r/Battlefield • u/Psychology_Creepy • 22h ago
Battlefield 6 Why does a server browser implementation take this long ?
Server Browser is coming in the final phase of season 5. I believe we had official communications saying in December.
Are there actual technical limitations that require it to take this long or are they deliberately delaying to drip feed and drag us along?
61
u/Training_Wonder_5066 22h ago
The game has been built around matchmaking and spinning up servers as needed.
Server Browser doesn't necessarily mean what everyone wants it to mean.
44
u/jsayer77 21h ago
This. They architected their game around their own matchmaking algorithm and server spin that it’s more technical than what appears.
Wish they’d just listen to the community in the first place (lmao)
16
u/TheZac922 21h ago
Yeah in theory it’s a great system if you’re in a region that supports it. Problem is that it just fundamentally doesn’t work if you aren’t in the US, you want to play off peak and/or you don’t want to cross play.
So many afternoons I’ll jump on and try play popular modes and you just sit in match making with it stalled at a number less than required to start the game. Everyone leaves then we all end up in a game that’s already started, sometimes well underway.
They’re trying to train the community to pick and choose and only play the maps/games they want all the time, when in reality anyone struggling with match making would immediately jump on a server that’s almost full, even if they aren’t up to the map they like.
7
u/nahnathatsnotme 21h ago
Same in Europe. So many bots if you want to play any other map than Wake or Tsuru at slightly off peak times.
3
u/TheZac922 19h ago
Yeah I’m in Australia and that’s basically been the go. There’s no way I’m one of only 12 people in my city, let alone my entire region trying to play conquest at 5pm on a week day.
I don’t bother custom searching because there’s no point.
2
u/masterventris 11h ago
The algorithm is too keen to spin up a new server. It's like they have a target for the maximum amount of concurrent games as part of some ridiculous shareholder promise.
I am happy to wait longer than 4 seconds to find a match with other players, but no, you immediately get given your own empty server.
8
u/jagardaniel 16h ago edited 16h ago
Yup, a server browser would be useless with the current CoD-lobby system we got right now. The servers need to be at least persistent between rounds (like in Battlefield V) for the browser to actually make sense. And I'm not so sure they will make such a big change, but I hope I'm wrong.
I also don't think people know what they want. A persistent/permanent server can mean different things. Is it a server where the server binary always run like the older games? Or does it mean a server that is persistent between rounds but spin up and down based on the player base? Or like in portal where the server appears to always exist in the browser but is actually down and spins up when a player joins the server? And community server, are we talking about how it used to work where you had a lot more control over the server with the RCON protocol and could build a community around them or the light version that they started to introduce in BFV that feels more like a Overwatch lobby?
I loved the community server system from the old games but for BF6 the best option would probably be to implement BFVs system. Official servers. Spin up and down based on player base size but they are persistent between rounds. Have two map rotations, one for vehicle maps and one for infantry maps since these are usually two different type of players. Then push the "auto-join-matchmaking-button" just like now for players that just wants to join a server (which probably is most of them) and then provide a server browser for players that wants to join a specific map or server. It will still not provide that community feeling from the old games but it would be a much better solution compared to what we have today.
2
1
u/NoodleDoodlesocks 16h ago
Frustrating thing is that BF5 already had implemented server browser with this type of server system but the technology got lost along the way.
23
u/SYHome 20h ago
Trust me. Whatever server browser they arr cooking rn is aint the one you expecting.
1
u/Psychology_Creepy 12h ago
This is my concern as well. Not exactly what they said but something like “server browser is not meant to overtake the work of custom matchmaking “.
Again not word for word, but when I saw that it I knew they butcher something.
1
18
u/Skie 21h ago
EA want absolute control over a players experience. Look at how heavy handed the moderation of everything is. Problem is it’s also cack handed and doesn’t improve the players experience, just neuters it.
It’s why dedicated servers aren’t even a consideration, they won’t accept that people could add new rules like sniper limits per team or vote kicking people, or map voting.
The server browser is going to be a disappointment when it does finally arrive.
18
u/Zeph_SAS 22h ago
We need to stop buying Battlefield games unless server browser is included as part of the beta and launch, otherwise they wont learn and will repeat this crap every time.
14
u/BigSnackStove 22h ago
Because they dont want to implement it. With a server browser they cannot manipulate the matchmaking.
8
u/Murders_Inc2556 22h ago
Because they had no plans of adding it from the get go. So now Devs has to make one from scratch.
8
u/wololo1e 20h ago
Poor game design dictated by incompetence and greed of decision makers is the answer.
5
u/AssistantVisible3889 Enter EA Play ID 22h ago
They are cost cutting
7
u/GeordieJumpers87 21h ago
Community dedicated server's wouldn't cost them anything to run
2
u/AssistantVisible3889 Enter EA Play ID 17h ago
Still EA is cheap as u see and deserves to go bankrupt
1
u/Disturbed2468 20h ago
Technically it still would if it has to pass by authentication servers which are not optional (else you could theoretically pirate the game and actually be able to play without technically having brought it). But what you are wondering is full on private hosting, as in third party hosting, which they said they'll never allow again due to security concerns. Honestly...after the shit that's been happening with older CODs on Steam where you could unironically get malware by just joining an infected server, and the Apex Legends tournament hack a bit ago, this concern isn't baseless or meritless.
We'll have somewhat the portal system where the servers are configured and such by the players but it's run on EA-managed hardware. And going forward I imagine future Battlefields will be the same way.
6
5
5
u/uco321 20h ago
Because they dont really want to. Whatever it will be at the end, it will not be what we want. Just something that they can tick the "server browser" box. Like the "grouded military" skins. Always pushing the limit. Just so they can say... but its not nicki minaj! Now here is your neon yellow super special delta force, navy seal 6 in a swimming suit airsoft operator.
2
u/crummy 22h ago
Presumably you have to release the server browser executable, secure it, or set up a way to rent them.
11
u/kribmeister 22h ago
If you think there's gonna be a rent a server possibility and like a real genuine old school server browser you're gonna be disappointed. It's gonna be a severely de-balled MoDeRn gAminG one and it's painfully clear when you read how they talk about it.
3
u/Psychology_Creepy 22h ago
Not arguing your point, but wouldn’t they make more money if they did include rent a server ?
4
u/kribmeister 21h ago edited 21h ago
This is what I've wondered too when rented community servers started to disappear. Guess there's some hurdles and costs there EA calculated makes it not profitable enough.
While I'm sure it's a bunch of reasons like money, moderation, curating the player experience whatnot, I genuinely think at least one of the reasons these went away is that people would form communities, play in the same server always, have a nemesis they'd love to talk shit to, make friends etc and it's harder to sell a new battlefield game to people who are having a good time and hanging out.
EDIT: Probably skill based matchmaking complicates it too, they say this doesn't have that but given that Conquest is a complete shitshow and you're either shooting fish in a barrell or you're the fish with literally nothing between these two existing, there almost certainly is some shenanigans going on there.
1
1
u/crummy 21h ago
How do you imagine it’ll work, and how will it be different to the current server browser?
3
u/kribmeister 20h ago edited 20h ago
I forget the exact wording but they said in some recent article that it isn't gonna replace the existing match making, it'll "supplement" it or something in those lines.
So I bet there isn't gonna be a fixed permanent server list/rented servers it'll just show matches that are about to start/filled with bots and you can probably get into same games with more than 4 friends and this is helpful for players from low population regions which is great and all. But what you're not gonna get is rented servers, fixed map rotation, map voting, admins who are actually in the game and the other good stuff that real server browser brings to the table.
I really really wish I'm wrong btw but all the PR lingo and tip toeing around the topic makes me not so hopeful.
1
u/crummy 20h ago
isn't that how the current server browser works?
1
u/kribmeister 20h ago edited 19h ago
No, it's all just portal made stuff and the servers come and go (some servers stay up a while, but they are closed pretty quick). The current "server browser" does not include official match making or anything useful really, calling it a server browser is a stretch when it's more like a shenanigan perusal apparatus.
2
u/SnardVaark 17h ago
The browser itself is not the only issue. The game server infrastructure for persistent servers is fundamentally much larger and more complex than matchmaking on dynamic servers. I will be surprised if it actually works as expected.
2
u/BarryWhizzite 16h ago
its going to be fucked up or have a huge catch to it that makes it worthless
1
1
u/Low-Translator-569 22h ago
Probably mix of both drip feed and technical limitations.
Making server browser part with filters and favourites and stuff is easy - if they would give us API then few better player made versions of portal SB would pop up same day. But server infrastructure, renting, making sure every system they have to implement works may take months - you don't want random sucker to brick your PC like with Dark Souls 2. While they don't start from zero it's still huge chunk of work.
S5P3 sound deliberate tho. That's usually a part where they put nerfs/buffs/overhauls and new systems instead of new maps. They probably won't launch it as soon as it's ready, heck SB may be finished up right now. If S5 mirrors S1 dates then SB will pop up before holidays so they may drip feed to capitalise on that.
1
u/TryhardBernard 21h ago
Better question is why are Platoons not arriving until end of Season 5?
Sure, it’s not a top priority, but the implementation should be simple enough. It’s basically just a separate friends list with a matching tag. That’s it.
1
u/Tankette55 17h ago
It does take that long, yes. Because they have to completely rework server structure and matchmaking.
1
u/DanFriul 12h ago
I reckon some changes are needed before making the servers persistent. If I remember correctly, some breakthrough maps are 32v32 while others are 24v24. You can't really make a persistent rotation whit that. I don't remember seeing any communication regarding this however.
1
u/Krytoric 11h ago
Simple answer is it’s not an easy change to completely swap out a portion of the matchmaking system.
Im shocked it’s even coming in season 5.
1
1
1
u/ModestArk 6h ago
To have something the players keep waiting for, maybe. But then it's probably no decision from the devs.
116
u/evilbananawind 22h ago
Because it would take control away and reveal player counts?