Jack Frags throwing in the towel

Comments

  • Rev0verDrive
    6722 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    edited August 5
    NLBartmaN said:
    I just watched the entirety of that vid and can agree with a lot of his opinions/statements. Yet the hype over CoD potentially having a 100p game mode is bit stretched and overly emphasized.

    Higher player count means more data replication. The more data you have to replicate per tick means more cpu and ram resources per server instance. For example taking BFV to a 100 player count would mean the server would need 60%+ more resources per server. Most studios would mitigate this by dumbing down the dynamics (destruction, interactive elements [doors, glass] etc) and/or reducing tickrate and client receive rate.

    A 100p server with BF level dynamics is going to be expensive as hell.

    Just saying.
    Add to that they already use servers with far too little resources for BF V right now , I don't see that happening ...
    I think BF's server resources are fine. They are network profiled based on a specific criteria that's pretty damn standard in the industry. The problem is they don't consider the effects of high latency load on the servers. Either that or they don't care outright.
  • Lahoo_Eckbert
    1264 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited August 5
    Yeah I've watched that vid.
    And yes, COD, regardless of how good it is, might just be the final nail in this dying games coffin, if by then it isn't dead already.
    Everybody is actually looking for an excuse to abandon ship, and Modern Warfare will likely be it. 
  • BFB-LeCharybdis
    790 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    Tried Black Ops 4 and it's a load of bollocks, even compared with V the gunplay, movement, maps were just awful. Genuinely don't get what all the fuss is about with CoD.

    100 player CoD just means bigger bollocks, no thank you.

    EA game changers are just glorified sales men brought in whenever EA need to flog something. I don't think there's the slightest chance that Dice would actually consider their opinion in regard to game development. They're not Dev's, just blokes that play games.
  • HawkeyeAM47
    1348 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    DICE send me a message for BF6 and I will influence your guys game, I'll stream and everything!! Sign me a contract I'll bring people all day!! Lol
  • MACROSS_FUN
    1 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Member
    If cod mwsucks  i wont buy it.I have decided not to spend a single peny to future bf games cause they suck.RIP dice....
  • NLBartmaN
    3182 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member


    I think BF's server resources are fine. They are network profiled based on a specific criteria that's pretty damn standard in the industry. The problem is they don't consider the effects of high latency load on the servers. Either that or they don't care outright.

    If they don't consider that, there are not enough resources.

    The server performance is not even close to consistent, the experience is never the same.

    Just a few high pingers, some more action, one little thing and things start to act up.

    The difference between 32 player modes without laggers and 64 players with a lagger is insane.
  • DigitalHype
    768 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    NLBartmaN said:
    I just watched the entirety of that vid and can agree with a lot of his opinions/statements. Yet the hype over CoD potentially having a 100p game mode is bit stretched and overly emphasized.

    Higher player count means more data replication. The more data you have to replicate per tick means more cpu and ram resources per server instance. For example taking BFV to a 100 player count would mean the server would need 60%+ more resources per server. Most studios would mitigate this by dumbing down the dynamics (destruction, interactive elements [doors, glass] etc) and/or reducing tickrate and client receive rate.

    A 100p server with BF level dynamics is going to be expensive as hell.

    Just saying.
    Add to that they already use servers with far too little resources for BF V right now , I don't see that happening ...
    I think BF's server resources are fine. They are network profiled based on a specific criteria that's pretty damn standard in the industry. The problem is they don't consider the effects of high latency load on the servers. Either that or they don't care outright.

    For the game. Sure (most of the time).

    But, even at wholesale pricing AWS and EC2 still has cpu cycles relating to pricing tiers and overall service cost. The compute power is there, and likely the network is profiled at 95 or 99 %'ile. But, the administrators of these EC2 instances are able to set upper bounds on many things to prevent additional cost.

    Based on past experiences on BF1 with FairFight's server-side detections catching "rage" hackers in games within a minute or two of gameplay, and getting a notification of their kick/ban by FF with thier name in chat (when they were on the same server as you at the time otherwise they were just part of the generic summary messages).  I witnessed it numerous times with some of the servers hosted with i3d.net partners, and maybe even when they were in AMZN's DC's, but not dynamic instances like we have in BFV.

    All of this server-side detection disappeared when they went to EC2 dynamic instances in BFV. Folks have tried to say it was just the chat stream FF info that is missing. I don't buy that at all. There are way too many instances of obvious statistical anamolies that would have been previous caught by FF server-side detection. I think its quite likely they sacrificed the compute and/or network resources for it this time.






  • ProAssassin2003
    3315 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    edited August 6
    I just watched the entirety of that vid and can agree with a lot of his opinions/statements. Yet the hype over CoD potentially having a 100p game mode is bit stretched and overly emphasized.

    Higher player count means more data replication. The more data you have to replicate per tick means more cpu and ram resources per server instance. For example taking BFV to a 100 player count would mean the server would need 60%+ more resources per server. Most studios would mitigate this by dumbing down the dynamics (destruction, interactive elements [doors, glass] etc) and/or reducing tickrate and client receive rate.

    A 100p server with BF level dynamics is going to be expensive as hell.

    Just saying.


    I think we could see it Next Gen. At least maybe a bump to 84 or more. PC tech is getting huge upgrades from AMD and this will be the first time both PS5 and Xbox will have the latest Tech from AMD as well which will be custom of course but if the specs are to be believed they should be some powerful machines although the 4K trend will eat that power up.

    We will see if the Next Battlefield has a new Frostbite Engine. Or they might go with another engine all together. Going to be interesting for sure.

    You're spot on about COD. They showed the 20vs20 and it was struggling to load shadows 5 feet in front of the player and pop in everywhere. You can also see a huge downgrade in the graphics from the single player footage and smaller gamemodes. Imo

  • Marine_IraHayes2
    234 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield Member
    I think the title is misleading as I don't think he claims that he'll stop playing Battlefield - or BFV for that matter - in the video.

    I bet there'll still be a constant stream of BF videos on his channel...

    It seems to be a plague on here of late if people bending narratives to suit an agenda.

    Yea...reading some of your posts I also get that.
  • Rev0verDrive
    6722 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    NLBartmaN said:


    I think BF's server resources are fine. They are network profiled based on a specific criteria that's pretty damn standard in the industry. The problem is they don't consider the effects of high latency load on the servers. Either that or they don't care outright.

    If they don't consider that, there are not enough resources.

    The server performance is not even close to consistent, the experience is never the same.

    Just a few high pingers, some more action, one little thing and things start to act up.

    The difference between 32 player modes without laggers and 64 players with a lagger is insane.

    Wait and test this when the RSP releases. Kick players over 60ms and monitor performance. Resources are determined based on optimum load criteria with a small cushion.

    NLBartmaN said:
    I just watched the entirety of that vid and can agree with a lot of his opinions/statements. Yet the hype over CoD potentially having a 100p game mode is bit stretched and overly emphasized.

    Higher player count means more data replication. The more data you have to replicate per tick means more cpu and ram resources per server instance. For example taking BFV to a 100 player count would mean the server would need 60%+ more resources per server. Most studios would mitigate this by dumbing down the dynamics (destruction, interactive elements [doors, glass] etc) and/or reducing tickrate and client receive rate.

    A 100p server with BF level dynamics is going to be expensive as hell.

    Just saying.
    Add to that they already use servers with far too little resources for BF V right now , I don't see that happening ...
    I think BF's server resources are fine. They are network profiled based on a specific criteria that's pretty damn standard in the industry. The problem is they don't consider the effects of high latency load on the servers. Either that or they don't care outright.

    For the game. Sure (most of the time).

    But, even at wholesale pricing AWS and EC2 still has cpu cycles relating to pricing tiers and overall service cost. The compute power is there, and likely the network is profiled at 95 or 99 %'ile. But, the administrators of these EC2 instances are able to set upper bounds on many things to prevent additional cost.

    Based on past experiences on BF1 with FairFight's server-side detections catching "rage" hackers in games within a minute or two of gameplay, and getting a notification of their kick/ban by FF with thier name in chat (when they were on the same server as you at the time otherwise they were just part of the generic summary messages).  I witnessed it numerous times with some of the servers hosted with i3d.net partners, and maybe even when they were in AMZN's DC's, but not dynamic instances like we have in BFV.

    All of this server-side detection disappeared when they went to EC2 dynamic instances in BFV. Folks have tried to say it was just the chat stream FF info that is missing. I don't buy that at all. There are way too many instances of obvious statistical anamolies that would have been previous caught by FF server-side detection. I think its quite likely they sacrificed the compute and/or network resources for it this time.



    As far as pricing goes it's all pretty much carved in stone. At least with AWS EC2 and their Gamelift packages. Say your current application uses c5.2xlarge with 12% unused resources (extra). An update to the app requires 60%+ more cpu than what the current package offers. Your only real option is to change over to the c5.4xlarge that will.

    In layman's for everyone else.
    Say I have a game that requires 1 vCPU and 3GiB Memory. The smallest package option has 1 vCPU and 2GiB mem, the next has 2 vCPU and 4GiB Mem. One doesn't meet requirements, the other exceeds them. I have to go with the larger package.

    ---------

    FF Doesn't use game server resources as per say it resides on the server itself. FF is an API. The game server streams raw data to the Local RMS (i3D box), The RMS plays middle man with the FF API (auth and connection). So it has very little impact on server performance and or resources.

    Removing FF "messages" from the game reduces bandwidth costs and network saturation.
  • parkingbrake
    3202 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    NLBartmaN said:
    I just watched the entirety of that vid and can agree with a lot of his opinions/statements. Yet the hype over CoD potentially having a 100p game mode is bit stretched and overly emphasized.

    Higher player count means more data replication. The more data you have to replicate per tick means more cpu and ram resources per server instance. For example taking BFV to a 100 player count would mean the server would need 60%+ more resources per server. Most studios would mitigate this by dumbing down the dynamics (destruction, interactive elements [doors, glass] etc) and/or reducing tickrate and client receive rate.

    A 100p server with BF level dynamics is going to be expensive as hell.

    Just saying.
    Add to that they already use servers with far too little resources for BF V right now , I don't see that happening ...
    I think BF's server resources are fine. They are network profiled based on a specific criteria that's pretty damn standard in the industry. The problem is they don't consider the effects of high latency load on the servers. Either that or they don't care outright.

    For the game. Sure (most of the time).

    But, even at wholesale pricing AWS and EC2 still has cpu cycles relating to pricing tiers and overall service cost. The compute power is there, and likely the network is profiled at 95 or 99 %'ile. But, the administrators of these EC2 instances are able to set upper bounds on many things to prevent additional cost.

    Based on past experiences on BF1 with FairFight's server-side detections catching "rage" hackers in games within a minute or two of gameplay, and getting a notification of their kick/ban by FF with thier name in chat (when they were on the same server as you at the time otherwise they were just part of the generic summary messages).  I witnessed it numerous times with some of the servers hosted with i3d.net partners, and maybe even when they were in AMZN's DC's, but not dynamic instances like we have in BFV.

    All of this server-side detection disappeared when they went to EC2 dynamic instances in BFV. Folks have tried to say it was just the chat stream FF info that is missing. I don't buy that at all. There are way too many instances of obvious statistical anamolies that would have been previous caught by FF server-side detection. I think its quite likely they sacrificed the compute and/or network resources for it this time.






    EA is all about cutting costs now, it make them look more profitable and keeps the investors happy.  But for gamers this means a smaller, cheaper-feeling game with lower technical standards.  Anyone used to the Cadillac standards BF games used to have needs to adjust their expectations.  EA has laid off hundreds of staff, they're not kidding, cheaper is their new religion.
  • BtheReaper49
    198 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Rev0verDrive said:

    NLBartmaN said:

    Rev0verDrive said:
    I just watched the entirety of that vid and can agree with a lot of his opinions/statements. Yet the hype over CoD potentially having a 100p game mode is bit stretched and overly emphasized.

    Higher player count means more data replication. The more data you have to replicate per tick means more cpu and ram resources per server instance. For example taking BFV to a 100 player count would mean the server would need 60%+ more resources per server. Most studios would mitigate this by dumbing down the dynamics (destruction, interactive elements [doors, glass] etc) and/or reducing tickrate and client receive rate.

    A 100p server with BF level dynamics is going to be expensive as hell.

    Just saying.

    Add to that they already use servers with far too little resources for BF V right now , I don't see that happening ...

    I think BF's server resources are fine. They are network profiled based on a specific criteria that's pretty damn standard in the industry. The problem is they don't consider the effects of high latency load on the servers. Either that or they don't care outright.


    For the game. Sure (most of the time).

    But, even at wholesale pricing AWS and EC2 still has cpu cycles relating to pricing tiers and overall service cost. The compute power is there, and likely the network is profiled at 95 or 99 %'ile. But, the administrators of these EC2 instances are able to set upper bounds on many things to prevent additional cost.

    Based on past experiences on BF1 with FairFight's server-side detections catching "rage" hackers in games within a minute or two of gameplay, and getting a notification of their kick/ban by FF with thier name in chat (when they were on the same server as you at the time otherwise they were just part of the generic summary messages).  I witnessed it numerous times with some of the servers hosted with i3d.net partners, and maybe even when they were in AMZN's DC's, but not dynamic instances like we have in BFV.

    All of this server-side detection disappeared when they went to EC2 dynamic instances in BFV. Folks have tried to say it was just the chat stream FF info that is missing. I don't buy that at all. There are way too many instances of obvious statistical anamolies that would have been previous caught by FF server-side detection. I think its quite likely they sacrificed the compute and/or network resources for it this time.





    "You know I don't speak Spanish, in English please"
    Sincerely,
    Ron Burgundy
  • kenpokillz
    105 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    If nothing else this game took head glitching and shot behind cover to a new level.
  • CostanzaStan
    215 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    watched the whole vid and didn't catch the part where he "throws in the towel" he basically said the next BF really needs to step it up.
  • ProAssassin2003
    3315 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    kenpokillz wrote: »
    If nothing else this game took head glitching and shot behind cover to a new level.


    OMG this is so annoying. It's the worst it's ever been.
  • Pro_b0
    74 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Blaming the influencers for why BFV is the way it is, yet these same influencers were active just one BF game ago when the forum heralded BF1 released, were active when BF4, and BF3 were released. When DICE releases a flop,  it seems some people can't help but perform mental gymnastics to tie gameplay decisions to some crude idea that some BF youtuber said in some video, at some point in time, while ignoring EVERYTHING else wrong with this game not relating to gameplay. Makes sense why community managers stick to reading as opposed to delving into an actual discussion on how to make BF better. Don't listen to, "them", listen to "us", "we" know battlefield, "they" don't. That sums up the "feedback" you'll get from here, no real analysis whatsoever. A wall could give better feedback since it isn't sentient enough to be subject to confirmation bias on steroids.

    Some people here get so triggered when the name of any popular YouTuber is uttered, it’s crazy. All discussion then stops and instead the thread devolves into what you describe in your post.

    Yes, YouTubers get payed by EA. Yes, their opinions can sometimes not line up with yours. Yes, their opinion is not more or less valid than anybody else’s. No, they did not singlehandedly screw the franchise, by posting videos about it. No, they did not design BFV specifically to their needs.

    Just discuss the topic and don’t go into a massive **** whenever you see a video-link posted.
  • SirTerrible
    1690 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Blaming the influencers for why BFV is the way it is, yet these same influencers were active just one BF game ago when the forum heralded BF1 released, were active when BF4, and BF3 were released. When DICE releases a flop,  it seems some people can't help but perform mental gymnastics to tie gameplay decisions to some crude idea that some BF youtuber said in some video, at some point in time, while ignoring EVERYTHING else wrong with this game not relating to gameplay. Makes sense why community managers stick to reading as opposed to delving into an actual discussion on how to make BF better. Don't listen to, "them", listen to "us", "we" know battlefield, "they" don't. That sums up the "feedback" you'll get from here, no real analysis whatsoever. A wall could give better feedback since it isn't sentient enough to be subject to confirmation bias on steroids.
    Indeed, the things I hate about BFV include the ineffective anti-cheat, the poor network performance, the bugs, the awkward UI, the dribble of new content thanks to Live Service, even the lack of historical authenticity (please note I did not say "realism")--and it's a safe bet no YouTuber ever told EA/DICE to put any of these things in BFV.  I am baffled by people who care more about attrition or the removal of universal 3D spotting than they do about network performance or the lack of new content.  So even if YouTubers had some small role in something like attrition being in the game (and that's questionable) surely that is of less importance than the game itself being broken in so many ways.
    I'd guess cheating and network issues don't get talked about as much because there's nothing to argue about there. Other than to troll I don't think anyone would argue that cheating is fine and the net code is functional. Attrition and stuff like that on the other hand can be argued over and that's fun ;)
  • ProAssassin2003
    3315 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Pretty sure I could find videos of every influencer saying BFV was going to be one of the best Battlefields ever.
  • l4chy
    57 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Actually, every "influencer" I watched was pretty accurate about the state of  BFV before launch. Ok they might have put a slightly positive spin on it, but who getting paid to doesn't? But every pre-release vid I saw from JF to Westie was pretty upfront about their concerns for the game being rushed and was supportive of the decision to delay release......EA and Dice were the ones who still rushed it out the door in this state, for the shareholders, EA Dice are the ones to blame.
  • l4chy
    57 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Turns out Greed ain't so good, greed ain't so right.
Sign In or Register to comment.