There I was, in DICE’s Star Warsy Battlefield doohickey, and missed the new disappointing news that the game will not feature server browsers. The game will instead auto-matchmake for you, then drag you off to a server of its choice – meaning you’ll have no choice about ping, server capacity, and perhaps not even modes and maps. “Star Wars Battlefront will not offer a server browser, but will utilize a new skill based matchmaking system”, last night, but has as yet not offered more detail in response to the assorted outrage in that thread. It’s not at all uncommon for big-budget multiplayer games, especially on console, to go down this route, determined that they know best and casual players will be bamboozled by all the numbers on a server browser, but the Battlefield series has generally been pretty good about keeping The Old Ways in there. Hence, much worrying.
Then again, Battlefront and Battlefield are very different beasts despite shared blood, with the former generally ditching some of the latter’s complexity in favour of immediate, straight-up action. No squads, no iron sights, far more flexible classes: get in there and start blasting. Fingers crossed for, at the very least, some sort of customisation to ensure you get the map and the mates you want. Sledgehammer70 did at least “Platform party systems are supported” when it asked if it would be possible to party up with buddies, which I think means it will take advantage of friends lists on Steam, PSN etc. Cold comfort, perhaps: PC players are particularly unhappy about the lack of a server browser, needless to say: we do like choice and control, don’t we? It’s also bad news for persistent private servers, and suggests a game that’s more about casual drop-in than a way of life. More positive news is that apparently Battlefront Battlefield’s irritating, front-loaded, browser-based Battlelog stats system/social network.
Scannerbarkly says: Hmmmmmm. Server browsers offer a lot to the community. From easily organising events and tournaments, to help support higher skilled comp scenes, fan trailers and cinematics and screenshots (which EA/DICE very much embraced around BF4), testing (we found and broke down more than a few bugs in the game by being able to go into empty servers and test things repeatedly) and lots of other good stuff that gets a lot harder without a server browser. Seems like a step backwards to me. W0bbl3r says: Err, too late? Methinks it’s just a tad too late. It was too late when they showed how dull the actual gameplay looked.
But at least with real server browsers and the ability to pick and choose which you join, with players renting their own servers, they can at least do something to mix it up a bit, like taking out overpowered classes/weapons or whatever. But hey, it’s star wars, so plenty of fools will still be rushing out to pre-order just because they dubbed in movie-sounding radio babble and movie music and sound effects into the gameplay video’s they showed. LexW1 says: Um, if it was a fact you wouldn’t need to “agree”. By saying you agree 100% you’re pointing out that it is indeed an opinion. It might be a well-supported or common opinion, but it’s an opinion, in the end. Personally I prefer being able to pick servers if I’m going to play a game, like, frequently.
At some point being stuck in with a bunch of random players gets pretty old – even if you’re not playing with friends, playing on a specific server or servers means you will see some of the same people, and might actually build up some kind of community. I’m also very skeptical about the match-making – every match-making system I’ve seen has been problematic in various ways. Typically, the better they work, the longer they take to let you into a match, and if they don’t work well, or are “hasty”, then they’re actually worse than just going up against random players, in my experience. Gwathdring says: DICE made a game called Battlefield 3. It had a server browser.
It also had matchmaking. You could auto-join a server and the game would pick one for you based on various preferences and it’s own whims. You could also select a server. Astonishing, then, that they have decided that’s a terrible idea and that instead they should make it essentially impossible for a dedicated community to spring up and create organized play, something that has worked wonders for these games in the past. Sure, being able to “just play” is awesome. But these things aren’t mutually exclusive.
What it implies is that DICE doesn’t want to build a community. They want people to buy their game, play it, and then move on. They don’t want people to keep playing it or get invested in playing it. Sounds like a lovely multiplayer game, then, doesn’t it.
Thatguystrife says: Accidentally joining servers? Does that happen to you more than once every blue moon? You’ve got worse things to worry about.
Being able to select a server based around your preferred playstyle (hardcore infantry only conquest large ticket for example) ensures you play the game how you want to play it. Not how the publisher does. Did you hear about Titanfall? Such a clusterfuck they ended up giving away all the DLC in hopes of keeping it alive. Matchmaking is okay-ish for simpler games. But there’s nothing like finding a server you like, and getting to know the people there. The Godzilla Hunter says: They should just do both, like CS:GO.
CS:GO has, in my opinion at least, an excellent matchmaking services, and the ‘Play Game’, or something labeled like that, goes to the matchmaking which uses official servers and rule sets. There is another button ‘Server Browser’. This prevents ‘casual’ players from being confused or overwhelmed, and also a handy place for people that want to quickly and easily find vanilla rule sets, while still offering most, if not all, of the advantages of custom servers. The only real downside I see is that it would potentially split the community a bit, but for a game of Battlefront’s size, that is not much a worry. Jane Doe says: Sounds to me like they’re going down the Wargaming-line of Press-and-Play. I don’t see anything wrong with that. With a skilled MM (if it works) they’re also lightyears ahead of Wargaming.
Dedicated servers, often hosted by unreliable private individuals, are a thing of the past. Unless you totally want your BFF-servers, this will just speed up the time between matches. Who says anything about no control over the Ping? Did they state anywhere that they won’t offer localized servers for the MM to connect you to? Aka that they force you to play in the USA? Please Why isn’t RPS asking the important questions?. Will there be platoons/teams/squads?.
If yes, what’s the player limits? If no, screw the game. Will there be company battles? (larger premade teams vs each other, like CWs). Will there be clan wars support? Nereus says: I agree.
I don’t play BF. Partly because I got into PC gaming (sorry, ahem, purchased PC gaming) after EA’s origin push. Having said that, I used to play world of warcraft. When I started the game they had not introduced a matchmaking system for dungeoneering. When I left, they had. I saw first hand how that system just wrecked the social community that was a server, because the only way to talk with people in your game was to joing their guild or help them with quests.
Because the matchmaking system just grouped you with randoms across the various game servers there was no incentive to get to know each other. I did runs where nobody spoke to anybody. But perhaps this is what the vast majority of players want. The success of mobile gaming suggests that people prefer short, shallow experiences over lengthy nuanced ones. Distec says: I could have been willing to give a pass on Origin this once, but ahh, well, I guess it’s not a concern any more. Sometimes I feel like this is pettiness on my part.
But no, it’s a necessary feature if I want to play a multiplayer game the way I want to; not according to whatever company thinks is “best”. I’m told that instant respawn in TF2 just ruins the game. I couldn’t give a fuck since all I ever feel like playing is the 24/7 2Fort meatgrinder. Lo and behold, I’m still playing the game today.
Gwathdring says: I think my feelings towards TF2’s changes over time would have been a lot less rose-tinted if I didn’t have my happy place of 24/7 Two-Fort CTF. That ray of stability in the growing chaos.
Sure, I’d play other maps, modes and such. But I always had that standby as things changed. Also being able to hop into a server at a specific time with a bunch of people you met in, say, the RPS forums?
That’s an awesome thing. I reinstalled TF2 after a hiatus to do just that. Kept playing for months afterward. Not being able to do those things is a deal breaker for me, too. Gwathdring says: So because it’s a game with a lot of AI controlled units, no one will be as interested in organizing the way they play the game beyond maybe making a small posse of people on their friend’s list and checking some boxes about game modes? That hasn’t got a thing to do with it.
I played Battlefront 1 and 2 on LAN–at group events and 1on1. I had servers I liked going to. I didn’t need to put everyone I liked playing with in a uselessly long friends list. If it doesn’t matter who I play with, and most of the enemies are bots, why are we bothering with multiplayer, exactly? I like multiplayer games because I like other players. I’m not particularly competitive; I don’t need to test myself against the very best.
And while I get that some people just want, essentially, other players to stand in as a superior form of Artificial Intelligence that’s not why I play multiplayer. It will never be why I play multiplayer. Hp g60 windows 7 recovery disk download. Match making is fine!
I use it sometimes in games that have both. You can’t find a good community if you don’t look around a bit. But the less control I have over who I play with, the less interested I am in playing. When I find a fun group of players, I don’t want to have to fiddle with a friends system and mess around with queues and weird semi-automated nonsense.
I want to just come back to the same server tomorrow, see who’s still around, who’s new, if it’s still more my style than other servers. If you really think that’s irrelevant to Battlefront I’m very confused. I’ve been playing Battlefront since BF1. I have no interest in relying purely on matchmaking for that game. Says: After reading about this mess I suddenly remembered having a blast (literally) playing Battlefield Bad Company 2 on my trusty old PS3 a few years ago (unfortunately, servers are dead).
Upon googling for gameplay videos I found out that you can still buy the game on Steam, and that there are plenty of active servers. The game is cheap too, so I went and bought it. Installed, and again I had a wonderful time. This will be my biggest time sink for the next months, I’m sure.
IMHO it’s the best title in the series next to BF1942 and BF2, which are bigger in scope, but the destructible buildings and the wonderful maps more than make up for it. Also, there is plenty of stuff to unlock, but not to the point that it feels tedious or game changing like in later titles. It’s such a beautiful shooter that I can’t believe they didn’t make a decent sequel until now. Tonicer says: Meh, my hopes where already very low for this.
No serverfiles, no bots, no mods, no fun so the same as BF3/4. I don’t regret buying any other game more than BF3/4. With BF3 i thought “It’ll be just as glorious as BF2.” and with BF4 “It’ll be better than BF3 they learned a lot about all the mistakes they did with BF3. This time around we get server files, bots and mods.” and it turned out to be almost the same game with all the flaws (if not more) from it’s predecessor. Now Battlefront goes that same route and who can i thank for another broken franchise? Fuck them all. They never did anything good for gaming.
DThor says: All I’ll say is after the first trailer my interest in the game was around 70%,basically really excited but my cynical side refused to allow more SW investment for ultimate disappointment. The instant I got half way through the first paragraph of this article it plummeted to the 30% range. To me it’s one of the key descriptors of “console game”, with all the acne-scarred mainstream blandness that entails.
I’m happy to wait for the initial reviews with incredibly low expectations.
Welcome This community update is about alternate forms of Rust. Largely, it's about servers with different rule-sets and game-modes for you to play. The sort of stuff you'll find in the 'Modded' section of the server browser, the dark basement of the Rust community. There's some cool stuff being built on the bones of Rust. The header image is from the.
Mc Battle Royale Servers
It's a modded Rust server with a central city. There's a travel system, and the usual modded gathering rates (and active admins - I know because I was banned as I was flying and trying to find the city - if anyone there is reading this, I am very nice), but it's the buildings that are worth visiting for. Search the browser for Rustomaniacs, or cut and paste the IP from. Server Browser A look at the many ways mods and server owners have changed base-Rust. For most of these you need to do is hop into the Community or Modded sections of the server browser and search for a keyword, though there are some that won't be online, or are still so experimental that the creator is only hosting as a test. Some only exist on one server, giving the creator exclusivity. I've already covered loads, so it won't be here, but it's the most famous Rust mode there is, and is very much worth playing.
Now to the rest. Battlefield Oftentimes in Rust, the crack of a gun echoing about the map is something to be feared. You're supposed to be wary, because someone firing a gun could take everything you have, break the doors off your house, and leave a sign portraying your lack of sexual prowess for everyone to see. But on a, that noise is everywhere. Sure, you'll want to run and hide for a bit, but only to get some bearings before you join the fight. You spawn on a beach with a kit of guns, armour, food, and meds.
On a normal Rust server you'd be set for life, but on a Battlefield server you're born in the middle of a firefight and you'd better be prepared. There's no respite: the spawn will have people fighting on it, and you'll get dragged in. Those who escape won't wander too far from the area, so expect snipers taking shots at you just for fun. It's tough, but it's also a good place to teach yourself the intricacies of a Rust firefight.
Amazingly, people even manage to build on these servers. Also, the biggest server uses as its server image. You'll definitely die a lot in Battlefield, but that's the point: not caring about that is liberating, and respawning with everything you need to get into the fight gives you a sliver of a chance.
That's enough to propel you into some awesome, consequence-free firefights. Just search the browser for 'Battlefield' and join a busy one. Gungame I played this on the UK Wasteland server, a place known for some of Rust. PsychoTea has implemented a classic FPS deathmatch mode on the server. It works in an instance on their main server: each player spawns with a revolver, and with each kill they trade the weapon 'up' through Rust's weapon tiers.
Battle Royale Server Minecraft
Your progress can be stopped by dying, or even reversed if you're killed by another player's hatchet. As you can imagine, this ends up in a very frantic shoot-em-up.
There's no allies because there's no time to form them, and even if you could there's only one winner. Lives pass in the blink of a shotgun, with bullets coming in from all angles. It's pretty unlike any form of Rust you've ever played. Red vs Blue If you see 'TEAM BATTLEFIELD BETA - RED VS BLUE - SAVAS ISLAND' in the server browser, you should hop on.
You'll be on Savas Island, pressganged into one of two team vying for control of the central hill, as well as hunting down airdrops and hoping to not anger the attack chopper. Everyone (currently) starts on the opposite side of the map with an inventory full of guns. It's so early that the only video of it is of Let's Player not really, but our Petur snuck on this weekend and snapped this screenshot.
Scardigne is correct: there's not many team-based servers for Rust. At least not forced, so it's a change of pace. Show the server some love. Rust The RPG moderator Ruigi is the mastermind behind this, turning Rust into something a little less daunting and a little more recognisable as a traditional game. His has pre-made cities with NPC traders, enabling you to buy anything the game has without worrying about being double-crossed.
You just visit the relevant trader and stock up. But there's more: the town has a church, art gallery, a hotel, and like all centres of commerce there's an arena where you can earn money to spend in the shops. There's even NPCs who'll hand out quests. To show just how involved he's trying to make it, here's Ruigi on trade routes: 'The easiest way to make money is by commodities trading. OTP&M has a trader in every town where you can buy and sell 'commodities' (low grade fuel, oil, HQM and HQ ore). You can buy the raw materials in Twoson so process and sell in another or make a tidy profit buying HQM from up north for cheap and selling it for premium in the desert or the reverse with low grade fuel. You can also sell rare items from hostile NPCs to certain shops.'
I don't even know where to begin with this one. Splatoon is a Nintendo shooter, but players use paint instead of bullets, and they attempt to cover the map with their team colour. To sort of achieve that in Rust, creator has a building where players are split into teams. Where each player runs they change the ground into either stone or wood, representing the team's 'colour'. If you can't picture that, this is what it looks like. If you want to play it, you're currently out of luck: Creator Alex has whitelisted the server, but he has plans to open it up to the public eventually: 'This event was hosted on my own private white listed server, if you'd like to participate in a similar event and be featured in one of my videos feel free to direct any queries you have on Twitter. Suggestions for games to recreate in Rust are also very much welcome!'