Battlefield 6 Rumor Thread

The “problem” with Battlefield is everyone is in the same pool. There is ZERO matchmaking. If you watch the UK streamers like JackFrags, Broken Machine, The Tactical Brit, Stodeh, Tomographic, etc. they all moan and groan about SBMM in CoD and that Battlefield has none and that’s the right way to do it. Basically, you use the server browser to find a full game of the type of game and the map you want with a good ping and have at it. It’s all up to you.

It’s also why @geggis and his buds hated it.

Tbh, that’s what I am looking forward to with the new Battlefield is either no or very limited matchmaking. Yes, you may get in a game with Silk (check him out on YouTube) but you also may get in a game with Silk! Shoot his ass down and be a hero!

Battlefield has always been more of a diy fun machine. You play it how you like to play it and it’s a sandbox of weapons, armor, and aircraft for you to explore while capping points and capping players. That’s its hook.

I didn’t hate it, though I think at least one of my friends did. The other was just pissed off with it like me.

I’m very competitive so my favourite MP rounds are the ones that end close, when everyone is pulling together till the last minute to eke out that last kill or cap or point–the ones where everyone at the end says ‘gg’ and really means it. That, to me, is what it’s all about. Matchmaking seems like a much more reliable way to try and cultivate those experiences than hoping folk switch sides out of the goodness of their heart.

In previous Battlefields (that I was good at) I used to switch to the ‘underdog’ side to try and even things up because I hated feeling like the game was swinging wildly in one direction (like shooting fish in a barrel). I distinctly remember times when our team was getting wrecked because we were short, and it was as rare for folk to switch as it was to pull back a glorious victory. Maybe the ‘DIY fun machine’ or sandbox just isn’t for me anymore!

Despite the limited advancements that MMR-style matchmaking has brought to multiplayer games there is something about it that still feels very sterile and uninspiring. Part of it is the brutal algorithm that tries damn hard to keep everyone on a 50-50 split of winning and losing matches and somewhat the tedium of always being matched to players exactly your skill level given a large enough playerbase. Sure it injects a lot of perceived fairness, but frequently feels bland.

I have always preferred server browsers leading to dedicated servers. Yes, that model can lead to moments of unfairness and matches with a distinct lack of balance. Though when I think back over the years that all seemed to average out over a normal bell curve distribution. This can be smoothed over if the game offers an auto-balance feature within matches. I have always had the best time on dedicated servers in games with auto-balancing of team numbers.

Having fixed dedicated servers just seems to serve up a cornucopia of varied experiences while getting to play with players from all skill levels mixed together. Gives one opportunities to both lord over inexperienced players and learn from highly skilled veterans (whether friend or foe).

Dedicated servers also allowed communities to form organically in game. In many games I tended to favor particular servers due to their administration or the culture it engendered. I joined many forums, communities, and clans (I still feel that is very unfortunate terminology) via dedicated servers I used to play on a lot. Since MMR took over I have found ZERO communities through games. Mostly just increased toxicity since it is just a bunch of randoms playing against other randoms with no sense of context or community.

I also found that dedicated servers with reliable, present, and consistent admins the cheating element was handled quite well. DaveLong is quite right to point out that the PC platform always has the most cheaters, but I feel they have prospered during the times of blind algorithmic matchmaking. Dedicated servers with active admins were quite adept at kicking/banning players with obvious cheat/hacks (I know that was imperfect and biased).

I will go yell at some clouds now.

The above is a very good post.

The other thing about heavy handed matchmaking is that good players end up in matches where it feels like one wrong decision is instant death and to play well, you have to constantly be at a Pro level of play.

Warzone is there now. Streamers often comment on their matches being CDL level affairs (Call of Duty League) and eventually you can’t maintain that or it just forces you into playing the meta weapons and ONLY the meta weapons, which again sucks out a lot of the variety and in turn, also the fun.

I’m in a similar boat with a gaudy (haha!) 1.12 KD as my calling card. If I play Solo games, I have to be 100% on it 100% of the time because even with a lobby where my highest opponent is like a 1.5 or so, I’m dead meat unless I play all the meta ways.

So yeah, that’s just one more reason I’m hoping for more of a server approach with DICE controlled servers for BF6. I like how BF1 and V handle all that. I’m totally ok with that not changing even if higher player counts and level destruction, etc. are added in a modern setting. Yeah, some guns may be a bit meta in Battlefield too, but it never feels as overwhelmingly important because player skill is much more diverse.

I read this and I gotta think Xbone and PS4 are out.

We’re in daily playtesting mode right now: polishing, balancing, and making the best possible Battlefield game we can. I can tell you it is a bold step. It has everything we love about Battlefield – and takes all of it to the next level. Epic scale. All-out military warfare. Crazy, unexpected moments. Game-changing destruction. Massive battles, packed with more players and mayhem than ever before. All brought to life with the power of next-gen consoles and PCs.

Never mind old timers! You still have your hula hoops and such :)

LOL! Actually the last Battlefield game THIS old timer played the heck out of was Bad Company 2. I don’t like playing coop with strangers, and my run and gun reflexes aren’t what they used to be. So my brother and I played a two man sniper team. However, we didn’t just hang back and pick off random targets, we worked hard to help other teams take and hold flags. Obviously countersniping, but we would find hides extremely close to a flag, close enough the other side would never thing to look for a sniper where we were, and we’d mark and spot non-stop as well as cover other squads’ backs and help with offense and defense. We even had squads ask us to join them because they liked what we were doing.

I think I tried through Battlefield 4 but just never could quite get into the changes.

Bad Company 2 was the last one I really spent a lot of time with as well. I played BF3 and BF4 and they were okay, but didn’t really grab me. Haven’t touched either BF1 or 5.

I think the series peaked at Battlefield 2 and 2142, for me.

Battlefield 1 is probably the best game they’ve ever done and when 4 was finally all fixed up, it became the best Modern combat one.

You old fuddy duddies can play BF4 right now on Steam for $10. Shake off all the rust.

BF6 is going to be massive this fall unless they eff it all up and I think they learned enough from V not to do that.

Also, PS4 and Xbox One are out.

I always wonder how much is nostalgia and how much is reality, but I was completely immersed in BF1 and played it pretty non-stop for a long time. I loved the simplicity of it. I still have vivid memories of various fights and situations in that game.

I think BF4 forced you to be in a squad, right? I seem to enjoy WWII settings more than modern, but I did enjoy BF4, even though I prefer not to be forced to be teamed up with strangers. But I didn’t enjoy it enough to play very long at all.

Battefield 1 is a very recent game. Not sure why you’re bringing nostalgia into it. On the other hand, I’m kind of nostalgic for a Chipotle bowl I had last week, so you might have a point.

But it’s also possible you’re thinking of Battlefield 1942? Maybe?

Like sports games, I’m always sad at the fragmented and disappearing player base whenever a new one comes out.

Oh duh, you are correct! Battlefield 1 just registered in my brain as the first Battlefield. Yes, I was talking about 1942. (us old guys keep forgetting to take our memory boosting meds.)

You mean in the prior games because everyone moves on to the next one?

Yes and some of this is aggravated by lack of peer-to-peer or player-run servers being available. 4 had paid servers only but I haven’t been following what 1 and V did.

If you play 1 or V on consoles, there is a large and active playerbase on DICE servers. They also have the ability to run player controlled game modes but those only last as long as the player who starts it is playing.

That said, you can easily find good games and no cheaters that need banning.

I have never dabbled in PC BF1 but have played BFV some there but not lately. I am sure there’s an active group of players though. JackFrags does new videos with PC footage captured a day or two before the video appears. He’s had BF4, BF3 and even Bad Company lately too.

DICE has a reputation for pushing tech and that’s what is really exciting to me with this next game. Not only is it just plain time for modern combat again in Battlefield, it is time for it to look, sound and feel fresh again with lots of detail they couldn’t do in Frostbite 3.

All that said, I think it’s inevitable that old games will lose players, but with Battlefield, the old games are still being played regularly. I was in BF4 PC the last two nights having a blast.

Maybe they served in the trenches?

BF1 was released in 2016. It’s five years old. Not that recent. :)

But WWI started in 1914.

BF1 is a great game all around, with some amazing maps and some really good dynamics on the battlefield. Even the solo stuff is ok.