it mainly for TV stuff. Hulu, Prime, Netflix.
  • Jaskaman
    681 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    TheSacar wrote: »

    Yeah, server admins would tell me that too. For whatever reason, 90% of players flocked to Noshar Canals, and so having a proper server would be tough to keep alive. Call me selfish, but if those players don't have Noshar-only servers to go to, then they have no choice but to join servers with good map rotations.

    That really is incredibly selfish. Because you could not find a server with the map rotation you wanted, you now want to basically force everyone to play like you want to. The reason the map rotations existed like they did is that people liked them. Now you basically want everybody to feel like you did back then and be unable to play the map rotations they want.
    You do realize that a) these people paid good money to host their server and it was just fair that they could set it up like they liked and b) nothing ever stopped you from renting a server and setting it up like you wanted.
    A good RSP strategy would make everybody happy. Those who want to play on community servers can do so and if EA has enough official servers, you might find one with your favorite rotation.

    Or the game could just have well rounded servers.

    I say, keep community servers unranked. If players want a official meatgrinder mode - give it to them as a matchmaking option or as an event.

    If you force every player to play 5 games in a row of maps and modes he don't enjoy he will find another game to play.

    Exactly. That applies to any player, which makes it difficult to know what the best solution would even be.

    I quit BF3 when TDM servers became all about 24/7 Noshar Canals. I want RSP to stay away, but of course that's not the best choice to please everyone.

    You want RSP to stay away because you do not like the maps some servers are having? So, because you dont like something, you do not want we have Rentable servers? You can still play in Official mode as long as we have RSP as well, I don't get your point at all.
  • Reverend-1313
    178 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Member
    I feel sorry for your distrust anything a representative of EA states, however that's something you have to deal with. I will rely on what was said rather than assume the worst each time, until I am proven otherwise.

    Unfortunately you'll be learning some lessons in life the hard way. Corporations like EA are no different than politicians. They'll smile and seem completely sincere as they lie through their teeth to you.

    But according to your profile this hasn't changed your purchasing decisions has it?? BF3 , BF4 and BF1 and undoubtedly you will be buying BF V given your track record. It is clear you haven't learnt your own lessons that you are espousing.

    Arguments pretty thin.... He and I share the same opinion but I did in fact....NOT buy BF1. So that somehow makes my opinion more valid than his....hrmm

    Anywho back on topic. When is this new information drop incoming again?
  • Jaskaman
    681 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited September 2018
    There lies the problem. Use a progression system, rely on community to host servers -> community creates a plethora of meat grinder servers.

    I'm over simplifying things, but I'm confident that's a factor for why these servers exist. My stance is, community servers should be unranked only. Still easily accessible, but progression shouldn't be a factor.

    The positive aspect there, is that a competitive scene would benefit from that. Join a server with a "promod" ruleset (for lack of better words), and every white listed weapon is already unlocked.

    The whole unlocking system introduced in BF2 always baffled me. What's the real purpose for it? Players grind out a class to unlock everything, which initially grants some variety in what you run into. Yet after a few months you end up running into the same go to weps/set ups. Why not just have everything unlocked from the start?

    If we don't lock stuff, then we can't have assignments. Nobody is going to do assignments if they don't getting anything worthwhile for doing them.

    Which leads to WTF are their assignments anyway? ... "To keep players engaged."
    The game isn't enough? ..... "Nope, not really."


    Personally I think the RSP system should auto toggle rank/unranked based on settings. Sort of like they did with the previous titles, but a bit more strict. For example if you change any settings beyond default (Dice Presets) the server goes unranked. So changing the spawn timers, ticket counts, game timer, damage etc would result in unranked.

    Official (progression and stats recording)
    Only offers map selection/rotation, mode selection. Changing any other config value would change the server type to either ranked or unranked.

    Ranked (progression and stats recording)
    Offers map selection/rotation, mode selection (mix mode etc) admin kick/ban, map vote, mode vote, server messages. Changing any other config value would change the server type to unranked.

    Unranked (No progression or stats recording)
    Offers full customization of settings. All weapons unlocked, weapon/vehicle whitelisting, Faction only weapons/vehicle options, damage %, spawn timers (wave or set time), Spawn penalties, FF on/off, ticket counts, game time ....etc.

    Any setting change that isn't inline with the games preset configs results in a unranked server type.
    e.g. Hardcore preset -> FF off = unranked

    While I understand your point, but you ideas are way too strict on this. It should be as it was in BF4, I think those limits were quite good for each (Official, Ranked, Unranked).
    No one plays on server if that's unranked -unless for fun events/practice but they can be covered with password protected servers.
    Problem with BF1 is now that there is no variety because every setting you change make server custom.
    And custom server is a poison to server starting and server browser....
    You should be able to set tickets, round time, turn off vehicles, changing spawn time and damage and turning certain functions off/on without server being custom or even unranked.
    Anyway, we need RSP to BFV launch or quite fast after the launch with a lot of functions :)
  • A_Cool_Gorilla
    1374 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Jaskaman wrote: »
    TheSacar wrote: »

    Yeah, server admins would tell me that too. For whatever reason, 90% of players flocked to Noshar Canals, and so having a proper server would be tough to keep alive. Call me selfish, but if those players don't have Noshar-only servers to go to, then they have no choice but to join servers with good map rotations.

    That really is incredibly selfish. Because you could not find a server with the map rotation you wanted, you now want to basically force everyone to play like you want to. The reason the map rotations existed like they did is that people liked them. Now you basically want everybody to feel like you did back then and be unable to play the map rotations they want.
    You do realize that a) these people paid good money to host their server and it was just fair that they could set it up like they liked and b) nothing ever stopped you from renting a server and setting it up like you wanted.
    A good RSP strategy would make everybody happy. Those who want to play on community servers can do so and if EA has enough official servers, you might find one with your favorite rotation.

    Or the game could just have well rounded servers.

    I say, keep community servers unranked. If players want a official meatgrinder mode - give it to them as a matchmaking option or as an event.

    If you force every player to play 5 games in a row of maps and modes he don't enjoy he will find another game to play.

    Exactly. That applies to any player, which makes it difficult to know what the best solution would even be.

    I quit BF3 when TDM servers became all about 24/7 Noshar Canals. I want RSP to stay away, but of course that's not the best choice to please everyone.

    You want RSP to stay away because you do not like the maps some servers are having? So, because you dont like something, you do not want we have Rentable servers? You can still play in Official mode as long as we have RSP as well, I don't get your point at all.

    You can't. RSP as it was in BF3, killed off servers with full map rotations.
  • CrashCA
    1156 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Without "RSP" in BF3 and BF4, there would be no servers at all
  • A_Cool_Gorilla
    1374 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    CrashCA wrote: »
    Without "RSP" in BF3 and BF4, there would be no servers at all

    That's absurd. Without RSP, EA would be paying for them.
  • MacaqueX
    674 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    CrashCA wrote: »
    Without "RSP" in BF3 and BF4, there would be no servers at all

    Yeah and without 64p every mod, and adjusting tickets nobody would play damn game. BF1 TDM on bad maps rotation, and with 100 tickets was worst, you spend more time in waiting for next map than playing game. Similar was in BF3/4 before private servers, but BF4 had huge load time and 90% of users didn't use SSD, while 100 tickets TDM would pass in 1 minute in game and than 10 minutes wait for next map.
  • -Antares65z
    1684 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited September 2018
    Unfortunately you'll be learning some lessons in life the hard way. Corporations like EA are no different than politicians. They'll smile and seem completely sincere as they lie through their teeth to you.

    But according to your profile this hasn't changed your purchasing decisions has it?? BF3 , BF4 and BF1 and undoubtedly you will be buying BF V given your track record. It is clear you haven't learnt your own lessons that you are espousing.

    This is the first BF that I haven't pre-ordered. I got punked for the last time with SWBF2. Should have just dropped that $80 in the toilet and hit the handle. I'm taking a wait and see approach with BF5. I won't be playing it on Day 1.

  • Rev0verDrive
    6760 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    Jaskaman wrote:
    While I understand your point, but you ideas are way too strict on this. It should be as it was in BF4, I think those limits were quite good for each (Official, Ranked, Unranked).
    No one plays on server if that's unranked -unless for fun events/practice but they can be covered with password protected servers.
    Problem with BF1 is now that there is no variety because every setting you change make server custom.
    And custom server is a poison to server starting and server browser....
    You should be able to set tickets, round time, turn off vehicles, changing spawn time and damage and turning certain functions off/on without server being custom or even unranked.
    Anyway, we need RSP to BFV launch or quite fast after the launch with a lot of functions :)

    When you change those things you aren't playing Battlefield as it was designed. You're playing a modded version of the game. Thus the server should not be eligible for progression or stats tracking. Modification of settings alters the designed balance of the game and the played mode.

    A ticket count increase/decrease that alters clock times appropriately would be fine ( 300/30 -> 150/15 ). Turning off vehicles (infantry only) skews the game play. You eliminated a major factor affecting flag control, kdr, spm etc, The same applies to excluding a weapon/gadget/vehicle.


    BF1's Server browser was an absolute mess. There's no excuse for that hot garbage.

    Browser filtering etc should work like it did in BF4. There should be filter options for Presets (Normal, HardCore), Server Type (Official, Ranked, Unranked, Private) etc. There should be an interface with every settings option a server admin uses. Friendly Fire, Ticket Count %, Infantry Spawn Time %, Vehicle Spawn Time % etc.

    MatchMaking should only queue against your browser settings. Irregardless of Preset or Server Type.
    If no results found the UI should notify you and suggest changing your browser settings and provide two buttons. One to "Customize browser search settings" and one to "Revert to default settings".

    Reverting auto resets and immediately queues to those settings.

    If all results found are Full it should dump the results on screen with a notice at the top stating so.
    # All servers matching your criteria are currently full.
    # List of results .............
  • von_Campenstein
    6619 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    Jaskaman wrote:
    While I understand your point, but you ideas are way too strict on this. It should be as it was in BF4, I think those limits were quite good for each (Official, Ranked, Unranked).
    No one plays on server if that's unranked -unless for fun events/practice but they can be covered with password protected servers.
    Problem with BF1 is now that there is no variety because every setting you change make server custom.
    And custom server is a poison to server starting and server browser....
    You should be able to set tickets, round time, turn off vehicles, changing spawn time and damage and turning certain functions off/on without server being custom or even unranked.
    Anyway, we need RSP to BFV launch or quite fast after the launch with a lot of functions :)

    When you change those things you aren't playing Battlefield as it was designed. You're playing a modded version of the game. Thus the server should not be eligible for progression or stats tracking. Modification of settings alters the designed balance of the game and the played mode.

    A ticket count increase/decrease that alters clock times appropriately would be fine ( 300/30 -> 150/15 ). Turning off vehicles (infantry only) skews the game play. You eliminated a major factor affecting flag control, kdr, spm etc, The same applies to excluding a weapon/gadget/vehicle.


    BF1's Server browser was an absolute mess. There's no excuse for that hot garbage.

    Browser filtering etc should work like it did in BF4. There should be filter options for Presets (Normal, HardCore), Server Type (Official, Ranked, Unranked, Private) etc. There should be an interface with every settings option a server admin uses. Friendly Fire, Ticket Count %, Infantry Spawn Time %, Vehicle Spawn Time % etc.

    MatchMaking should only queue against your browser settings. Irregardless of Preset or Server Type.
    If no results found the UI should notify you and suggest changing your browser settings and provide two buttons. One to "Customize browser search settings" and one to "Revert to default settings".

    Reverting auto resets and immediately queues to those settings.

    If all results found are Full it should dump the results on screen with a notice at the top stating so.
    # All servers matching your criteria are currently full.
    # List of results .............

    Why aren't you working for DICE now? You know they only got a bucket of monkeys down in the basement banging on the browser code with ladels.
Sign In or Register to comment.