EA Pulls A Fast One WIth Battlefield 3

Dennis Scimeca

New member
Mar 29, 2010
217
0
0
EA Pulls A Fast One WIth Battlefield 3

You may not play the game, but you may want to pay attention.

Read Full Article
 
Apr 28, 2008
14,634
0
0
There's also online passes, which Battlefield 3 uses, which should be paying for the official servers. If they're getting rid of the official servers, what is that online pass money being used for? It certainly isn't going towards keeping the servers up if the players are the ones fronting the cost for that.
 

twistedheat15

New member
Sep 29, 2010
740
0
0
Once I found out most of the servers were player ran, I knew the game was going to hell. Now people are getting booted for using guns the admin doesn't like, or just because they're winning. My younger bro played in a match and got on a kill streak going around 30-5 with his team winning, so admin on other team killed him then made'em respawn on his team. Bro just team killed till he was booted and its sad how many of the servers are like this now. I'd take the annoying douches of CoD over whats battlefield become.
 

RvLeshrac

This is a Forum Title.
Oct 2, 2008
662
0
0
As long as people continue to buy the games, why does EA care what you or anyone else thinks?
 

Greyhamster

New member
Nov 26, 2010
79
0
0
I get kicked out of half the matches I play because I rank first. I get kicked (and banned) for using: Lmg's, shotguns, sniper rifles and RPG's. If I used the m320 I'd probably have been kicked for that. I've been kicked a few times for no reason at all.

I liked the custom server thing, and it's fun to just play conquest on Seine crossing for a long time, but it's not worth putting up with idiotic rules. The weapons I love most are shotguns, yet I am regularly getting kicked for them.
 

Zhukov

The Laughing Arsehole
Dec 29, 2009
13,768
0
0
As a primarily PC gamer I find these complaints rather bizarre.

However, I can see where they're coming from. In that past I've gotten rather annoyed at having to sift through lists of crazy modded servers (500% health! All rocket launchers! Instant vehicle spawns! Melee only! All sniper, 1%hp) in search a proper balanced game.
 

mindlesspuppet

New member
Jun 16, 2004
780
0
0
Dennis Scimeca said:
EA Pulls A Fast One WIth Battlefield 3

You may not play the game, but you may want to pay attention.

Read Full Article
Welcome to how nearly every FPS ever made for PC works. Player owned servers are nothing new, nor are games that relay on them exclusively.

Some players will change the rules: some may hate it, others will love it. For those that hate it, well I'm sure they'll have no trouble finding a vanilla game. Websites with a gaming audience often run servers, so there's no need to worry about some rager being ban happy.

I have to side with EA and Dice on this. I think they are trying to bring a more PC experience to console with this, and by all means it should be for the better, and that's a problem?

The ability to modify and run/own a server is why Quake still has people playing it.
 

BrotherRool

New member
Oct 31, 2008
3,834
0
0
I'm mixed. On the one hand the ability to have player run servers, and specifically a transition to player run servers when the online life of a game is ending, is something people have been asking for for half a decade and a frequent criticism of consolitis and general online gaming when it's not included.

On the other hand, if they're online passing then they should be running some proper servers too. Especially since it's not a very old game
 

RvLeshrac

This is a Forum Title.
Oct 2, 2008
662
0
0
mindlesspuppet said:
Dennis Scimeca said:
EA Pulls A Fast One WIth Battlefield 3

You may not play the game, but you may want to pay attention.

Read Full Article
Welcome to how nearly every FPS ever made for PC works. Player owned servers are nothing new, nor are games that relay on them exclusively.

Some players will change the rules: some may hate it, others will love it. For those that hate it, well I'm sure they'll have no trouble finding a vanilla game. Websites with a gaming audience often run servers, so there's no need to worry about some rager being ban happy.

I have to side with EA and Dice on this. I think they are trying to bring a more PC experience to console with this, and by all means it should be for the better, and that's a problem?

The ability to modify and run/own a server is why Quake still has people playing it.
Here's the difference: EA claims that the "Online Pass" system is necessary to fund official servers. They take money for that purpose.
 

bjj hero

New member
Feb 4, 2009
3,180
0
0
mindlesspuppet said:
Welcome to how nearly every FPS ever made for PC works. Player owned servers are nothing new, nor are games that relay on them exclusively.

Some players will change the rules: some may hate it, others will love it. For those that hate it, well I'm sure they'll have no trouble finding a vanilla game. Websites with a gaming audience often run servers, so there's no need to worry about some rager being ban happy.

I have to side with EA and Dice on this. I think they are trying to bring a more PC experience to console with this, and by all means it should be for the better, and that's a problem?

The ability to modify and run/own a server is why Quake still has people playing it.
I started as a PC gamer, I used to play action quake on quake2 and a 56k modem till the early hours of the morning. It took me a while to find some good local servers but it was great.

I now play BF3 on the 360 (I have a young family and cannot justify spending on a gaming rig, maybe when the boys older). It is a different beast on a console, you get used to things being standard. This shift in servers is a real pain in the arse.

I dont have the same free time as I used to and if I have an hour or half an hour to kill I could drop onto a CQ server and get a few rounds in, now I spend most of the time sifting through servers trying to find one with normal tickets. I dont even get to see my ping, just the stupid bars so I cannot even work it to my advantage.

Ive been banned for being top, killed and swapped teams with no warning (while piloting a full helicopter that resultantly crashed), banned for using, most weapons, vehicles, kamikaze attacks, run and gunning, sniping... It seems quite random although linked to winning.

It is a real miss step for consoles. There needs to be a better way to find "vanilla" BF at the moment, its a different market than the PC. Consoles, until now, let you drop in to the game you wanted to play, 1 click. Not so in BF anymore.
 

Hitchmeister

New member
Nov 24, 2009
453
0
0
I think EA only deserves about 60% of the blame for this one. If there weren't so many players willing to rent a server to impose their own rule-set on other players, EA would be stuck with providing standard vanilla servers. But all the servers they put up get rented out. Now it seems reasonable to me to have a set number of standard vanilla servers that will always be available, clearly identified for people who want to be sure of getting the standard "fair" game. But doing that would probably make the custom servers less popular and less likely to be rented. Should EA cost themselves money for the sake of players who have demonstrated eagerness to screw each other over?

Maybe. But the players need to share some of the blame for creating this situation.
 

mindlesspuppet

New member
Jun 16, 2004
780
0
0
bjj hero said:
I started as a PC gamer, I used to play action quake on quake2 and a 56k modem till the early hours of the morning. It took me a while to find some good local servers but it was great.

I now play BF3 on the 360 (I have a young family and cannot justify spending on a gaming rig, maybe when the boys older). It is a different beast on a console, you get used to things being standard. This shift in servers is a real pain in the arse.

I dont have the same free time as I used to and if I have an hour or half an hour to kill I could drop onto a CQ server and get a few rounds in, now I spend most of the time sifting through servers trying to find one with normal tickets. I dont even get to see my ping, just the stupid bars so I cannot even work it to my advantage.

Ive been banned for being top, killed and swapped teams with no warning (while piloting a full helicopter that resultantly crashed), banned for using, most weapons, vehicles, kamikaze attacks, run and gunning, sniping... It seems quite random although linked to winning.
Made a lot of good points here. It sounds as if the issue isn't so much the servers themselves as it is the interface for finding one that is best suited for the individual.

bjj hero said:
It is a real miss step for consoles. There needs to be a better way to find "vanilla" BF at the moment, its a different market than the PC. Consoles, until now, let you drop in to the game you wanted to play, 1 click. Not so in BF anymore.
To be fair, it wasn't long ago that consoles didn't even have online play. I think this is only a first step and the issues that you and others are having will get ironed out. Unfortunately, the first step tends to be the most harsh with these sort of things.

For the time being, could always write your favorite gaming site and try to encourage them to buy a server or a dozen.



RvLeshrac said:
Here's the difference: EA claims that the "Online Pass" system is necessary to fund official servers. They take money for that purpose.
Yeah, except everyone knows EA has Online Passes just to punish people for buy/selling used games.
 

CD-R

New member
Mar 1, 2009
1,355
0
0
Does the console version not have the ability to set a favorites list of servers like the PC version? Seriously this doesn't seem like that hard of a problem to get around.

Hitchmeister said:
I think EA only deserves about 60% of the blame for this one. If there weren't so many players willing to rent a server to impose their own rule-set on other players, EA would be stuck with providing standard vanilla servers. But all the servers they put up get rented out. Now it seems reasonable to me to have a set number of standard vanilla servers that will always be available, clearly identified for people who want to be sure of getting the standard "fair" game. But doing that would probably make the custom servers less popular and less likely to be rented. Should EA cost themselves money for the sake of players who have demonstrated eagerness to screw each other over?

Maybe. But the players need to share some of the blame for creating this situation.
Maybe EA should introduce some sort of review and rating system for players to leave feedback on servers they play on. If an admin is able to consistently maintain a positive player rating EA could offer the server renter a discount on the rental fee. This would discourage server admins from acting like ass hats and thus people avoiding privately run servers.
 

Scow2

New member
Aug 3, 2009
801
0
0
While there's a problem with Battlefield right now (I'm hoping EA's being honest about them renting out the DICE servers and intending to get more online), I think the author is too reactive in the opposite direction. Private servers for consoles is a great addition(Not everyone likes playing by the same rules). And general servers for PC are also great (Not everyone likes server-wading)

The big problem is the inability to restrict yourself to official vanilla servers for "quick matches", and the ability for players to spoof Non-DICE servers (Is there no name checking system at all?). That, and the lack of official DICE servers.
 

SecondPrize

New member
Mar 12, 2012
1,436
0
0
I'm kind of mystified by the complaints, but I really don't know how the filter/favorites/history works on the consoles. What should happen is you do a little work up front, and then whenever you want a quick game you check your list to see what's handy.
If the interface for finding a match is so damn clunky you have to start from scratch every time, then ok, I can see that getting old fast, if there's even history though...
For those console gamers who might not recognize it, this newfound thing that's confusing you is called choice in who you play with and how you play. You shouldn't be afraid of it, it's actually your friend. In fact, it's one of the the big reasons us elitist PC gaming jerkasses use to convince ourselves we're superior to you.
 

WanderingFool

New member
Apr 9, 2009
3,991
0
0
As someone who hates game servers that have custom rules such as:

-Dont use LMGs
-Dont use Rocket Launchers
-Snipers only
-and many more

I was not very pleased by the removal of Official servers.
 

Kungfu_Teddybear

Member
Legacy
Apr 28, 2020
2,714
0
1
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
From someone who plays Battlefield 3 on PC: I completely agree. I have nothing against player owned servers. It's nice to find a server suited to personal playing preferences, like the server I played on that banned the USAS 12 before it was nerfed (I really hated that fucking gun) and had a rule that if a team captured all 3 flags they had to fall back to B so there was no base-raping, it was great. But taking away the official Dice servers so that you had to play on a player owned customized server, even if you didn't want to and just wanted to play using the vanilla rules, is just a complete dick move. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if that drove a chunk of console players away from the game.
 

cjbos81

New member
Apr 8, 2009
279
0
0
I got so frustrated last week trying to find a DICE server, I downloaded the "killzone 3" multiplayer trial to play instead.

I'm very close to actually not playing BF3 again.

Especially with games like "MAX PAYNE 3" now available , and "GRFS" on the way.
 

Dennis Scimeca

New member
Mar 29, 2010
217
0
0
This is how things work on PC. The standard game is imbalanced. Snipers should be banned and then have their internet connections removed and left in a darkened room for 12 hours a day.
 

Dennis Scimeca

New member
Mar 29, 2010
217
0
0
Just gonna leave this here.

http://www.gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2012/05/11/ea-clarifies-disappearing-battlefield-3-servers.aspx

For the lazy:

"DICE is not shutting down servers. If DICE-managed servers appear unavailable, it is because they have been rented and customized by players. DICE will continue to add servers and will reserve a percentage of servers for players who prefer to connect through DICE-hosted servers."
 

Alexnader

$20 For Steve
May 18, 2009
526
0
0
Custom servers should in theory give players the ability to play how they want and for the large part they seem to do that in my experience on the PC. The time I spent on TF2 and BF3 was made much more enjoyable by the various tweaks the admins put in place on their servers.

Yet somehow as soon as this power is given to the unwashed console masses it all goes to hell. Now this either suggests that DICE hasn't done a good job implementing the server finding functionality or that there are intrinsic differences between console and PC gamers. I'm thinking it's a bit of both.

As such I don't think it's fair to label this as an inherently bad move by DICE, akin to online passes or DRM. Just that that the execution of it was poor. The only 'fast one' they're pulling is that they're still charging for online passes.

If they added better search functionality so that you could reliably find the official servers or servers running "vanilla" BF3 then I think that would solve nearly all of the complaining. Maybe the number of people playing custom servers would drop, then again maybe it wouldn't. Think about it, if the only servers you can find are custom servers then maybe it's because the majority of gamers want what those servers have to offer.
 

loc978

New member
Sep 18, 2010
4,900
0
0
...the only problem I see here is that they're renting official servers to players. Player-run servers can be a great thing, but not when they're limited in number by what the devs have set up.
Also,
Dennis Scimeca said:
ormally, when Battlefield 3 players wanted to get into a game they would select the game mode they wanted and connect to a server automatically.
well there's yer problem!
 

Dennis Scimeca

New member
Mar 29, 2010
217
0
0
mindlesspuppet said:
Welcome to how nearly every FPS ever made for PC works.

I have to side with EA and Dice on this. I think they are trying to bring a more PC experience to console with this, and by all means it should be for the better, and that's a problem?
Console games aren't PC games. You've entirely missed the point. :)

bjj hero said:
I started as a PC gamer, I used to play action quake on quake2 and a 56k modem till the early hours of the morning. It took me a while to find some good local servers but it was great.

I now play BF3 on the 360 (I have a young family and cannot justify spending on a gaming rig, maybe when the boys older). It is a different beast on a console, you get used to things being standard. This shift in servers is a real pain in the arse.

I dont have the same free time as I used to and if I have an hour or half an hour to kill I could drop onto a CQ server and get a few rounds in, now I spend most of the time sifting through servers trying to find one with normal tickets. I dont even get to see my ping, just the stupid bars so I cannot even work it to my advantage.

Ive been banned for being top, killed and swapped teams with no warning (while piloting a full helicopter that resultantly crashed), banned for using, most weapons, vehicles, kamikaze attacks, run and gunning, sniping... It seems quite random although linked to winning.

It is a real miss step for consoles. There needs to be a better way to find "vanilla" BF at the moment, its a different market than the PC. Consoles, until now, let you drop in to the game you wanted to play, 1 click. Not so in BF anymore.
This.
 

MagmaMan

New member
Apr 2, 2012
91
0
0
If only more people were playing Bad Company 2, this shit they are pulling off with 3 made me sell it. Ah well, back to War for Cybertron, Fallout, and Mass Effect for me.
 

NLS

Norwegian Llama Stylist
Jan 7, 2010
1,594
0
0
Don't forget that EA also needs central servers to track your stats. The game-servers aren't the only ones that cost money.
 

Dryk

New member
Dec 4, 2011
981
0
0
NLS said:
Don't forget that EA also needs central servers to track your stats. The game-servers aren't the only ones that cost money.
They ran the central servers and their official servers, charged people $10 for online. Now they run the central servers and rent their official servers out for many times the price a PC server host rents servers... and they're still charging $10 for online.
 

Runegrace

New member
May 18, 2009
7
0
0
I always thought that the LIVE Gold membership was supposed to pay for the whole "online" thing...

As far as finding vanilla servers...it's hell. Whenever I search there's an official server once every 5-10 pages or so, hidden between all the 500% ticket games handgun and knife only! Karhg Island 24/7! If you search for DICE you get a lot of people putting that in their title, some trying to perfectly imitate the appearance of a DICE server.

Let's ignore the insanity of someone wanting to pay for a server that's normally free, and move on to the real kicker: when you search for a term, the rest of your search parameters don't apply. Not only do you get every game type, but every region. When I first tried searching for DICE, I thought the newest patch caused the game to become laggy as hell. Turns out, playing on European servers makes the game really laggy. So even searching DICE, you still need to select the servers, one by one, to make sure you're not connecting to something halfway around the world...In addition to fanning through pages looking for the proper game type.

Yes, there are favorites. However, anytime I add a vanilla server to my list, whenever I look at my favorite list all the official servers are full, and I can only have 1 page of favorites. It's not that there are custom servers, it's that it seems EA purposely made it aggravating to get into a vanilla game so the people buying servers get their money worth. They've found a way to make money at the cost of other people's enjoyment of the game.

I don't care how things work on PC, because that's not the experience I want. Skyrim I got for PC, because the whole appeal of that game is modding everything. BF3 I got for console, because it's harder to cheat, I dislike the twitch gaming when you have pixel-perfect mouse aiming, and I absolutely refused to put Origin on my computer.

Here's the biggest issue for me: I used to have 6 people that would play BF3. They stopped. One of my friends said it's like a different game than the one he bought...he used to think that BF3 was the best shooter on the market, and now he's done with it. Telling him "this is how the PC does it" isn't going to make him suddenly decide that he must have been having fun the whole time. We got the game, on a certain platform, for a certain experience. That experience simply isn't as good as it used to be.
 

Technocrat

New member
Nov 19, 2008
325
0
0
As someone who regularly plays the Metro 5000 ticket conquest servers, I can so I really don't mind that much.

Sometimes I'm a little irked by servers that ban sniper rifles, I get around it with this kind of tactic. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6AFPGc15bn8]

"Remember kids: recon is for pussies!"
 

Nuclear_Suspect

New member
Jun 1, 2010
153
0
0
They should do like Team Fortress 2, so when you use the quick connect feature you'll only join 'vanilla' servers.

If you want to join a custom server THEN you have to rummage through the server list to find what tickles your fancy.

Granted, I'm not a console player (Or even a BF3/CoD player) but user-run servers can often be a great thing, opening up a lot of new gamemodes and playstyles.
 

getoffmycloud

New member
Jun 13, 2011
440
0
0
SecondPrize said:
I'm kind of mystified by the complaints, but I really don't know how the filter/favorites/history works on the consoles. What should happen is you do a little work up front, and then whenever you want a quick game you check your list to see what's handy.
If the interface for finding a match is so damn clunky you have to start from scratch every time, then ok, I can see that getting old fast, if there's even history though...
For those console gamers who might not recognize it, this newfound thing that's confusing you is called choice in who you play with and how you play. You shouldn't be afraid of it, it's actually your friend. In fact, it's one of the the big reasons us elitist PC gaming jerkasses use to convince ourselves we're superior to you.
I think the main issue is the asshats that run the servers booting people. I play on PC and have no issue with the servers having different rules but from the sounds of it there are people just being booted for being good which ruins the fun and it isn't something that I have encountered on PC.
 

NLS

Norwegian Llama Stylist
Jan 7, 2010
1,594
0
0
Dryk said:
NLS said:
Don't forget that EA also needs central servers to track your stats. The game-servers aren't the only ones that cost money.
They ran the central servers and their official servers, charged people $10 for online. Now they run the central servers and rent their official servers out for many times the price a PC server host rents servers... and they're still charging $10 for online.
The 10$ is a one time fee, and not even existent if you bought the game new. Server maintenance costs are recurring costs to EA. Yes, they might be trying to cash in on hungry console-gamers, but in the long run, those 10$ won't be enough to cover all costs.
 

fwiffo

New member
Sep 12, 2011
113
0
0
NLS said:
Dryk said:
NLS said:
Don't forget that EA also needs central servers to track your stats. The game-servers aren't the only ones that cost money.
They ran the central servers and their official servers, charged people $10 for online. Now they run the central servers and rent their official servers out for many times the price a PC server host rents servers... and they're still charging $10 for online.
The 10$ is a one time fee, and not even existent if you bought the game new. Server maintenance costs are recurring costs to EA. Yes, they might be trying to cash in on hungry console-gamers, but in the long run, those 10$ won't be enough to cover all costs.
Isn't it amazing that companies like ArenaNet will gives us Guild Wars 2 without any subscriptions, or other server fees? I wonder how they can afford it.
 

Dennis Scimeca

New member
Mar 29, 2010
217
0
0
fwiffo said:
NLS said:
Dryk said:
NLS said:
Don't forget that EA also needs central servers to track your stats. The game-servers aren't the only ones that cost money.
They ran the central servers and their official servers, charged people $10 for online. Now they run the central servers and rent their official servers out for many times the price a PC server host rents servers... and they're still charging $10 for online.
The 10$ is a one time fee, and not even existent if you bought the game new. Server maintenance costs are recurring costs to EA. Yes, they might be trying to cash in on hungry console-gamers, but in the long run, those 10$ won't be enough to cover all costs.
Isn't it amazing that companies like ArenaNet will gives us Guild Wars 2 without any subscriptions, or other server fees? I wonder how they can afford it.
Mircotransactions. That's how.
 

w00tage

New member
Feb 8, 2010
556
0
0
RvLeshrac said:
As long as people continue to buy the games, why does EA care what you or anyone else thinks?
Sadly, that's exactly the case. Instead of "provide the best gaming experience so we can keep our customers" it's now "chute 'em and shear 'em".
Hitchmeister said:
I think EA only deserves about 60% of the blame for this one. If there weren't so many players willing to rent a server to impose their own rule-set on other players, EA would be stuck with providing standard vanilla servers. But all the servers they put up get rented out. Now it seems reasonable to me to have a set number of standard vanilla servers that will always be available, clearly identified for people who want to be sure of getting the standard "fair" game. But doing that would probably make the custom servers less popular and less likely to be rented. Should EA cost themselves money for the sake of players who have demonstrated eagerness to screw each other over?

Maybe. But the players need to share some of the blame for creating this situation.
The answer to that is simple - don't sell the same server TWICE. That's what they're doing with both online passes and renting out servers.

There's a lawsuit in here, I bet.
 

Terminate421

New member
Jul 21, 2010
5,773
0
0
This is why you look for a server named "original" or something along the lines. Just look for the original rules and take that. Seriously, people ***** and moan about this game more than MW3.

I don't angry over battlefield being hated or complained about. It's little things that apparently are a big deal that make me angry.

Besides, some guns are overpowered or cheap, that is why they are banned in player owned servers.

Capcha: get over it
 

unbreakable212

New member
Feb 4, 2012
55
0
0
I'm not sure what it's like on the PC version, but on the xbox it's gone wild. If your doing well when an admin is on the other team expect to be killed and respawned on their team. Even joined a server where the admin was just killing everyone on the opposing team as soon as they spawned.

Also many limitations on guns you can use, many servers will boot you if you kill someone with an RPG/SMAW or shotguns. Admins seem to have gone a bit power crazy.
 

miketehmage

New member
Jul 22, 2009
396
0
0
I think this is a good idea. The lack of admins on consoles is something I've sorely missed when I switched from pc.

I agree that some do abuse their power, but if you don't like it just switch server. Which I know can be a pain in the arse. But when you finally find that nice dedicated server run by GOOD admins. It's fantastic, and you'll realise that matchmaking pales in comparison.
 

melikeyshootey

New member
Apr 27, 2011
31
0
0
I'm glad I stopped playing BF3 before this happened. EA needs to get their shit together. With this, with ME3, with their online passes, with every god-damn thing the've done the past 2 years. No wonder they are the #1 worst company in America.

Anyway, this would only be acceptable if they still maintained a fair amount of their default servers, and there was an option to ban certain guns (USAS-12) in certain servers.
 

natster43

New member
Jul 10, 2009
2,459
0
0
Apparently I have only played on well ran servers. I have not had any problems on the 360 with people being asshats with the player ran servers. It still sucks that DICE decided to not have any official servers.
 

chadachada123

New member
Jan 17, 2011
2,310
0
0
Err...most or at least much of the time, the posts saying to not use shotguns aren't to simply "not use any shotguns," but to not use any exploits, like the Masterkey glitch that is not an intended feature of the game and constitutes cheating

Pretty big distinction there, author.

And you didn't even mention the hosts that will boot players just for being skilled at the game, which, according to some people and my own captcha, "run amok."

Edit: Though, I should clarify, I have NEVER once been booted on the 360 for destroying the other team, or booted at all, and have only met an admin once (who was a pretty cool dude).
 

Aeonknight

New member
Apr 8, 2011
751
0
0
Terminate421 said:
This is why you look for a server named "original" or something along the lines. Just look for the original rules and take that. Seriously, people ***** and moan about this game more than MW3.

I don't angry over battlefield being hated or complained about. It's little things that apparently are a big deal that make me angry.

Besides, some guns are overpowered or cheap, that is why they are banned in player owned servers.

Capcha: get over it
What's funny is the only server I've been on that's had any real changes to original rules was one Rush server where the attackers had 200 tickets instead of the usual what... 80ish? And you know what? It was still fun. I wasn't banned for using a specific gun or beating the admin in jet dogfighting... and what's more is you can favorite the "good servers" that you come across.

So what's the problem again? The official servers have gone down seemingly overnight and it has had 0 influence on my experience.

But hey, it's the Escapist. They'll take anything EA does as some massive slight that is destroying gaming forever.
 

NvrPhazed

New member
Dec 8, 2010
72
0
0
I don't want to have to quote everyone who is missing the point, but what the author and most of the reasonable people are saying is that player run servers aren't bad, but not being able to have an option to join a vanilla game easily (either by having an only vanilla option or having the DICE server names exclusive [seriously WTF EA that is SO EASY]) detracts the value of the game because you have to spend extra time sifting through servers like its COD2 all over again instead of immediately and easily dropping in and out. Online Pass and renting of the servers is a different beast and does not matter to this situation since DICE has their dedicated servers back now. Admin behavior is also irrelevant because if you want to play vanilla, there are no powers to be abused. If you want to be on player servers, then just quit and find a better server.


Sum up: PLAYER SERVERS ARE GOOD BUT HAVE A VANILLA BUTTON OR A SYMBOL SIGNIFYING THAT IT IS ACTUALLY A VANILLA SERVER.
 

oliver.begg

New member
Oct 7, 2010
140
0
0
um is it only the states and Europe that get [dice] servers cos thats the way its been since launch for me in oceania and its worked out fine.

it sounds like the people running your servers are dicks.


and as to console not being PC, i would say that PC isn't console but that hasn't stoped EA and Activison trying to make PC console so drink a cup of concrete and harden the F*** up
 

Sovereignty

New member
Jan 25, 2010
584
0
0
I stopped reading when this clearly flame-bait article mentioned how console players were SOOOOO different from PC players.

As a recently converted PC gamer (I have Battlefield 3 for the 360 and for my PC.) I can say that I as a gamer was missing a large chunk of the experience by limiting myself to consoles. I'm not saying that consoles are worthless, it's horribly underrated just how the ease of use of a console is compared to the often times complicated and potentially headache causing install of a game.

It's pure sensationalism to assume that ALL the servers rented by players will suddenly be high ticket, single map games where everyone is banned for using a shotgun. It's not like this on the PC, and it hasn't been like this on the 360. The truth of the matter is letting the community put up and manage servers is BETTER than giving that task to the publisher and/or developer.

Now instead of being pigeonholed into what the mob wants, we get a bit of everything. Are there more 2000% ticket caspian border servers than anything? Sure, but you know why? Because that's what most people will actually go and play.

It certainly does NOT mean that there are no random map normal conquest games. And it also means that now if you don't like it, you can in effect do something about it, all for the price of two months in WoW.

I really don't see how there's a negative other than that players still can't host servers on their own machines for free. If anything for consoles at least there is finally a viable option for server renting to pave the way.
 

Eclectic Dreck

New member
Sep 3, 2008
6,662
0
0
Zhukov said:
As a primarily PC gamer I find these complaints rather bizarre.

However, I can see where they're coming from. In that past I've gotten rather annoyed at having to sift through lists of crazy modded servers (500% health! All rocket launchers! Instant vehicle spawns! Melee only! All sniper, 1%hp) in search a proper balanced game.
My history with the FPS genre started on the PC. When I played Team Fortress, there were two servers I favored because they included the map Frontlin in the rotation. But then, at the time, there were entire cultures built around this exact concept. People who have only played PC games certainly have no cause to be annoyed by such a thing because such a thing is normal.

Prior to BF3, the whole concept of "Server" was relatively nebulous. You joined games and game modes. You did not join servers. Hell, the same was largely true of BF3 at launch. You could certainly pick to join a server but since there was nothing to distinguish them, the feature was only used in instances where quick match failed.

I personally appreciate that the servers are different. I like that there are servers I can join where I don't have to play maps that I hate. But that doesn't mean that the maneuver is beyond reproach. It simply offsets the cost of maintaing those servers to the players. Sure, such has long been standard on the PC but such a move on consoles is customer hostile thinly disguised as a feature. I don't begrudge the move - hell I even benefited from it. I just think it was handled in a particularly scummy way.
 

Buizel91

Autobot
Aug 25, 2008
5,265
0
0
MagmaMan said:
If only more people were playing Bad Company 2, this shit they are pulling off with 3 made me sell it. Ah well, back to War for Cybertron
That's no better, it is a good game, and if you manage to get a good Online game you can have a blast, but at least 6 out of 10 games you have will be glitched to fuck. On PC it is worse, but dear god even on Console im seeing Scouts with the Whirlwind and Warcry ability!

OT: Yeh, this doesn't affect me at all seen as thought Battlefield isn't a game i own, and by the looks of it never will.

Now if everyone will excuse me, I'm going to clean up Arkham City.
 

UrieHusky

New member
Sep 16, 2011
260
0
0
I was playing the other day for roughly 6 hours to relax, just shooting choppers out of the sky.

I cycled through about.. 8 servers? 7 of them banned shotguns, the 8th banned sub machine guns.
I personally don't use those types of guns but seriously.. it's insanity. I don't really mind the inflated tickets, because I find the matches are a little too short for my liking, I'll just be getting into the swing of thing and then the end of match music begins playing =/ but I can definitely see how it's an issue for other people.

Anyway.. I dunno I don't personally think this is massively terrible since it's 6 months down the line and the PC is simply the better platform for FPS games in my opinion (I've played it on my PS3 and a high end PC, found it a better experience in every way on PC but mine has no hope of handling it so console for me)

So yeah, I'm presuming this is a console specific issue? if it's not please disregard my stupidity XD
 

Eclectic Dreck

New member
Sep 3, 2008
6,662
0
0
chadachada123 said:
Err...most or at least much of the time, the posts saying to not use shotguns aren't to simply "not use any shotguns," but to not use any exploits, like the Masterkey glitch that is not an intended feature of the game and constitutes cheating
It depends on the server of course. Plenty of them run with vanilla rules. I've seen plenty that ban the use of a variety of weapons and combinations. Semi-auto sniper rifles is common (even though their use offers no advantage in sniping and simply makes it somewhat equivalent to using an assault rifle if outfitted properly) as is Shotguns with Frag rounds (in spite of the fact that various nerfs have made that combination exceedingly difficult to get a kill with. Needing to connect with four rounds on a weapon with absurd recoil and terrible accuracy is a rather difficult task). Hell, I've been admin killed because I was using a weapon in a scenario they didn't like.

It isn't common. It is easily avoided. But here's the catch: I didn't need to avoid such things or even worry about them. If I wanted to use an M3A1 with frag rounds, the thing that ought to stop me is that the combination isn't going to be useful. Not some arbitrary limitation.

Of course the other side of that equation is that at least there is some feeble mechanism to control bug exploits. The m26 one is fairly uncommon largely thanks to admin policing for example.

I don't think the move is entirely bad by any stretch. But part of the reason I play games on a console is because sometimes I don't want to search for servers and such. Sometimes I want to mash a button and play. If I wanted control, I'd be playing the game on my PC.
 

porpoise hork

Fly Fatass!! Fly!!!
Dec 26, 2008
297
0
0
I have absolutely no issue with player run servers. Some of the most fun and best games I have ever played were on them. It's been this way for years on PC, but what I do object to is them having the ability to name them the same as a default server. Either block the default name system from player rented servers or force an identifier into the name so we the players can tell right off that it's a private run server.
 

Dennis Scimeca

New member
Mar 29, 2010
217
0
0
twistedheat15 said:
Once I found out most of the servers were player ran, I knew the game was going to hell. Now people are getting booted for using guns the admin doesn't like, or just because they're winning. My younger bro played in a match and got on a kill streak going around 30-5 with his team winning, so admin on other team killed him then made'em respawn on his team. Bro just team killed till he was booted and its sad how many of the servers are like this now. I'd take the annoying douches of CoD over whats battlefield become.
Wtf you serious?

Wow. I'm glad I traded in MW3 + BF3 and picked up Dark Souls and Deus Ex instead. Those online shooters are more stress than fun.
 

Something Amyss

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,760
0
0
Irridium said:
There's also online passes, which Battlefield 3 uses, which should be paying for the official servers. If they're getting rid of the official servers, what is that online pass money being used for? It certainly isn't going towards keeping the servers up if the players are the ones fronting the cost for that.
That's the fun of this whole thing. Remember when the argument was servers weren't cheap? And then...Yeah.
 

Semitendon

New member
Aug 4, 2009
359
0
0
I couldn't agree with the article more.

BF3 was my multiplayer of choice. . . and then they changed it to the new "shitty" setting.

I tried to play for a few days after they rented out the servers, but it was too tedious. I don't want to play by some shit-head 12 year olds bajillion lives or limited weapons rules. There is no system to filter out rented servers other than a visual inspection of each servers title, which as the article points out, is easily faked.

After scrolling through server after server, I don't have an exact count but the remaining normal servers must be less than 5%. Which leaves precious few options, and loads of crap to search through.

So my choices are:

1. Play a game controlled by idiots, with rules that are stupid, arbitrary, or unfair.

2. Spend the majority of my time looking for a normal game, and then hope like hell I can join, or if I do join, that nothing goes wrong because it means more time looking if it all goes south.

3. Play something else. ( I chose this option)

So far, I have not put BF3 into my xbox for about 3 or 4 weeks, and I don't see that changing any time soon.
 

userwhoquitthesite

New member
Jul 23, 2009
2,177
0
0
Ok, I'm not even a battlefield player and this pisses me off.

I say its time to declare war on EA. Break open the weapons! Step to the rigging! put the kettle on!
 

samsonguy920

New member
Mar 24, 2009
2,921
0
0
As someone who got to watch the progression of CounterStrike and the direction its servers went, I can sympathize. Too many server owners turned out to be the whiners about campers and high powered weapons, and thus forbade either in their server. I could have started my own server, but what chance did I have to get players, as with that game people wanted to find populated games, and most gamers usually go to just what shows up first in the list, either without paying attention to the rules, or just not caring.
However, I look at this as a clear opportunity to give console players more choices for their buck. In the past, consoles had fewer choices as far as what tweaks or mods their games could undergo to the game rules. Now we see more customization becoming available to console players, and the one of the first reactions is that customization is going to be bad and will ruin the game. Oh well. If you are such a purist and want to keep playing vanilla, pony up the $30 to rent your own server. If you are so certain that your gaming friends are with you on this, then you should have no worries. Want more players? Advertise your server on message boards and Reddit. Of course you run the risk of getting griefers and the like, but risk is part of anything that you feel should be worth getting.
If you feel you can't afford $30 to rent a server, then your gaming lifestyle isn't as strong as you like to portray it as, and therefore your opinion lacks a lot of foundation. A lot of gaming servers are supported by groups of people chipping in to maintain the server. Forever Alone doesn't win you accolades in the 'I want it this way!' column. Either you do have a lot of gaming friends willing to support the chance to play vanilla Battlefield 3, or you take the time to figure that maybe the good fight you felt should be fought isn't so good anymore. After all, it's not like your single player game is being affected.
 
Apr 5, 2008
3,736
0
0
First: Don't give a damn about the hard life of a console gamer. You're responsible for the shambles the games industry is now in, you've ruined PC gaming so frankly I don't give a damn.

Second, and on topic: $30 for 30 days? You can't be serious. That isn't "nickel and diming" as you put it, that's outright robbery. $30 a year *maybe* (and that's a big maybe, with a really long "a").

Third: I'll concede that at least having a feature to filter servers by whatever criteria should be par for the course. If I couldn't do that on PC I quite simply wouldn't play the game MP. Ideally filtering should be available, at a minimum, by ping, server full/empty, password yes/no, match type and/or map.
 

ThunderCavalier

New member
Nov 21, 2009
1,475
0
0
Sovereignty said:
Now instead of being pigeonholed into what the mob wants, we get a bit of everything. Are there more 2000% ticket caspian border servers than anything? Sure, but you know why? Because that's what most people will actually go and play.
A bit of 'everything?' Have you even tried to play any of the rented servers?

I'll be quite honest; I don't care whether PC gaming has always dealt with this and that we, as console gamers, should have to 'adapt' to something is so radically new and came right the hell out of nowhere. I wouldn't mind if they never gave us the option to play Vanilla severs before... but they DID, and that's my problem here. This isn't variety; this is basically letting the people with the most money control the game here.

And I'm not a PC gamer, so I can't really judge, but if the people that run the servers are about the same as PC gamers, then I have absolutely no qualms for calling you guys out as elitist pricks that will do anything and everything to make sure the game is always your way. Whenever I play in Battlefield, I am guaranteed to get into at least ONE game where either:

1) A certain weapon or weapon class entirely is banned and is grounds for booting.

2) A certain playstyle entirely is banned and is grounds for booting.

3) All good players are regulated to one team while all the bad players are regulated to another team.

And, of course, games like Conquest or Rush take upwards of one to two hours.

NO.

I. Do. Not. Care. If. This. Is. More. Like. Superior. PC. Battlefield 3. If I wanted to play that game, I'll go out and get a superior PC and that copy and play THAT game. However, I'm playing the console BF3, which has a smaller amount of players and, thus, a smaller ticket count to accommodate it. I'm playing the console BF3, where I can play however I want without modifying my console and not have to worry about losing my progress in the game, since it's still in the game and, thus, is completely valid, completely free, and should be allowed in-game, fairness be damned. If this rent-a-server thing was considerate to all players, it'd give us that Vanilla option, but it doesn't; it expects US to pay for it.

And I already pay for the Internet connection, the Xbox Live Subscription, AND the game itself. Why would I pay continually for a server just so I can play the way I want to. I'm not made of money, nor am I stupid. If the game wants me to keep shelling out money so that I can play it like, I think I'll sell it and pay for something else.

I mean, CoD may copypasta itself every game or so, but at least it doesn't make you pay to play a NORMAL game.
 

Brett Bowling

New member
May 12, 2012
46
0
0
Woah woah hold up, there is a girl playing Halo, a girl playing an fps, a girl playing a video game, four outs before the sides change?
What horrible distortion of reality has EA caused here?
 

Dennis Scimeca

New member
Mar 29, 2010
217
0
0
Sounds like a lot of entitled QQ. Did you rent your own server and fill it with default options? At best I can see EA putting an "official seal" mark of some sort on servers running default rules.
 

Anti-Robot Man

New member
Apr 5, 2010
212
0
0
Runegrace said:
I always thought that the LIVE Gold membership was supposed to pay for the whole "online" thing...
It was/is, EA actually strong-armed Microsoft into letting them run their own servers (basically if you don't let us run our own servers we won't publish games on the 360 - which would've been comercial suicide for Microsoft's games division).

They did this purely so they could exploit their customers by doing things like turning off the servers in order to push them into buying a newer instalment of the game (using the excuses that not many people are still playing/it's expensive to run servers - it isn't that expensive and that's a cost they fought to place on themselves).

If you don't like the way EA is taking the games industry there is only one thing you can do to preasure them to change - stop buying EA games.
 

Sovereignty

New member
Jan 25, 2010
584
0
0
ThunderCavalier said:

As I stated in my post, I have played on the rented servers. I've found normal games (and I wasn't actively searching for it.)

I've also been in a game that supposedly banned players for using shotguns, yet myself (And the rest of the server) were proceeding to run around with them to no ill-effect. (I've actually yet to be booted from an xbox server in all honesty.)

As for the team stacking, that's been a problem of nearly all FPS' that allow team switching. Suggesting it has anything remotely to do with the fact that these servers are user moderated and funded is not really valid imo.


Adding to it, I am so glad to see that people who abuse and/or cheat are now able to be kicked/booted/banned by the server admins. It is much better than the alternative of having to wait and hope that your little report sent through the xbl interface actually bans that guy two weeks from when you send it.

I still don't see much negative to letting players rent servers, after all it's not like if you're so unhappy with the current list of servers you couldn't.. You know, go out and rent your own. I get that to some this may be seen as a, "Why do *I* have to pay to play the game the way I want to play it." though considering that why should everyone else be forced to play it the way you wish to play it on the other side of that coin?
 

Dennis Scimeca

New member
Mar 29, 2010
217
0
0
Sovereignty said:
I still don't see much negative to letting players rent servers, after all it's not like if you're so unhappy with the current list of servers you couldn't.. You know, go out and rent your own. I get that to some this may be seen as a, "Why do *I* have to pay to play the game the way I want to play it." though considering that why should everyone else be forced to play it the way you wish to play it on the other side of that coin?
You only need to read all the complaints in this thread. The negative is real. That it may not seem negative to you doesn't make the negative others are experiencing any less real, and this is not the only place you will find those negative experiences being shared. So, the first step is to recognize that a lot of people don't like what's happened here, and to either respect that or not.

The argument "You can go ahead and rent your own server" is ridiculous. Basically what you're suggesting is that the appropriate response to Electronic Arts pulling the vanilla, official servers in order to get people to rent servers, which is the reason why so many people are upset, is to validate what Electronic Arts did by renting your own server?

Do you see how little sense that makes?

Asking "Why should everyone play it the way you want to play it?" also makes no sense because that's not how "you want to play it." It's how the game is played. It's how Battlefield has worked on consoles for Bad Company, Bad Company 2, Battlefield 1943, and for a while Battlefield 3. No one is asking for anything special. They are asking for what they had and which was taken away in order for EA to make some extra bucks on server rentals.

Seriously, the nature of this situation is not very difficult to grasp. I'm glad to see that so many people having the issue have come out of the woodwork. And to everyone else, even if you're not directly affected by this, even if you're a PC gamer who is used to this sort of thing, understand the root of the problem: Disrespect for the customer.

Console gamers pay to play console games. They pay for a specific kind of service which has now been removed from Battlefield on consoles. People are not getting what they paid money for.

That is bad for everybody.
 

MagmaMan

New member
Apr 2, 2012
91
0
0
arc1991 said:
MagmaMan said:
If only more people were playing Bad Company 2, this shit they are pulling off with 3 made me sell it. Ah well, back to War for Cybertron
That's no better, it is a good game, and if you manage to get a good Online game you can have a blast, but at least 6 out of 10 games you have will be glitched to fuck. On PC it is worse, but dear god even on Console im seeing Scouts with the Whirlwind and Warcry ability!

OT: Yeh, this doesn't affect me at all seen as thought Battlefield isn't a game i own, and by the looks of it never will.

Now if everyone will excuse me, I'm going to clean up Arkham City.
What system were you playing on. I've never noticed any hackers on Xbox 360 and have been playing it constantly since I purchased it 3 months ago. I see glitchers in Escalation mode alot though. That's easily remedied with 1-3 friends though.
 

Buizel91

Autobot
Aug 25, 2008
5,265
0
0
MagmaMan said:
arc1991 said:
MagmaMan said:
If only more people were playing Bad Company 2, this shit they are pulling off with 3 made me sell it. Ah well, back to War for Cybertron
That's no better, it is a good game, and if you manage to get a good Online game you can have a blast, but at least 6 out of 10 games you have will be glitched to fuck. On PC it is worse, but dear god even on Console im seeing Scouts with the Whirlwind and Warcry ability!

OT: Yeh, this doesn't affect me at all seen as thought Battlefield isn't a game i own, and by the looks of it never will.

Now if everyone will excuse me, I'm going to clean up Arkham City.
What system were you playing on. I've never noticed any hackers on Xbox 360 and have been playing it constantly since I purchased it 3 months ago. I see glitchers in Escalation mode alot though. That's easily remedied with 1-3 friends though.
I'm on 360, However i am in Prime Mode, so maybe i get different players to you, considering you have only just started, level up a bit more and you will see what i mean :p
 

Buizel91

Autobot
Aug 25, 2008
5,265
0
0
Anti-Robot Man said:
Runegrace said:
I always thought that the LIVE Gold membership was supposed to pay for the whole "online" thing...
If you don't like the way EA is taking the games industry there is only one thing you can do to preasure them to change - stop buying EA games.
Even that won't work, have you seen how many people Buy Fifa/Madden? Battlefield sells like hot cakes, and we have the new Medal Of Honor that looks pretty good.

Easier said than done, EA may be a dick, but some of the games they release are pretty good, even if they manage to fuck them up later after release.
 

ThunderCavalier

New member
Nov 21, 2009
1,475
0
0
Sovereignty said:
ThunderCavalier said:
I still don't see much negative to letting players rent servers, after all it's not like if you're so unhappy with the current list of servers you couldn't.. You know, go out and rent your own. I get that to some this may be seen as a, "Why do *I* have to pay to play the game the way I want to play it." though considering that why should everyone else be forced to play it the way you wish to play it on the other side of that coin?
My problem isn't the fact that I want to play the game the way I want to.

Rather, it's the fact that I always have to adjust to a new set of rules instead of having plain Vanilla servers that always have a set assortment of rules, the system THEY HAD AT THE BEGINNING.

I honestly would not have so much complaints that I do now if EA would reserve one or two servers for people to play the game as it was, without any adjustments or anything, and mark those with some kind of specific codeword that NO ONE ELSE CAN USE, but since EA rents out all of theirs and DICE's servers makes it really hard to find those servers, and there's no way to accurately search for them since everyone can use the [DICE] tag.
 

MagmaMan

New member
Apr 2, 2012
91
0
0
arc1991 said:
MagmaMan said:
arc1991 said:
MagmaMan said:
If only more people were playing Bad Company 2, this shit they are pulling off with 3 made me sell it. Ah well, back to War for Cybertron
That's no better, it is a good game, and if you manage to get a good Online game you can have a blast, but at least 6 out of 10 games you have will be glitched to fuck. On PC it is worse, but dear god even on Console im seeing Scouts with the Whirlwind and Warcry ability!

OT: Yeh, this doesn't affect me at all seen as thought Battlefield isn't a game i own, and by the looks of it never will.

Now if everyone will excuse me, I'm going to clean up Arkham City.
What system were you playing on. I've never noticed any hackers on Xbox 360 and have been playing it constantly since I purchased it 3 months ago. I see glitchers in Escalation mode alot though. That's easily remedied with 1-3 friends though.
I'm on 360, However i am in Prime Mode, so maybe i get different players to you, considering you have only just started, level up a bit more and you will see what i mean :p
I'm almost in Prime mode. Leader is level 25, every other class is around 19. Well, except Scientist. I've tried so many configurations and so many tactics and I just can't figure out how to use that class effectively. Maybe he's just not made for Team Death Match.

What kind of hacks are they using? Perhaps I have run into them and just haven't noticed.
 

Runegrace

New member
May 18, 2009
7
0
0
Quite a few people seem to be missing the argument, many being PC players, so here's a hypothetical:

Say when 343 took over Halo Reach from Bungie, they got rid of matchmaking. Gone. Now, all you can do is quick-match into a random Custom Game lobby, playing with whatever rules random players think is "balanced". If you don't like it, you can make your own Custom Game lobby...oh, but you have to pay $30-60 a month to make your own lobby, now. Can you understand why some people may be upset about that?

Now, that's obviously a bit of hyperbole. A dedicated server is something more, though spending more than an MMO sub, and more than a LIVE gold sub every couple months, seems a bit exploitive. And there are still some official servers...they're just very hard to find. Search for Conquest, all US servers, exclude full servers, and you'll be lucky to see an official server within the first 10 pages. As to the idea that, if you see so many user servers it means that many people WANT to play the game like that...do the same search but include full servers. You'll see LOTS of official servers...full. So many people are trying to play on vanilla that those servers are constantly full, and so other players have no choice but to find a custom server with the least ridiculous rule set. And it seems that this was intentional, as it forces players to play on the custom servers so the people paying will get their money worth...even if people really don't want to play with those rules.

And that's the problem. User-run servers are great. That being added isn't the problem; it's that official servers are being outright replaced by them, and you can't search/find official servers in any reasonable fashion. The way that the game was played at launch, when people bought the game, is gone.

Like if you had a racing game that had split-screen, but later had that removed so that they could charge for it. It doesn't matter that no PC racing games have split-screen, so a console player shouldn't complain. It doesn't matter that you can pay an excessive rental fee to get that experience back temporarily. You may have gotten the game so you could play it with a friend when you hung out, but now you can't. Just like I can't jump on with friends after work and quickmatch into a couple 15-20 minute games. The fact that the way the game played before was removed so they could squeeze more money from players certainly feels a bit like bait-and-switch, especially since it would be so EASY to include an "official only" search parameter...but they choose not to.
 

Cranky_Gamer

New member
Apr 8, 2011
12
0
0
NvrPhazed said:
Sum up: PLAYER SERVERS ARE GOOD BUT HAVE A VANILLA BUTTON OR A SYMBOL SIGNIFYING THAT IT IS ACTUALLY A VANILLA SERVER.
Wait a minute, all these people moaning and complaining about how these servers are ruining the game and EA are evil incarnate, is due to nothing more than the server list lacking filter options?
 

NvrPhazed

New member
Dec 8, 2010
72
0
0
Cranky_Gamer said:
NvrPhazed said:
Sum up: PLAYER SERVERS ARE GOOD BUT HAVE A VANILLA BUTTON OR A SYMBOL SIGNIFYING THAT IT IS ACTUALLY A VANILLA SERVER.
Wait a minute, all these people moaning and complaining about how these servers are ruining the game and EA are evil incarnate, is due to nothing more than the server list lacking filter options?
Pretty much ya. Most people are complaining that it is impossible to discern what is a regular server and what is not.
 

ben-

New member
Jan 17, 2012
24
0
0
I play shooters on consoles to avoid the custom server garbage. Playing on and paying for Xbox live should assure me some sort of official servers.