Battlefront on PC: no server browser/dedicated servers

The Bucket

Senior Member
May 4, 2010
531
0
21
MatParker116 said:
The Bucket said:
MatParker116 said:
Grow the fuck up, a lot of games don't have server browsers and there are reasons behind not giving players control of the servers.
Such as? And I dont know why you're so mad at people making purchasing decisions based on what features the game will come with, EA doesnt need you to fight for them
I'm just sick of the internet causing a riot over every little thing, as long as it plays well and I'm having fun I don't care.
Who's rioting? You're the only one in this thread that's furious enough to curse over it

Parasondox said:
MatParker116 said:
The Bucket said:
MatParker116 said:
Grow the fuck up, a lot of games don't have server browsers and there are reasons behind not giving players control of the servers.
Such as? And I dont know why you're so mad at people making purchasing decisions based on what features the game will come with, EA doesnt need you to fight for them
I'm just sick of the internet causing a riot over every little thing, as long as it plays well and I'm having fun I don't care.
Fun... FUN?!?! How fucking dare you insist games are for "fun". Next thing you know you will say games are a luxury and not a necessity. Starving children in Africa who need clean water and food to live NEED games to eat and live you insensitive fool!!

I say good day to you sir. GOOD DAY INDEED!!!
Dedicated servers improve certain peoples fun, why does them caring about them bother you so much?
 
Jun 11, 2008
5,331
0
0
MatParker116 said:
Glademaster said:
MatParker116 said:
Adam Jensen said:
People are gonna buy it anyway. Gamers are kinda naive that way. Easily manipulated into thinking that what is advertised to them is exactly what they want. If only they had an ounce of self respect they would realize that the only thing they had to do to get dedicated servers is to refuse to buy the game unless they implement dedicated servers. It's literally the only thing. Because the only reason EA isn't offering dedicated servers is because they know they can get away with it. That's why we have all the shit in the gaming industry today. Devs and publishers know that gamers are too dumb to say no to the hype. Hype itself is nothing more than brainwashing.

No freakin' server browser in a PC game? Who the fuck are the people that are gonna buy into this piece of shit?
Modern Warfare 2 people bitched about lack of dedicated servers and Activision laughed as those people played the game and Activision did cocaine off of gold plated strippers asses.
I think I must have had a massive aneurysm or hit my head way too hard but I'm fairly certain there were dedicated servers and a browser in Black Ops. I dunno though I could just be an idiot.
My point was they still made stupid money despite the hypocritical outcry from PC users:

So about 1/4 of million signed the petition but we'll half it and go with 1/8 of a mil. That group has 833 members but only about 20 playing it. So you're telling me that 2.5% of a group of people playing it that were boycotting out what is really 20/125,000(ie 0.016%) means something?

Sure why not.

Also as a bonus if you go on VGchartz you can see the sale of MW2 did drop by pretty much exactly the boycott in relation to CoD 4 sales. Although, that may be different now.

EDIT: Currently MW2 is at around 800k and CoD 4 is at about 1.1 Mil and more importantly Black Ops had dedicated servers something they made a very big thing about coming up to the games launch in response to the MW2 boycott. See here. [http://www.1up.com/news/cod-black-ops-dedicated-servers]

EDIT2: Just another quick note it isn't like having a lower ping affects the core gameplay of shooters or actually it kinda does.
 

Rozalia1

New member
Mar 1, 2014
1,095
0
0
The correct move, best for business. This ain't going to stop Battlefront pop those buy rates.
 

Neonsilver

New member
Aug 11, 2009
289
0
0
MatParker116 said:
Be playing on X1 so not really my problem but it's Origin, none of the things you mentioned appear in Origin games.

I've learned to not have a hissy fit over stuff that while sucks doesn't affect core gameplay as long as I am having fun, I don't care how I got there.
In regards to this missing on Origin games, I'd like to quote Ghandi "An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation". It's not ideal, since it's quite right from a business side of view. Several people have already pointed out that there will is plenty of bitching right now, but many will buy it anyway. The majority of players will buy it, play it for a few months and then never really come back to it. So EA doesn't have to care much about the longevity of the game either.

But, on the other hand we have something like cs 1.6 which still has plenty of active servers today and has spawned several new iterations of the game. The only reason EA doesn't have to care about the image of the franchise is because it's star wars.

An example of a game without dedicated servers that I might have played longer, the Mass Effect 3 multiplayer. I certainly enjoyed it for a while, but there was no sense of community. I could have played with a bunch of bots instead and wouldn't really have noticed the difference and since you would always play with a strangers there wasn't really any reason to even try to get to know the other players. I admit it's not just the dedicated servers that prevented me from feeling like a part of a community.
 

sneakypenguin

Elite Member
Legacy
Jul 31, 2008
2,805
0
41
Country
usa
Doesn't bother me any, on thing I hated about PC multi was server browsers. Oh look I just got switched, o yay winning team got kicked, whats with all the server spam (pay xxx to unlock permanent slot...) Why is anyone who plays spy getting kicked. O look this server is 16 players from a clan and we are getting base raped.

All the BS just meant I stuck to default matchmaking if availible.
 

Parasondox

New member
Jun 15, 2013
3,229
0
0
The Bucket said:
MatParker116 said:
The Bucket said:
MatParker116 said:
Grow the fuck up, a lot of games don't have server browsers and there are reasons behind not giving players control of the servers.
Such as? And I dont know why you're so mad at people making purchasing decisions based on what features the game will come with, EA doesnt need you to fight for them
I'm just sick of the internet causing a riot over every little thing, as long as it plays well and I'm having fun I don't care.
Who's rioting? You're the only one in this thread that's furious enough to curse over it

Parasondox said:
MatParker116 said:
The Bucket said:
MatParker116 said:
Grow the fuck up, a lot of games don't have server browsers and there are reasons behind not giving players control of the servers.
Such as? And I dont know why you're so mad at people making purchasing decisions based on what features the game will come with, EA doesnt need you to fight for them
I'm just sick of the internet causing a riot over every little thing, as long as it plays well and I'm having fun I don't care.
Fun... FUN?!?! How fucking dare you insist games are for "fun". Next thing you know you will say games are a luxury and not a necessity. Starving children in Africa who need clean water and food to live NEED games to eat and live you insensitive fool!!

I say good day to you sir. GOOD DAY INDEED!!!
Dedicated servers improve certain peoples fun, why does them caring about them bother you so much?
It doesn't bother me. I don't really care for Star Wars as a whole. I just like to lighten up the mood. Come up with some witty jokes and, you know, make people laugh and smile.
 

Vigormortis

New member
Nov 21, 2007
4,531
0
0
I'd already heard about this days ago, but...



How did so many NOT see this coming? It's a (modern) DICE game, published by EA, and owned by Disney/LucasArts. Of-fucking-course it wouldn't include basic features like server browsers. This way, they have complete control over how you play the game, when you play the game, and where you play the game. And, more over, they can control any custom content, meaning most users will have to turn to their almost-assuredly-overpriced DLC, which will likely see first release shortly after (or the same day as) launch day.

Now then, how about a few more predictions, eh?

* The game will release with far less content then they'd initially announced, with said content to be added in "soon".
* The game will release in a buggy, broken, unstable mess on PC. (and possibly on console)
* Day-1/Week-1/Month-1 servers will crash constantly.
* There WILL be micro-transactions of some sort in the game.
* There WON'T be any sort of anti-cheat system (or at least one that works) in the game.
* People will ***** and moan about all of the above (if they happen), yet will still buy the game because "I need muh Star Wars!"

I'd love to be wrong about any of those, but considering the parties involved....
 

Battenberg

Browncoat
Aug 16, 2012
550
0
0
Good old EA. They've gradually managed to turn this from being one of my most anticipated games ever into a definite won't be buying at launch. It's genuinely astonishing the amount of anti-hype they're building for this game; I think they might have been concerned Konami or WB might steal their worst company awards away.
 

The Rogue Wolf

Stealthy Carnivore
Legacy
Nov 25, 2007
13,806
4,689
118
Stalking the Digital Tundra
Gender
✅
Vigormortis said:
How did so many NOT see this coming? It's a (modern) DICE game, published by EA, and owned by Disney/LucasArts. Of-fucking-course it wouldn't include basic features like server browsers. This way, they have complete control over how you play the game, when you play the game, and where you play the game.
Combining EA's ever-present desire to control every last aspect of how people play a game, and Disney's love for on-rails scripted experiences. They've either forgotten or don't care how giving players the freedom to frame their own experiences can do more to hype a game than any slick ad campaign.

To paraphrase a Star Wars quote: "The more you tighten your grip, DICE, the more players will slip through your fingers."
 

Yuuki

New member
Mar 19, 2013
995
0
0
I don't see the issue here. Do people know what happens with server browsers?

Issue #1 - Newbies, casuals and hardcore players all jump into the same servers. Any kind of skill-based matchmaking is impossible to implement.

Issue #2 - Team balancing. Half of all rounds end with one team completely WRECKING the other, pushing them all the way back to their spawn and then spawn-raping for the rest of the round. It's not fun for anyone. Anyone who plays Battlefield 4 or Hardline should know this.

Issue #3 - custom/boosting servers. People make servers dedicated to grinding the same maps/modes over and over (mostly for kill farming or unlocks) and not really playing the game for what it is.

The lack of a server browser is fine as long as it lets you do 3 things: play with your friends, play the mode of your liking, and place you in the closest server to your region for good ping/latency. And I'm completely sure the system will do all that.

The only issue I can see is if the system throws you into empty servers or out-of-region servers, devs need to make sure they have ways/solutions around that.

What more do people want? Competitive games like CS:GO, LoL and Rocket League do just fine using matchmaking. Battlefront will simply take that concept to a bigger scale.
Alternatively the devs can have an OPTIONAL server browser, but joining any game like that should be unranked and not count towards your stats.

Soviet Heavy said:
Next thing you know EA is going to be dusting off Punkbuster for this game.
To be fair Fairfight pulls most of the weight for anticheat now. PB has always been quite easy to get around.
 

Jadak

New member
Nov 4, 2008
2,136
0
0
Meh, don't want server browsers anyways.

I want to pick my game type and be playing, not fucking around with lists.
 

Lightspeaker

New member
Dec 31, 2011
934
0
0
Battenberg said:
Good old EA. They've gradually managed to turn this from being one of my most anticipated games ever into a definite won't be buying at launch. It's genuinely astonishing the amount of anti-hype they're building for this game; I think they might have been concerned Konami or WB might steal their worst company awards away.
It really is fascinating honestly. Like...I was originally interested but quite fearful for this game (mainly because I think DICE haven't created a competent game in seven years and haven't created a truly good one in a decade). Then information started to come out about this not being in the game and that not being in the game to the point where I'd gone from a tentative "buy" to a definite "not buy" to "encourage other people not to buy"

After this particular announcement I feel like it should go down a step further again but there's nowhere to go. An anti-buy or reverse-buy or negative-buy whatever any of those mean. Hell, I almost feel like EA should be paying me money for even looking at their press releases on this game given how badly its going.


Yuuki said:
Issue #3 - custom/boosting servers. People make servers dedicated to grinding the same maps/modes over and over (mostly for kill farming or unlocks) and not really playing the game for what it is.
Unlocks in multiplayer-only games is probably the most cancerous and disgusting thing to have crept into game design in the mainstream industry for the game type to be honest. It creates serious issues of an anti-competitive and unfair environment in which people do not have the same options and therefore are literally not playing a balanced game.

Counter Strike does just fine without an unlock system and by offering everyone all the same options. TF2 was doing just fine before adding eleventy billion random weapons but now of all the dozens of players I used to know hardly any play anymore. DOTA2 does just fine by offering everyone all of the same options without having to unlock new characters.

Not everything has to have a progression system. Not everything has to be an MMO with levelling up and unlocks and perks and/or weapon drops. And its an inherently anti-competitive game design. Its somewhat excusable in F2P games because they have to make their money SOMEWHERE and one of those ways is by outright selling you unlocks (though I find it laughable when people then try to claim those games such as LoL are fair, competitive games) but when you're going to be paying upwards of forty quid on a game like Battlefront its absurd.
 

Yuuki

New member
Mar 19, 2013
995
0
0
Lightspeaker said:
Yuuki said:
Issue #3 - custom/boosting servers. People make servers dedicated to grinding the same maps/modes over and over (mostly for kill farming or unlocks) and not really playing the game for what it is.
Unlocks in multiplayer-only games is probably the most cancerous and disgusting thing to have crept into game design in the mainstream industry for the game type to be honest. It creates serious issues of an anti-competitive and unfair environment in which people do not have the same options and therefore are literally not playing a balanced game.
Yes it's a flawed concept and ideally multiplayer games should offer everything to all players from the get-go.

But it's alright to have a small progression system as long as it's not too annoying and the starting guns are decent - it gives players something to look forward to, something to play towards. BF3 and BF4 implemented this well. Starting guns were decent and it really wasn't long before you started unlocking guns all over the place just through natural gameplay. Occasionally the developers would make a fucking retarded assign/requirement to unlock a particular gun (like snipe someone from X spot on Y building on Z map) but thankfully in BF4 they stopped doing that and just handed new guns to everyone by default. Unlocking attachments is the only thing that can get a bit arduous.

However along came Hardline and went fucking full-retard with that concept. Starting guns flat-out sucked, unlocked guns were DIRECT upgrades, and the unlock process itself took 10x longer than anything in BF3/BF4 or was placed behind insane arbitrary requirements, most of which made absolutely no sense. Usually they required the player to ignore the gameplay, ignore their team and dick-around trying to unlock stuff. It's like a multiplayer balance horror story, everything done wrong at every level.

IMO it's one of the big reasons Hardline quickly died on PC in less than 2 months...because the bullshit-tolerance of PC players is pretty low, especially after being taken for a ride by the likes of EA/Ubisoft/etc for so long. The game only survives on PS4/XBO because those poor consoles have tiny libraries and very few other options.
 

Mad World

Member
Legacy
Sep 18, 2009
795
0
1
Country
Canada
Without dedicated servers, EA can let the game die when they want it to. A very EA thing to do.

Also, no server browsers sucks. Should be set up the same way that it is in Battlefield 4; works nicely.
 

robbbbb05

New member
Sep 11, 2015
7
0
0
anthony87 said:
If this means that there won't be some shitty in browser Battlelog type then then I'm all for this.
No, they're not using Battlelog, thank god. Here's one article stating so.
http://www.pcgamer.com/star-wars-battlefront-will-not-use-battlelog-after-all/