Star Wars Battlefront confirmed no server browser

So a couple maps, no classes, powerups only (no spawned items or vehicles), no browser, no squads. Scratch one more game off my wishlist. The hell is EA thinking?

Watch all the crazy people cancelling their preorders.

As long as the matchmaking works correctly and the servers are good with ping (and of course the game is fun) I don't really see a problem.

I'm sure they will have a function for friends to join the same game.

BTW, they announced 12 maps at launch, so it's not a couple. And there are no classes because they said this would be more of a casual shooter. I also hated spawned vehicles because you would get members of your team just waiting at base for them to appear. With powerups at least it makes people get out on the battlefield to obtain them.

Not defending the game. I don't even know if I'll buy it myself, just pointing out things.

no dedicated servers with custom rules, admins present, veterans returning to forum communities? You see no problem losing all those? Plenty of games offer full servers and browsers, AND a matchmaker for lazy people...you known, like their previous game...*cough* BF4

Sounds like shit, a server browser should be a requirement for PC FPS games.

- We don't know if there will be dedicated servers or not yet (you CAN have dedicated servers with matchmaking).

- Custom rules is meh.... fragments the community all over the place and you don't get a constant experience across all maps.

- Only thing I would agree on would be admins present, so they can kick out abusive or cheating players.

Matchmaking works fine as long as there's a healthy community, and the game runs well.

This game is looking less and less appealing. I was never too excited for it to begin with, even though I love Star Wars and Battlefield. EA has done a great job generating hype, but not sure if it is warranted.

No server browser = no buy. I knew EA getting their greedy mitts on Star Wars was bad news for Star Wars fans.

The guy straight up said there will not be a server browser. Kinda hard to have dedicated servers if there's no browser to find them. This pretty much guarantees that I will not be buying this game.

You can do dedicated servers with matchmaking (I said that on my post). Not having a server browser doesn't always mean there aren't servers hosting the games.

Why do people judge a game based on it's matchmaking method anyway these days?

I always like being able to choose the community I want to play with.

For example - what if I want to play somewhere that I know has admins on 24/7, that can ban hackers instantly? If there's matchmaking, then there are no admins, and there's no means of controlling the community. That means trolls, griefers, and hackers can run rampant and unchallenged.

Or what if I hate a certain map and I want to play a server that doesn't have that map in the rotation?

Or what if I want to play on a server that has a certain set of rules?

I mean, the reasons for wanting the ability to pick a server are practically endless...there's a good reason why all the best games have the feature: because you'd have to be fucking stupid not to include it.

Agreed. It has been a staple of PC gaming for many years. Not having dedicated servers and a browser is basically telling PC gamers to go **** themselves.

Maybe you didn't read the part where I said that I agree admin support should be available.

LOL, who am I kidding? It's KH, he rarely reads other people's post....

You act like admin support is something that would make sense in a system where you can't pick a dedicated server. Sure, it should be available - but the point is that it CAN'T be available without giving people the option to choose what servers they want to frequent.

How the hell would you even distribute admin's among every matchmaking game? Would each session just automatically elect an admin or something? It makes no sense.

Stopped buying EA games around the time of Mirrors Edge. Saved lots of money (since they are overcharging bastards) and bought lots of other great games since then.

While people are paying 5 times the the price for Battlefront, with it's microtransaction power ups, preorder walls, console port goodness, I'll probably enjoying Rising Storm 2, might not get the same media coverage, but it's sure as hell going to be a better game.

sigh.... go back and read my posts again.

On second thought, don't bother. I couldn't care less.

Go ahead and pretend your posts addressed how admins and match-making can co-exist. You really don't see how you're contradicting yourself? "Admin support should be available in a system that doesn't allow admins to exist".

What games again have you played that has admins and matchmaking?

Like always, KH just reads what his brain wants him to see.

Where did I say admins and match-making can co-exist? I'll save you some time, I never said that.

Keep going. I'm dying to see what words you'll put in my mouth next.

It's not my fault you can't remember what you just posted.

@FelipeInside said:

Maybe you didn't read the part where I said that I agree admin support should be available.

So, in case you missed it, you agreed that admin support should be available...so, once again, how do you think admin support should be made available in a system where there's only matchmaking?

Jesus Mary of Joseph, at least read the whole chain before commenting.

My post was in response to wis3boi, agreeing that admins should be present in an FPS to kick abusive or cheating players. Not once did I say that it was easy to do so with matchmaking or that Battlefront will have it or whatever your mind wants to think.

Admins in matchmaking WOULD be awesome, if someone found a good way to do so. All I said was that I agree that admins should be in an FPS. I would say "stop reading what you want to read" but it's you so I know you can't do that.

That's funny.

So why are you asking this:

Why do people judge a game based on it's matchmaking method anyway these days?

...when a feature that you just agreed should be in the game is excluded? Obviously a game missing important features that you think should be in it would affect your judgment of the game.

It just sounds silly when someone says "who cares if it's missing all these important features?" and then in the next sentence that same person says "I agree that this feature that's missing should be in this game". It even sounds extra stupid when that person can't even recognize what's wrong with he/she said.

Completely agree with the bold part. Somtimes you had matches of Battlefield where literally half of the team just sits in the base doing nothing.

Completely disagree with the italic part though. There is no excuse for not doing a server browser. And even in games I played where the matchmaking was near perfect... I still always use the server browser; It's my way of choosing what server I want, what map I want, what ping I will get, what mods will be on the server, WHO will be on the server... Matchmaking don't provide that, I'm sorry.

Funny how you now have deviated from your initial accusation because you've realized you read wrong (or read what you wanted to read).

But let's keep going.

"Why do people judge a game based on it's matchmaking method anyway these days?" is a valid question.

Yes, admins would be nice in an FPS, but that doesn't make or break a game for me. I've played lots of FPS games where there are no admins and had heaps of fun. There's someone hacking? easy, leave. I've seen people hacking on dedicated servers where admins didn't do anything about it; didn't mean I uninstalled the game. Do you judge a WHOLE game based on one thing all the time?

One thing I want to make completely clear to you kid. Don't call people stupid when you put words in their mouths and only read what you want to read. The forums have gotten to a nice quality this year, and it's sad that people like you continue to ruin it just because you feel the need to be right every time. (I imagine it must be some kind of lack of confidence that makes you act like that) Trust me, one day you'll grow up and realize that it's not as important as you think it is.

Yeah each system has it's pros and cons.

The major con I see with server browser is fragmentation of game conditions and players. You see this huge list of servers and have to find which one is closer to you and has the most players etc. When MM works right, it bundles everything into one server and then chooses everything automatically for you.

Like I said though, each has it's good and bad sides.

Yeah we are in agreeance :)

Most of the time though I love the matchmaking system at first, yet after a while I always tend to miss a solid server browser. Titanfall for example had great matchmaking. At the end I spent so long in matchmaking that I wished for a simple server browser.

When I browse servers I start off by filtering passworded ones, empty ones and full ones. Unless I really want to join a certain empty or full server. Then I look for the gamemode I want, and the ping (lik you said: distance to server)

It's a really easy progress, harder for people with no experience for that, and a matchmaking system doesn't speed up my progress. In fact, the fewer players, the easier it is to find something with a server browser.

Having said that. I do think Company of Heroes 2 has an amazing match making system. Pairing you with similair skilled players (more important in an RTS than an FPS). And other RTS use this as well and I like it.

But for FPS I'm staying old school ^^

Yeah Titanfall's MM system was great, until some "bright spark" decided to change how it worked and broke it, from that point on everyone left.

I also agree about CoH2 and the skill matchmaking system, and hence why I will reserve judgement for Battlefront until I experience it or hear feedback since they are incorporating a new form of skill based matchmaking system.

It is a valid question, and one that has already been answered. A server browser simply makes the game experience better for a lot of people. You can customize the way you want to play. Filter out the maps you don't want to play, and server admins can keep players in line. And what is the benefit of matchmaking? It tries to get players more at your level and it can sometime be quicker. I feel like the pro for dedicated servers far outweigh the pros of matchmaking. I don't like these level matchmaking systems because just because someone plays more doesn't make them necessarily better. You're essentially limiting the amount of players you can play with due to the stupid matchmaking system.

I agree with all your points. I just think that MM needs to evolve to the next step. It has to improve or there needs to be a new MM system which will be better.

I'm not saying one is better than the other, both have pros and cons and it also depends on the type of game and how you want your users to access the game.

1) I never called you stupid. Yet here you are, insisting I'm putting words in your mouth, while simultaneously claiming I'm not reading your posts. That's two different instances of hypocrisy.

2) Speaking of "putting words in your mouth", all I did was assume that you were maintaining your position where you lacked understanding of why a game missing server-browsing would impact one's judgment of it. The only way you could maintain that position is if admin functionality and matchmaking co-existed (because you wouldn't have agreed with the necessity for server-browsing to incorporate admins, which you said should be in the game). Otherwise, by acknowledging the necessity for server browsing in order to implement a feature that you think should be in the game, you're admitting to the hypocritical nature of your question, because you're agreeing that there are features that should be in the game that aren't included - which is as good of a reason to make a judgment about a game as any. Why wouldn't I assume you're suggesting match-making and admin support is possible if you can't figure out why people are disappointed that matchmaking is the only option?

3) You're the only one in this entire discussion throwing ad-hominem attacks.

Do you judge a WHOLE game based on one thing all the time?

No...that wasn't your original question. Your question was asking why do people judge a game based on its matchmaking system. All I did was give multiple answers why, and then you go off on a meltdown claiming I can't read because you already agreed with a point I made. Why you got mad at me for answering a question you already answered before asking is completely beyond me. It's not my fault that you're confused.

Remember what I said. It's probably your lack of confidence that makes your mind need to be right all the time. But don't worry, in most cases, younger people overcome this condition and actually as a result of this grow in confidence and are even more enjoyable to talk to. I pray and keep my fingers crossed it happens to you sooner rather than later, at least for the sake of these forums...

Server browser all the way! Why not have both for those that want to have it their way.
Improve both browser and MM. Fyi, there are low level only servers sometimes. That should be added to browser filter for example.
I mean sometimes I want to just play 24/7 servers that play a particular map or setting.

I quit le rehash cod for good when they ditched server browsers *shivers*.

That's one hell of a projection coming from the the person who can't take a disagreement at face value without making it personal. It really isn't my fault that you say disingenuous or hypocritical things from time to time, and you really can't blame me for pointing these things out, because that's usually what people do when they see something along those lines.

I admit to making mistakes or being wrong about things on a daily basis. Of course, that pertains to instances where I'm actually wrong, not in instances where some sensitive dude in a gaming forum can't figure out why a question he already answered before asking is blatantly silly.

oh the irony

Thank you for proving my point.

Patience kid, one day you will get passed it (hopefully). Have a good one.

No irony mate. I have admitted many times how wrong I was or that I read someone's post incorrectly (something KH has never done).

In regard to this topic, like I said before, both systems have pros and cons. I never said one was better than the other. I've used them both and gotten gains from both.

Btw, sorry this has got derailed so much. It will be the last I speak of it.

If no one was to buy this game it would be a dream come true, would finally be a wake up to lazy dev that don't listen to the players.

Wait, how many people will be in a match of this game? If its more than like 18, I expect this will be a pretty big fail on PC. And if its less than 18, that might work for matchmaking, but then it seems like too small a player count for this type of game. Its a lose-lose either way.

Honestly, I don't give a shit about Star Wars. never did. I was probably deprived as a child or something but I just don't care about the universe at all, despite having seen the movies. And EA is not exactly making me start caring with this news.

I'll be joining @uninspiredcup playing Rising Storm 2. Skipped Hardline, I will skip this as well, unless there is a Beta at some point that changes my mind.

40 players per game - sounds like matchmaking heaven, doesn't it? :P

I'm definitely going to pick up Rising Storm: Vietnam. But I'm not going to lie: Star Wars IP has me by the balls, it's difficult for me to dodge a Star Wars game.

I am a massive SW geek and I'm still staying away from this for now. It's looking more and more like titanfall.

What is so hard in rehashing BF3/BF4/Hardline server browser....... its better than *NO* server browser

Yeah, this reeks of another TitanFall, Hardline, Evolve backlash. I can see the community abandoning this game quickly. My hype for this game is very low and I remain skeptical of it's ability to maintain a solid player base. It's probably going to be a lot of people checking it out just cause it is Star Wars and then people will be disappointed and go back to BF4, CS:GO or whatever.

But is that the real cause?

The lack of server browser is the reason why people leave?

I ask because my BF4 and Black Ops 2 servers (which are dedicated with browsers) are also empty.

@FelipeInside: It's just one of the many reasons. Lack of server browser, lack of maps, lack of modes, etc. are all reasons why MP shooters fail. You really need a fully featured and polished game at launch or it will fail quickly. Once a game loses momentum, it is hard to get it back. Players will move on to the next game or go back to their favorites. It is hard to draw in new players because people don't want to take the risk on a game that has a struggling community. That is why it is almost safer to launch a free to play shooter because if it doesn't do well right away, you can still continue to tweak it and add content and there will always be new players willing to try it because there is no entry cost. So, you can always maintain a certain amount of players.

Take a game like BF: Hardline... Sure, it had some launch issues, but the game is actually pretty good. The issues were fixed in a decent amount of time. So why did people leave? Most of the maps suck. There are only 2-3 good maps. That is not enough to sustain the community. Why keep playing that game when you can go play BF4 which has an abundance of good maps?

Now you have the situation with the premium content. Maybe the DLC maps are actually really good, but nobody wants to buy them because they don't want to spend money on a game that is dying. It's a shitty situation all around. Sucks for the gamers because they have nobody to play with and sucks for the developers because they can't sell the content. If EA was smart, they would just give away a DLC pack for free just to get people interested again.

Yep, I have to agree.

I really think DLC is killing FPS games these days, because I remember the days without it and a shooter would last years with a healthy community.

Even COD which sells millions, after a few months the numbers twindle on PC.

It's a shame because some of these games are actually pretty good and fun to play with friends.

BF4 has 30k+ players regularly, it's probably empty due to your location. I have an abundance of EU/US servers I play on. SWBF however, is going to be a complete clusterfuck without a server browser. There's no classes either, just a few items to equip, no squads, no vehicle spawns (they are powerups)....the whole thing just reeks of bottom of the barrel casual-ness. I'll give it one thing though, the game is gorgeous looking and DICE's sound is unbelievable, it's the first SW game I've seen that uses authentic sounds.

EA seem to really enjoy taking great franchises and running them into the ground.

This is ridiculous, I already decided not to buy it when they said it would have no ADS.

This movie cash in arcade-battlefield turd is looking worse by the day.

Won't stop it selling millions though.

@wis3boi: Skill base matchmaking sound good to me but I don't understand how EA is not using the great Battlelog. I feel this is a mistake from them.