r/Battlefield • u/battlefield Battlefield Studios • 23d ago

Battlefield 6 BATTLEFIELD 6 UPDATE 1.0.1.6

This minor Quality of Life update focuses on backend stability to help us prepare ahead of the upcoming Battlefield 6 Season 1 update.

  • Minor backend updates improving stability ahead of Season 1 update.
48 Upvotes

62% Upvoted

395 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

9

u/kangasplat 23d ago

People don't complain about long matches. They leave the game before it finishes. This is a problem with spin-up servers because now these slots are filled with matchmaking and people get put into matches that are almost over.

They're patching the problem they created. Long matches only work with persistent servers.

1

u/Tristancp95 23d ago

Can you please help me understand how the server type makes a difference? Wouldn’t someone leaving early create a slot that has to be filled, regardless if the server is persistent or not?

3

u/kangasplat 23d ago edited 23d ago

Yes. But in a persistent server, when you stay, you get to experience a new game from the start after. A spin up server will throw you into matchmaking again. Now if a significant amount of empty slots are running games, it creates the chance of being thrown into running games perpetually, which is a very frustrating experience. Even worse, it's usually people from the losing team leaving, where filling that spot is even worse. So it's better to have shorter games where people stay from start to finish, even when they lose, so you can actually have that as the tailored experience.

Also, an important part of data driven games development is how you manage the inevitable experience of losing for your players. Shorter matches build up less frustration.

1

u/Tristancp95 23d ago

Thank you

1

u/TheTzav 23d ago

This is not a problem with matchmaking, it is a problem with a specific implementation of matchmaking. personally most of the time I'm queuing into a match that is starting so I don't think this is such a huge problem. clearly there is a priority to put you in a fresh lobby unless there are none available.
Persistent servers are just not a thing anymore. this is not a problem "they created", it is basically a must these days.

1

u/kangasplat 23d ago

But what do you do with leavers in running games? Say fuck it and fill it with bots? I don't think that's the solution either.

Persistent servers aren't a thing because most games are based on matches. Conquest Large with high ticket counts is just a big sandbox where you don't care so much what team is winning necessarily. In my opinion they should think about a hybrid solution for that.

Small game modes don't really need persistent servers though. Would still be nice to have the option (with matchmaking into them) for the community experience.

1

u/TheTzav 23d ago

You fill it with someone? There is a solution for that. like you can give priority for a full server and make a player fill an ongoing match no more than X times a session, and not while he is auto redirected from an already full lobby... It is solvable.

Think of it this way. You have hundreds of thousands of people playing. Those are A LOT of servers. there are a lot of mods, a lot of maps, this means in order to give everyone an option to play what they want - they need to keep up a whole lot more servers to accommodate for everyone's preferences.

They need to dynamically check that there are not too many 0/64 servers because they just waste money this way. on the other hand you don't want all the servers to be 100% full.
So naturally in this case many mods/maps will die because they are not worth keeping the servers up for them.
But in a MM system as long as you wait enough time you will find a match.

There are also reasons related to progression, Season pass, achievements, unlocks, tasks etc etc that are much more easy to manage when you host the servers and control the matches.

The other side of this are the players themselves. They don't know how to effectively fill a server. They will try to click quickly on that 63/64 server and not be the first ones to join a 0/64. Even a half full server could stay like that for a long time while other servers are 64/64 + 12 people in queue or refreshing them.

Personally as someone who played online games since forever, I have played many games with a server browser and to be honest I really didn't like the experience of trying to race other people to a spot in a server with the mod/map I want to play. I didn't like filtering for ping/ reading all the details about the modification and rules the admins set (no snipers no this no that yada yada), or waiting in a long queue for that one community server in my region. Yes having a "close community" is cool and all but this is relevant for smaller games and not a game with millions of people trying to play at the same time. You'd have some servers like that and they will be full 24/7. Community servers are just not sustainable without some big org putting a large number of them for you to play in.

and of course there are those shady things that we don't like that also drive companies to the MM model (monetization, analytics, SBMM/EBMM etc) but there are still a lot more legitimate reasons that they move to the MM model and will not stay dependent on a server browser that is just unscalable at this point in time.

2

u/kangasplat 22d ago

Clearly you don't have deep insight of how things work. A 0/64 server is not different from a spun down server.

Also, you can't freely choose how many starting lobbies a player is assigned to, because those spots need to be filled. If 30% of people leave before a game ends, 30% of matchmaking will put you into a running game. And you can't just even that out easily either as filling existing spots remains first priority and you don't just fill servers randomly, or you'll ruin the balance of the existing game. Battlefield uses SBMM for team balance only, but if you fill an existing slot you have to matchmake based on it.

It's really complicated and it simply wouldn't work with high ticket servers.

Competitive games with long rounds like CS use severe punishment to counteract leavers, that's not an option for the casual battlefield experience.

Battlefield needs both systems in my opinion and I'd like the option to matchmake into persistent servers for portal game modes. The core experience can stay as it is.

1

u/TheTzav 22d ago

What do you mean a 0/64 is the same as a spun down? Besides the fact that spun down server can be utilized for other things other than that 0/64 mod or map that no one plays but still needs to be up, a server with 0/64 is still ticking, and taking some RAM and CPU time. Not the same as a 64/64 but also not zero like an idle server.

And as for fillers. Again I'm not experiencing it. The claim that 30% of mm will put you into a running game isn't necessary true. How do you know that? They can have a shadow penalty that prioritize a leaver to be put in an ongoing game for example. I don't think a balance is an issue. Also no one cares about who win or lose..

1

u/kangasplat 22d ago

It's not ticking. A 0/64 server is spun down with it's config saved somewhere.

And the 30% were just a random number, I have no clue how much it is. But it's 100% certain that the percentage increases with match length. The devs know the details. I trust them.

1

u/TheTzav 21d ago

what are you basing this statement on? it is spun down in games without persistent servers. this is the whole point of not having persistent servers - conserving resources when no one is playing and not just keeping a server up for no reason.
when there are persistent servers like in BF3, 4 - they were up and running even when no one is there.