I always liked going into older BF servers that weren’t so populated just to be able to get a lay of the land without being destroyed in three seconds.
Or to be able to use the vehicles and get used to them without as much threat.
Maybe I just want a mode that lets you free-roam maps…
I do! I enjoy camera modes in games a lot, too. I like to look at the architecture in games because I think it’s fascinating.
For BF, though, I do think a little playground would be great. Since they have that map builder tool, I may end up just having to make one myself.
Especially for adjusting piloting controls. If you try to do that while playing a normal match you may not ever even get to fly a chopper to see if you made a good change, for example. I played the beta all day on Saturday and didn’t get a chance to fly anything during that time.
Having long played some old CS, there was so much sense of community from connecting to a personal server instance, regularly seeing the same people, familiarize with specific rules to that server, getting to know the admin etc. I’m sure you feel a sense of community from match making, but it can definitely exist outside of matchmaking IMO.
And I’m not advertising for one over the other. But I’d be very happy to see the persistence of accessing personal servers for a game.
The big problem with matchmaking is that in the long run, it kills game. When people start to move on to a new thing, the population that stays because they're attached to the game gets fucked over by matchmaking.
The less people they are, the worse it works. That's when a server browser and the ability to run community server becomes crucial. It will keep a game alive for a decade after its last update.
Matchmaking puts people into a limited number of servers. Yeah, you get the problem of realizing that those folk have been playing Tribes 2 for over twenty years at this point but you also have people to play with on that one 24 player server. Versus twelve servers with 2 players and a bunch of bots (if the game has them) each.
I always would rather both options. But from a game health standpoint… hoppers tend to have clear advantages at most player counts.
I think the general idea is that if I want to spin up a server for my friend group that’s been gaming together for 20 years, we can buy the game and do just that. That’s opposed to the money I spent on the game being useless when they decide they want to stop paying for servers.
That’s perfectly acceptable justification to shut down gameservers and profit from people moving to the next version of the game. Gone are the days of private servers, especially with client and serverside mods, that kept people engaged with an older game for years. That’s not profitable.
Still, DICE insists the Portal browser will satisfy. It does have some qualities that simulate a classic server experience, like how you can earn full XP in Portal matches as long as the house rules closely resemble the vanilla ones.
The community “servers” aren’t persistent though. They’ll only stay online as long as someone is online and using that instance. If that last person leaves the server shuts down - as far as we know, it still seems a like murky, but without being able to rent servers I can’t imagine them just leaving all of them online for free
So in 2042, if you had the premium battle pass, you could set up one persistent server. It was hosted by them but didn’t disappear without players. I don’t know how it will work for bf6.
I think the most important feature is that we have persistent lobbies that don’t disband after a game like matchmaking. That they “stay online” while nobody uses it is really not the important part imo.
That’s exactly what they did. You have official matchmaking, then you have community servers people host. If you use official rules, you can still earn xp in the community servers.
They have a server browser, official matchmaking servers just don’t show up but they only last one game anyways.
Based on the article, a server is probably a docker container or something like it they spin up and replace each new match. Sounds to me like they deliberately designed around a system that makes a server browser impossible.
The way I interpreted that part was that they were trying to smooth over the frustrating part of finding a server, because at large scale, you end up in a spot where it’s difficult to actually secure a slot on one. That might be their reasoning, but it’s still an excuse to omit a key feature.
A server browser similar to Arma would have been a godsend as it allows people to set up unique rules, experiment with different game modes and play around the map itself. While BF isn’t a milsim sandbox game a server browser is what keeps older BF games alive especially on console and the removal of that does make you wonder if we’ll be playing BF6 a decade down the line.
Server browsers are the better experience for me. Jump in a game and its already going, less pressure to stay because there’s no matchmaking ban/penalties. Everyone is there primarily to have fun because KD WL MMR ELO isnt being logged. If im desperately outclassed, or life gets in the way, I can just quit with no guilt or punishment. If im having a good time i can stay with mostly the same people for a long time.
Thats before you even get into the technicalities and longevity considerations.
Plus it’s great if the server is made specifically for a map you really love. Like TFC/TF2 with say 24/7 2fort. I love me some 2fort and yeah I will play it for hours on end, it’s comfy.
supposedly doesn’t work on windows either if you play valorant ar maybe other games with similar anticheats competing for the same system area no video game shoud have control over
ah so that post I saw the other day saying “begun the kernel wars have” makes senses. someone posted the fact they couldn’t play BF6 cause Valorant was installed.
That’s more then a server browser. You are just being deceptive. You cherry picked the one quote in the article that makes it look like there is nothing in your post and your comments aren’t honest.
What you are talking about is a whole other debate entirely and simply not how the industry runs anymore when it comes to multiplayer shooters.
I want that stuff too but that’s not what server browser means. The finals and cod don’t have server browsers. Bf6 will have a server browser.
That limitation, and the inability to sidestep DICE by renting a server that never shuts down, made it difficult for communities to take shape in Portal.
The ideas are bound together. Same with anti cheat. Same with preservation. Removing private servers caused all of these problems at the same time. The author of the article speaks for the group who want the community that I admitted never mattered to me, that Portal doesn’t provide, but other knock-on effects of the death of the server browser do matter to me.
There is a server browser. There are no servers hosted on private machines. I would like fully private servers too but there is still a server browser regardless.
They have explained what they are complaining about several times now, so get off your pedantic horse and either join the conversation that is happening or fuck off.
It bothers me because 90% of the people in the conversation think there will be only matchmaking and nothing else because of how OP framed it.
You want to talk about how you can’t have your own private server completely disconnected for EA, fine. But that doesn’t mean the game has no browser, jfc.
No, you seem to be the only one confused here. They said a REAL browser, not just a list of servers.
“… we should be able to do what we want with it, including running those max player/max ticket servers that run 24/7 on one map. We should be able to do it without DICE/EA’s permission, …”
Does that sound like OP was whining about simply not having a list of servers? Improve your reading comprehension before you whine about how something was stated.
we should be able to do what we want with it, including running those max player/max ticket servers that run 24/7 on one map.
You can do this because the game let’s you host a server (your rules or official ones) and includes a server browser so random people can find it and join your game.
We should be able to do it without DICE/EA’s permission
You can’t do this because although there is a server browser, you can’t run private servers disconnected from eas infrastructure.
I am correcting OP because most of what he said in his post and what people are repeating in the comments implies that there is only matchmaking and implies that the first part isn’t possible.
Or, hear me out, people are whining about their own experiences, complaining in general about how they hate matchmaking only games. Several people even specifically mention other games before they go on to complain.
This is mostly basic commiserating that you seem to be mistaking for misunderstanding.
IMO it’s the opposite, what exists now is less than a server browser. I’d call it a custom games browser instead. Whichever one you pick will be on the official servers.
I agree it isn’t how the industry is now, but it isn’t going to improve if everyone just accepts it.
Yep. This is the correct answer but that’s not what this thread is about; it’s a nostalgic circle jerk mixed with a sprinkling of “back in my day”.
Don’t get me wrong here, I like the suggestions in this thread but literally one of the suggestions being upvoted is how the game is planned to handle servers (quick join is random and then there will be a list of community servers).
I’m fine with the official servers being random join, as long as I can pick and choose a community server. Which to state again, is apparently planned.
I’m still waiting for reviews on release to make sure they hold true to their marketing though. Can’t trust shit from large studios.
I loved the servers that were 24/7 metro, no drags etc. some of those were (and still are) my favorite. Or pistols only, no Glock 18. When you get rid of custom servers you get rid of that custom experience.
pcgamer.com
Najnowsze