I’ll be honest: I think matchmaking is just a better experience for how I like to play FPS games. I never got a sense of “community” from sticking with a given server; I would come to find something like it via Discord years later but not just from frequenting a given game server. My server browser experience was mostly that I’d join a game in a progress, as other people come and go from a game in progress, and I wondered what the point of the match was if the teams weren’t even the same at the end of the match as when they began. Most people’s default when running a server was to turn player numbers to max and, in Battlefield’s case, “tickets” needed to win as well, but just because the numbers are bigger doesn’t mean that it’s better pacing for a match, for instance. Matchmaking sets the defaults and ensures a pretty consistent experience from start to finish of each match.
This comment from the developer is true, too.
“Matchmaking servers spin up in seconds (get filled with players), and spin down after the game is over,” Sirland wrote in a thread on X last week. "That couple of seconds when servers lose a lot of players mid-game is the only time you can join, which makes it a tricky combination (and full of queuing to join issues).
My preference for the matchmaking experience is reflected across the audience they cater to, and it contributed to an industry focus on matchmaking and the end of server browsers.
But we still need real server browsers.
If we bought a game, we should be able to do what we want with it, including running those max player/max ticket servers that run 24/7 on one map. We should be able to do it without DICE/EA’s permission, on our own if we so choose, without salaried staff running master server operations, because one day the revenue this game brings in will not justify the costs to keep it going. We should be able to deal with cheaters by vote kicking them from the server rather than installing increasingly invasive mandatory anti cheat solutions that don’t even fully solve the problem anyway, because it’s unsolvable.
BF6 is the only thing keeping me on windows. If they don’t include a server browser I’m not buying it.
I always liked going into older BF servers that weren’t so populated just to be able to get a lay of the land without being destroyed in three seconds.
Or to be able to use the vehicles and get used to them without as much threat.
Maybe I just want a mode that lets you free-roam maps…
One doesn’t need to replace the other.:)
The big problem with matchmaking is that in the long run, it kills game. When people start to move on to a new thing, the population that stays because they’re attached to the game gets fucked over by matchmaking.
The less people they are, the worse it works. That’s when a server browser and the ability to run community server becomes crucial. It will keep a game alive for a decade after its last update.
That’s perfectly acceptable justification to shut down gameservers and profit from people moving to the next version of the game. Gone are the days of private servers, especially with client and serverside mods, that kept people engaged with an older game for years. That’s not profitable.
How would a server browser help in that case?
Matchmaking puts people into a limited number of servers. Yeah, you get the problem of realizing that those folk have been playing Tribes 2 for over twenty years at this point but you also have people to play with on that one 24 player server. Versus twelve servers with 2 players and a bunch of bots (if the game has them) each.
I always would rather both options. But from a game health standpoint… hoppers tend to have clear advantages at most player counts.
They will have community servers with its own browser. The servers will have full xp as long as the rules are close to the official ones.
Matchmaking wont be the only option.
Having long played some old CS, there was so much sense of community from connecting to a personal server instance, regularly seeing the same people, familiarize with specific rules to that server, getting to know the admin etc. I’m sure you feel a sense of community from match making, but it can definitely exist outside of matchmaking IMO.
And I’m not advertising for one over the other. But I’d be very happy to see the persistence of accessing personal servers for a game.
Bring back community servers, so the developers can keep their official servers and people that want to play on community servers can do that do.
It’s a solved problem that publishers tells you is hard to do in the name of money.
Don’t look harder into it.
That’s exactly what they did. You have official matchmaking, then you have community servers people host. If you use official rules, you can still earn xp in the community servers.
They have a server browser, official matchmaking servers just don’t show up but they only last one game anyways.
It would be nice if we had both options. Let people matchmake for the default experience and let those that prefer custom servers to use those instead. There are problems with using only community hosted servers, such as game rules and less ideal admins.
That being said, the longevity that community servers offer is likely the reason they have been scrapped by EA. They want everyone to move to the next title that comes out like what people do with CoD.
EDIT: Typos from mobile
unless they changed it, that’s how csgo works.
Bit it doesn’t even work on linux, basically DOA for me.
supposedly doesn’t work on windows either if you play valorant ar maybe other games with similar anticheats competing for the same system area no video game shoud have control over
ah so that post I saw the other day saying “begun the kernel wars have” makes senses. someone posted the fact they couldn’t play BF6 cause Valorant was installed.
yeah. I’ve been wondering when this would happen since spore. Took longer than I expected really.
I loved the servers that were 24/7 metro, no drags etc. some of those were (and still are) my favorite. Or pistols only, no Glock 18. When you get rid of custom servers you get rid of that custom experience.
Didn’t they try something similar in 2042 but on their own servers? edit: portal
Server browsers are the better experience for me. Jump in a game and its already going, less pressure to stay because there’s no matchmaking ban/penalties. Everyone is there primarily to have fun because KD WL MMR ELO isnt being logged. If im desperately outclassed, or life gets in the way, I can just quit with no guilt or punishment. If im having a good time i can stay with mostly the same people for a long time.
Thats before you even get into the technicalities and longevity considerations.
Plus it’s great if the server is made specifically for a map you really love. Like TFC/TF2 with say 24/7 2fort. I love me some 2fort and yeah I will play it for hours on end, it’s comfy.
I miss community servers terribly.
I want servers so I can avoid playing maps I don’t like… Looking at you Siege of Cairo.
A server browser similar to Arma would have been a godsend as it allows people to set up unique rules, experiment with different game modes and play around the map itself. While BF isn’t a milsim sandbox game a server browser is what keeps older BF games alive especially on console and the removal of that does make you wonder if we’ll be playing BF6 a decade down the line.
They are implementing just that. Official servers don’t show up on it but everything hosted by the community does.
More like a real server browser with real self hosted dedicated servers. Couldn’t imagine mods at this point
Article about BF6: shows picture of BF2042.
Because it talks about the same “Portal” feature in 2042 that came before.
God yes. I would rather have a few popular servers over endless empty matchmaking
