No Server Browser in Battlefield 2042, DICE Explains Why...

[@hank3634]

They are scared to add server browser because they know it will show actual player base numbers

[@-UnchartedSky-]

I don't think that's the case. U can check the steam community player charts at any moment and see how few/many people are playing.

[@Gitsenberg]

Portal already does show its player numbers tho 💀💀💀

[@barryblocker2972]

@@-UnchartedSky- Those are only players launching the game through Steam. There are wayyyyyyyy more people playing than those stats.

[@tommygun6866]

@@barryblocker2972 Is the game any better on the other distribution platforms? lol

[@Chrisket]

Battlefield without a server browser is like taking the cheese off a burger. It definitely still works, but it shouldn't be acceptable. Another blow to my trust in dice, sure most people feel this way.

[@biznichin13]

I get the analogy, but there's plenty of people who don't like cheese on their burgers lmao

[@John-wy3jn]

Burga

[@Chrisket]

@@biznichin13 false, there are no such people

[@graceface418]

100%

[@GFE.]

@@Chrisket there is i meet some huh but i would have said a burger without bread

[@MechaMan2012]

Way back when, servers were more than just a way to reliably find a game mode you liked; there were also a way for a clan and community to establish a stomping ground where you could hop in and out of casually and also for new players to stop by and check things out. It seems like a lot of modern games are trying to do away with that, which is a shame. True, it required the community a lot of times to directly foot the bill for the server costs, but I'd argue the quality of the community was the better for it.

[@sleepyfatmonk]

I think I agree and I've had some great times on some great servers. But I've also had loads of times where I've joined with teammates who are newer or worse at the game and just spend the entire match getting bodied by high rankers who hate SBMM and want to crush some noobs that have just started (sbmm has the inverse problem when I've been playing a lot and my friends join and they get trashed by people who've played about as much as I have or slightly less as the matchmaking averages us out)

[@squashiejoshie200000]

That's exactly what the persistent servers that they are adding for portal is for.

[@KA-vs7nl]

​@@sleepyfatmonk who cares. Sbmm would destroy battlefield with everyone using the same crap.

[@LordCinn]

oh yeah, all the older games had im guessing BILLIONS of "entry points" and still ran well.

[@ImPoStier]

More like trillions 🤥

[@crowdedboss8399]

There is no excuse for no Server Browser. I'm tired of trying to Matchmake into Conquest only having to wait 5 minutes for the server to fill up for the game to start.

[@ChiefChokeAHoe]

You’re right. They don’t care enough to put the effort in because they know the game won’t come back. Yeah it can be fun now after updates but it’ll never get as big as it could’ve been. Hence, effort will be put into the next title that they’re already working on. Will it be good and have what battlefield games are expected to come with? Ha, who knows.

[@JustAFallingStar]

Have you tried Server Browser within Portal?

[@bl33zy52]

@@JustAFallingStar it can be good at times, but most of the time it's filled with hardcore modes that most people don't care for, also a lot of servers don't pop up at times even if they're up

[@sleepyfatmonk]

Is that region based? in the EU I'm in pretty much instantly after work. If your region has fewer players, wouldn't you have similar problems with a server browser? Either empty servers or one server that's populated with a long queue and no other available servers with a reasonable ping?

[@Bigcat726]

Not having a server browser is just a huge slap 👋 on the face

[@jacobfaulk3465]

Would love to see helis separated from jets. There’s little to no dogfighting ever going on in 2042 because most people go for helis when faced with the choice.

[@mr.r1178]

Completely agree

[@dazayit]

planes are dog shit, that's why

[@vontak59]

Agreed… I would love to see a dog fight every now n then

[@bobdarrick2628]

Absolutely disagree. Unless it’s a separate game mode for vehicular Warfare. Vehicles are so annoying and actually overpowered against infantry. There’s not much you can do. It doesn’t taken skill from the people above (the air vehicles are worse for players since u can’t use C5 against them like u can against tanks obviously).

[@jacobfaulk3465]

@@bobdarrick2628 That sounds more like a case against helis in general. I don’t ever find myself being killed by jets as infantry, if you want to talk about nerfing helis that’s one thing, but an entire class of vehicles go unused because people have to choose between helis and jets. Let the jets have their dogfights, they don’t dominate infantry like they did in BFV and BF1.

[@thestørmcrier2024]

Server browsers and entry points didn’t seem to be an issue in prior games…sounds like a lot of bull. But I could be wrong

[@AndrewHillard1]

its 100% bull. they try to do rotation so things seem fresh every week and people will come back and play. And allowing server browsers would completely eliminate that aspect of their game plan. This game was made to be a fortnite type follow trends and sell you skins type of game. Its actually pretty fun now but i almost want to see it fail entirely just so it will hopefully shoot down the idea of doing it again in future games. server browsers are literally one of the main reasons I always loved bf games, can play whatever mode in whatever region and with as many players as you want. Total joke they arent adding it. And the "use portal" is an ignorant response considering they added 2 seasons worth of content and almost nothing to portal, theyre letting it die but using it as an excuse to why people shouldnt complain.

[@squashiejoshie200000]

It kinda was. I was always a fan of air superiority in bf4 and Hotwire in bfh. A few weeks into air superiority being released, it was almost impossible to find a server playing it. A few months into bfh's release and I was having trouble finding Hotwire matches. This was both on ps4 in NA. If you look at the game modes available in bf3 and bf4, there aren't really that many. Conquest, TDM, Rush, Domination in BF3. And in BF4, anything outside those game modes was hard to find, like air superiority or carrier assault. There were modified versions like hardcore as well, but hardcore versions also had significantly fewer players with mostly the infantry grind maps on repeat like locker and metro. Hardline had more modes too with Conquest, TDM, Domination, Hotwire, whatever that heist mode was called and I think a couple more. And the best use of the server browser was to just pick whichever lobby had the most people with the lowest ping that was playing the mode you wanted. On the other hand 2042 has 3 core modes now, Conquest, Breakthrough, and Rush. But all can be played in crossplay or non-crossplay, multiple map playlists, Conquest has multiple player count options, there is still portal with 2-4 primary modes per week. Instead of 4ish things to queue for, as they said, there's 10-15, and that's not including random portal experiences. Plus all the things that you used to do with the server browser, hosting community lobbies or modded lobbies or lobbies with restrictions, is all done via portal now. Literally the only thing a server browser would actually enable you to do would be to put you in queue or let you join a game in Japan from the US as fast as you would get put in a US game. An improvement to matchmaking that lets you put a focus on just getting into any game in progress as quickly as possible would even fix the issues people in lower population regions have, where they have trouble finding local games and need to play with other regions. The response to all of the server browser complaints has stayed constant for all of 2042's life, what about portal? it literally has a server browser that lets you pick the game mode you like. tl;dr there legit are a lot more entry points in 2042 and in bf4, it was already starting to become difficult to find the modes that people played less.

[@mrfoldmyshirt4404]

Well the previous titles also weren't as demanding as 2042.

[@thestørmcrier2024]

@@mrfoldmyshirt4404 demanding? In what way? The big open maps? The lack of content and coherency surely makes up for that and still leave a lot of room for other stuff

[@sdudigumi]

Imo server browser is a huge issue in previous games because of thinly the playerbase has been spread between five(!) battlefield games and countless DLCs. Online games with low player counts need a 'Play NOW' button and nothing else in order to even work.

[@DhruvKumar_DK]

Wow, so basically DICE is saying that 'Hey, we complicated the process of finding a match by forcing matchmaking down your throat, and now its gonna be a nightmare if we provide matchmaking for all kinds of modes, so we'll control what you play.' Did I sum it up correctly? If so, then how the hell did previous BFs manage MORE game modes? Surprise surprise - a frickin SERVER BROWSER! Classic example of creating a useless problem and offering a shitty solution...

[@squashiejoshie200000]

They didn't manage them effectively though. I can't even list all the modes in bf4 because there were some that I just literally never saw. I have over 300 combined hours and I have probably played less than 10 games of carrier assault, 0 scavenger, 0 defuse, 15-20 air superiority... The server browser wasn't as great as everyone makes it seem. It's best use to me was just finding a server with low ping and a decent number of players in less time than the matchmaker took. And matchmaking was really shit back then. Now, even at low times, I can find a game and be in game in under a minute, usually in under 30 seconds. Just as much time as it used to take to open the server browser, re-filter by number of players and ping, then pick a decent server and load in. If you want specially made modes, play portal. Portal has a server browser.

[@MrStrange1984]

I don't understand how Dice thinks. Just add a server browser so people can join through that if they want to and others can join directly through the quickjoin thing. Easy way to keep their playerbase happy.

[@StephenBailey87]

I don't think a server browser is at least necessary for All-Out-Warfare, but what is vital is having the ablity to stay on a persistent server that goes through a map rotation. I know I'm not the only one that is completely fed up with playing one of the maps five times out of ten - and boy do I wish that was an exaggeration.

[@GremlinSciences]

Stop pressing buttons when the round ends. The matches are persistent and will properly cycle through maps, but pressing buttons will pull you out of the match. Pressing 'cancel' (B on Xbox, X on PlayStation) will close the report and let you customize your loadouts, but pressing anything else will pull you out of the match and force you to start over. Spread the word too, the more people that heed it the more reliable it gets. As things currently stand, you sometimes get kicked back to the start because no one else in the match knows and the lobby empties out completely. As long as at least 1 other person stays it will try to refill the lobby and keep the match going, but the fewer people that are in the lobby the less likely it is that you'll get more players and it automatically disbands the match if there's only 1 person in the lobby.

[@StephenBailey87]

@@GremlinSciences I don't press buttons because I've heard about this before. I sit and wait

[@satamique]

Thanks i will try that!

[@barx]

The argument for a server browser is not that we want to play war pigeons. It's that we get to choose what we want, when we want, when it's available. Want to join your friends? Pick the server with the same ID as they're in. Don't want to play Hourglass for the 5th time today? Just join a different server. Really feeling Kaleidoscope? Pick a server that's running it. AOW only has three base modes, CQ, Breakthrough and Rush, so it's not like people are going to be searching for random modes like Frontlines. Especially when you already have the browser for the other half of the game. My guess is that there is some sort of technical limitation when it comes to the browser filtering between AOW servers and Portal servers, or they really just are that cynical about showing the player numbers. It's a joke, DICE.

[@steve081372]

NO SERVER BROWSERS = INFURIATING ANGER

[@homi1001]

Do you remember when Battlefield 4 had 33 maps and 15 gamemodes with all kinds of different configurations for "free slots", "game size", "type" (official, ranked, unranked, private) and Tickrate? We all still manage to find servers, even 9 years later.

[@PrasathMGM]

Server browser will not dismantle the lobby each time, will not cost more time in waiting to populate the lobby, and will not make me to play the same map again and again. whatever Dice wants to experiment, Do it with 2042 as it was a stupid game. But if the next BF didn't have server browser, it will die soon

[@saladv6069]

@QUAD849 2042 is doing well? Where have you been man?

[@christianjuen556]

20 years of Battlefield? What about a Portal Map for each decade?

[@zred3879]

It would be nice to have a server browser but it’s also the biggest problem I have with older BF games, where I can only find matches that are either completely empty or only on 2 maps

[@Dean_taylor_rc]

Is this why it's so hard to get a next gen Xbox server only?? Constantly stuck in crossplay lobbies is killing the game for me. Give us a console only featured mode let the console players actually play the game they paid for,

[@ChristianLutzYT]

Portal dosen't support breakthough, so Portal can't replace the missing server browser in AOW... It's just impossible to find a breakthough server on exposure, and the stranded breakthrough playlist is probably also gone next week, then there is no way to play the new maps...

[@hank3634]

Dice wanted Bf 2042 to be battle royal hence they didn't think of adding server browser

[@TheFuri0uswc]

Sever browser made playing with lads alot easier especially with smaller squad size and how how difficult playing squads are in this game

[@Lossy]

Oooh I like the new pfp!

[@TheFuri0uswc]

@@Lossy yeah it was made by AI of my youtube gaming channel pfp

[@JJDeAth96]

Honestly we should've gotten a Bad Company 2 player card since it's one of the portal games

[@jarekewertowski9108]

These are the same people who thought removing the scoreboard was an excellent idea. Give it a few more Seasons, and we will have it. On a side note, the DICE "creative/decision-making" person should not be in the PFS games industry. I guess all the creativity is now with the embark studio.

[@jamiecurnock2910]

So I assume these wait times are a problem on bf4, bf1 & bfv? I don't remember having any wait time issues via the server browser.

[@szymussmilitaryfreak]

When comparing 2042 with ANY CoD title, whole "entry points" argument makes DICE looking sooo incompetent. Bc in every CoD you have multitude of gamemodes plus many with hardcore variants.Only issue was drop of active players which made some of them unplayable. Yet cod devs still gives a lot on release, plus additional ones later.

[@chaimkobylinski1988]

they take and give. same as here. and though COD fan base is massive usually it drops extremly after couple of months. can't compare to games like bf4, being 10 year old and having massive player base

[@tuccerjim3084]

Not to mention that this was literally a non-issue in the past. DICE is just lazy

[@chaimkobylinski1988]

@@tuccerjim3084 nah, we had modes that you could not find any players

[@tuccerjim3084]

@@chaimkobylinski1988 I can even find servers for knock off SND from COD in BF4 in 2022 on XB1, I don’t think it is. Maybe if you live in areas like Oceania it might be an issue, but for NA/EU it’s fine.

[@chaimkobylinski1988]

@@tuccerjim3084 every week there are 6 new or returning modes in Portal, plus Rush/Conquest/Breakthrough/HZ , plus many portal servers. I prefer to try something new and it will be very popular DICE will bring it back or you can always start server for it on Portal.

[@BlackMage11]

To me, a server browser is only one component of the issue. If I have more than three friends online, we can't play together. With a server browser, I read off the name of the server, and they're in. Could this be fixed by allowing larger parties? Sure, but it could also be fixed with a server browser. The persistence of matchmade servers is not clearly communicated to players, so when a round is over, I would wager that most people exit to the menu and requeue, which causes people to sometimes get the same map again, a big complaint about the current state of the matchmaking system. A server browser backed with persistent servers means a reliable rotation. I can (or should be able to) see the status of a round in a server browser, so if the game is about to end, I'm not going to join that server. I think a Battlefield came could get away with not having a server browser, but it has to have detailed matchmaking preferences that mimic it's functionality so no one is left thinking they should have it. Get rid of all the "entrypoints". Leave the portal browser for custom experiences. Have a master matchmaker, and allow me to ban maps, ban modes, ban servers below certain ticket/progression thresholds (no servers with a team below 25% tickets or on the final sector of Breakthrough/Rush). These are just some ideas, but if you want people to prefer the matchmaker, then you have to let them choose exactly what they want. People aren't stupid, they know if you are too selective your queue time will suffer.

[@squashiejoshie200000]

The server browser and persistent servers are portal only. AOW servers aren't persistent and force all players back to the menu between games. I do agree with matchmaking filtering though.

[@steve081372]

NO SERVER BROWSERS = CONTINUAL REGRESSION AND BAD DECISION MAKING! proof DICE management does not understand the player perspective. Out of touch and leadership

[@lordteapot9740]

>buy battlefield 2042 >see it has no server browser >see forced matchmaking >see no ability to make a community >uninstall battlefield 2042 >request refund >refund denied >tell credit card company it was fraud >refund processed nice try dice

[@floschuller]

My Opinion on Server Browser in AOW: It is not needed if DICE would provide permanent servers to the community via Portal and would add breakthrough in Portal. In the end, that would be exactly what was previously known as RSP. But instead there are only the servers that disappear as soon as no player plays on them, which of course happens at night and the next afternoon/evening you can't find the server because the person who created the server doesn't have time. Portal is the solution, but Portal doesn't offer all the features it needs or the one crucial feature it needs.

[@fishrowe420]

But isn't it supposed to populate an empty server with bots? Why do I sit in a game menu waiting for additional players? Shouldn't they just replace the bots as they join the server?

[@darshanags]

I don't care about having all modes playable, all the time in AoW. I'd be happy with Conquest, Breakthrough, and Rush. My argument for a server browser is for regions where there little or no players in one or many game modes. Here in Asia, normal breakthrough, rush, and chainlink conquest (when it was there) is dead. If I had the option to play on an active server in a different region which has acceptable ping, I would. But with MM, I can't do that. The developers refuse to acknowledge this - I guess if it doesn’t affect them, it’s not a problem.

[@BuffaloSpring]

I miss having a server browser😪 But no, I'd rather join a Discarded game that's almost over, have my game end, watch 30 seconds of cutscenes so we can see who threw the most throwables, then have my lobby disbanded, look at some meaningless and unsatisfying stats, go through a loading screen, be forced to look at my Battlepass progression, then hit the play button, queue up for another Discarded game (sadge), go through another loading screen, finally join and see that it's almost over again. Remember when game's weren't like this? I am salty. I miss Battlefield so much :(

[@Torbis]

oh hey thats me at 5:39

[@graceface418]

It gets old fast getting stuck into the same 3 maps over & over, or loading into a match just in time to lose the round and be stuck matchmaking again. If at least we had persistent servers for CQ it might be possible to experience map rotation and build community with the other gamers in the lobby. I made almost every gamer friend I have playing random matches of Battlefield & yet this game makes me feel so isolated from my team. It feels like they're doing everything they can to kill the community of the franchise at EA. I have lost all faith in Battlefield and it kills me to say it. No server browser is just another nail in the coffin

[@Arthurious521]

Theres also another skin from the bp that also covers better than default skin. While the skins doesn't exactly blocks bullets, it's still more advantagous(only slightly especially aginst snipers) by concealing the occupants, like a smoke grenade.

[@Tuhoeterra]

I'm in OCE/Australian region and we need server browser just to play any game mode in AOW. i would rather join a server through browser with good pop instead or having to cycle through multiple server waiting rooms. Unless you're playing in NA or Europe server pop and ping really does matter and the current matchmaking system doesn't do a good job addressing this issue.

[@jbeers1234]

You are mixing together 2 separate concepts 1) server browser and 2) game mode selection. In previous games, you couldn’t start a new game of ear pigeons from the browser, you had to do that from the selection screen. If 3042, there is both a limited selection screen AND no server browser. Giving us a server browser, but keeping a rotational selection screen wouldn’t solve the issue. At the end of the day, there prob aren’t enough active players to have ALL the modes avail all the time, but we should still have a browser.

[@gervanwilliams1409]

Nonsense to Dice’s response about server browsers. Just look at BF4 and BF1. It worked before!! As BF2042 currently stands, I can only enjoy the game when my favorite modes rotates back around. More than 90% of the time I don’t even log in because I don’t like the meds in rotation. Rush XL is a favorite of mine, but I rarely catch it when it’s around. I managed to utilize this game only 25-30% of the time I’m interested in playing. This is ridiculous, and a waste of my money.

[@StunneR_vx]

I love the vehicle category rework idea but they also need to balance vehicle weapons!

[@Punggles]

They act like this is some insurmountable issue when every single Battlefield already solved these problems. Theres no reason it can't contain featured matchmaking modes AND a server browser exactly like Battlefield V did.

[@nicholaschristian1784]

Skill based matchmaking is why most shooters are moving away from server browsers and more disbanding of lobbies unfortunately.

[@IanLesiuk]

Fu¢k skill based matchmaking

[@Kid574]

The saying goes "If it ain't broken don't fix it" yet DICE keeps on fixing what isn't broken with each iteration of the game and keeps failing at it. They should only listen to what players (arguably those who pay their studios and keeps their games around) want... I know a good part of the blame has to go on EA's business model but DICE also has its part of the blame

[@ToddCopeland]

Come on... we know the TRUTH. If DICE were to keep all the different play modes we all know none of them would have enough people give the abysmal player count playing this game. This is DICE's way of corralling what people are playing into smaller pens so that the games are playable. Seriously, DICE wants us to think their servers could be "over-loaded" running a few extra modes? What a bunch of BS. I'm STILL confused how DICE can devote ANYONE to making things like cards, skins, dog tags, crap to hang off a gun, etc. when they should be devoting those people to providing REAL content.

[@SATTY5611]

Not many games last 20+ years DICE should do something good

[@BornInArona]

Portal needs to have a ranking for the top 10 servers, which will stay online 24/7 as long as they are top 10 rated!

[@nish1732]

I’d love a server browser because where I’m from there aren’t enough players to play on ps5 servers only. And there’s no console only cross play option so I’m forced to play with pc players all the time. And it’s a clear and obvious disadvantage. If there were server browsers I’m sure I’d be able to get more matches of just ps5 players

[@biznichin13]

Being forced to play the same 3 game modes hoping for a good one to get rotated in VS Having all game modes available with a server browser at the cost of a few dead niche ones like War Pigeons. It's not even a contest.

[@anaximander66]

Great and thoughtful video Lossy! I think the biggest loss for the series by departing from browsers is community building. I came for the gameplay but stayed because of the community. SBMM makes this nearly impossible. Only in Battlefield have I been able to make friends because we can all easily play together. Heck the platoon element is lost now because there is no point without a browser. It might be a good financial decision but I think they are just following trends rather than setting them. Why not embrace the uniqueness of the series including the browser? They would at least make more money than the series had in the past. This is just another bad decision commiserate with the other bad decisions they have made.

[@dmoocow8147]

I thought the reason of no server browser was that Dice didn't want people to realise how empty servers actually are. If they have the "All out War" server under wraps, they can funnel all peoples into one place.

[@CaptainRuggels]

Once again, nice video Lossy. I agree with you, server browsers would solve a lot of issues.

[@theottospocket998]

Another great video and another self inflicted wound by DICE to not have server browser with persistent servers. ✌️

[@mataigassai]

I live in Chile, i've played since Battlefield Heroes, a lot of b2-3-4-hl-1-5 and i've been happy because since 4 i think, there was server browser, here, in my country we have like 300 of ping to NA, and EU like 500, and so... We have like 3 servers with people from Brazil, Argentina and Chile - 128 each one. BUT i can't play rotative modes or harzard zone, because there is no one playing. And you can say, well that isn't a big thing. WELL, we CAN'T play AOW because when you click "search", you will stay 30 minutes in an empty lobby. I love portal for it's server browser and more things. But what about the "mainline"?

[@agnostic2111]

Becouse "entry points" I guess.

[@AceWolf2009]

Hell, they have had server browsers sense 1942 launched. This is the first mainline title that hasn't had that. Course...this is also the first mainline title that hasn't had much of anything that makes Battlefield....Battlefield..

[@mataigassai]

@@AceWolf2009 and you're right, it feels like "another game", it lacks of content, now we can say that feels near to a recently released game, but without that big amounts of content that we used to have.

[@AceWolf2009]

@@mataigassai As I have said sense launch. If they would have given this its own IP and not use the Battlefield name, they might have gotten away with the weirdness of certain key, foundational features and components missing. BUT adding that Battlefield name to the game came with certain expectations, expectations that were and still aren't met. Server browser, persistent servers, an actual fully functional class system along with a fully functional faction system, a working squad mechanic, so you can squad up with your friends, etc, etc. This just doesn't look or feel much like a Battlefield game. Along with said mentions, they didn't even get the vehicles right. The vehicles seem to be trying to be and do everything...thus no real distinguations between vehicles and vehicle classes. They should have used BF4 in 5s vehicle classes and just kept it like that.

[@chip1486]

Look man, I get it. I suppose the majority of people that played the Refractor engine games (and even BF Hardline) are seasoned veterans to the franchise and not in the majority anymore. But as someone who’s played almost every Battlefield, I’d love to see more player cards from the older or less known games (Vietnam, BF 2, Hardline, etc).

[@waterbender7978]

Here is the thing why a server browser would be hell to implement. We all know that once a game starts to get a fan base other people in that fanbase or outside that fanbase try to create their own game that is like that game. Battlefield has so many games like this. For example, games that are like battlefield, on the top of my head, are Squad, Arma Reforger, WW3, etc. There are way too many games resembling Battlefield and the only reason why these games have server browsers is because they have emphasized clan base servers. If you want to get into a game you would have to join a clan server and that doesn’t guarantee a good time. I have joined Squad and Arma servers and with my experience one time the server is full and very fun to play while at another time it is dead and barren waiting in queue for people to get on. To have fun on these games you would have to literally be detecated to that server long enough to find its schedule and clan event times. In my opinion I would rather just hop into a game with people that have to do research on a clan just to have fun. Battlefield for a bit of time now has strayed away from clans because the community has strayed away from clans. If you want a server browser the community is going to have to make the change from every day play to clan play so that Battlefield clan change server matchmaking to server browser.

[@jay1537]

We need a server browser for AOW especially for players in low population regions.

[@lando_uk]

I thought this about the new vehicle skin, but when i checked, there's a few others that have the back window blocked out too.

[@techagek]

Best thing they could do is promote Portal as the front-end of the game rather than AoW, then utilise preset modes that reflect the exact experiences as AoW. Throughout time AoW becomes less popular, but at that point could be refreshed in to an integrated part of Portal. Portal essentially becomes the primary experience that everyone uses when they launch the game. The issue with the LATV4 skin is that while it can be shot through from one side to the other, new players to the game or players that simply do not know, won't know they they can shoot through it. That's my issue with so many parts of 2042, it requires myth busting or explanations outside of the game in order to understand. Otherwise it's just the possibility of stumbling across that you can shoot through it when attempting it or if you get a lucky kill from behind some time. This is just one example, but there are plenty of other things throughout 2042 that require either myth busting or outside-of-the-game explanations. That's just bad design.

[@BF4NTOM]

5:08 I created a few player cards for the rest of the games, you can check them on my Twitter account. Hopefully, DICE will launch official images for the rest of the games as well, as many BF players feel left out.

[@satsu3098]

"Yes you bought the game but we will be deciding what you actually get to play, sorry" YOU WOT. HOW IS THIS BEING ALLOWED BY ANYBODY

[@JEPR-od3pm]

Saying throw up a portal server is fine for the more different modes but 64 player conquest should always be an option in AOW. Also it’s really hard to fill portal as AI get rid of XP but no one wants to play completely alone while it fills

[@WhatDoITypeHere]

With regards to Server Browser, how come the additional “entry points” aren’t an issue for previous titles? There was still a “matchmaking” and they were Official DICE servers. Not like a BF2042/Custom Portal separation

[@lando_uk]

Maps in 2042 aren't on a set rotation, there's probably a technical reason why a server browser doesn't work for the current matchmaking code where you get a random new map after each game. They probably can't be arsed or don't have the resources to make a new matchmaking system.

[@louisbrink9828]

I'm in South Africa and have not been able to find a match in AOW since the start of January simply because there is not enough players online in my region to start a match. So I have to rely on playing with friends from different countries but time zone differences is a issue. Also i have to use portal if i want to play conquest or rush with ping from 200-350 bc of the different regions. A server browser is needed for conquest and breakthrough as a basis. If not at least let the game search for a match in the next available region bc currently it only searches in your region.

[@theNightFuryfan95]

IDK how they can argue that you can create the same game mode you want with FULL XP in portal with the odds of people joining and it staying up are super slim. The only way to get some action is to have AI help get things going but then you can't get full xp anymore. I wish they kept their promise on being able to play with AI with full xp offline. Not all of us are competitive or cheaters, we just want to play the game OUR WAY like Portal was promised....and I'll always miss the server browser and persistent servers. I can only hope the vehicle category rework is good....as in no more categories. Or at least separate heli space from jets...and more than 1 at a time for 128 player mode. Plus dedicated tank/AA availability at one time. People taking two tanks or a bolte is dumb if thats the limit.

[@nohud6233]

Bcuz it was designed to be a BR originally. In a BR you wouldn't need squad management, persistent servers or server browser.

[@JayCord00]

A better matchmaking would be great , i keep being put with the worst players , its not to trash others but sometimes seeing the scores of other players and the tickets numbers going down fast is depressing after 3-4 games....

[@serwalkerofthekeynes8761]

I literally have to sit and "search" by waiting for a game to be found, then left thumbstick to cancel if its not what I was feeling.

[@TheBorgey]

I'm really surprised that DICE didn't learn from Battlefield V's problems that not having a server browser made. Same as the lack of rent-a-server's. People want that sense of community, this drop in system makes that nearly impossible. It'll never feel like the good old games simply because it's rng as to when you come across other players outside of your friend group that you get along with.

[@OlderThanAverageGamer]

The main issue here is the portal servers are generally speaking garbage right now. 80% are XP farms or AI based game modes and while I enjoy Hardcore, at least 10-15% of the remaining servers fall into that sphere. With double or triple tickets. If you really think about it logically, an official game server NOW might be more important and useful than it ever was precisely because Portal hasn't yet produced the kind of large scale player interaction that DICE hoped for.

[@terrywhitaker4393]

Bring back enemy chat smh

[@fiveironkrabski9862]

It's a shame the developers don't return to the approach of the Refractor error. As a veteran since 1942, I accepted BF3 as the new age but the game just has not been the same. I truthfully miss the old rendering distance limitations which essentially limited your view distance to 200 feet. It allowed the game to feel larger without actually being large. And it prevented snipers and vehicles from dominating. Darn shame.

[@BF4NTOM]

Glad you liked the vehicle category rework. It may not be the best, but this is how I see it to work best, especially if the weapons/health of some vehicle would be adjusted.

[@tuliosilvestre7891]

Honestly there is any diference between the portal servers and the all out warfare? i just need some explanation because i really dont get what they did in macth making.

[@AceWolf2009]

For the vehicle category shuffle. There is no reason to reinvent the wheel here. Just take what BF4 had...there...solved. I would go a step forward and take some weapon systems off of certain vehicles, just to further differentiate them from other vehicle and also to give a bigger understanding of their roles. Like the little bird, keep the guns, give them guided missiles but take away the rocket pods. The little bird is suppose to be a scout helo...not an attack helo. Furthermore the transport helicopters should only have guns not rocket pods or missiles or whatever...just guns. They could have several ' two door gunners and a tail gunner as an example ' they could also have mini guns or 50s or whatever their country's equivalent... Same for ground vehicles. Not every vehicle needs to be on equal footing with each other. Some should just have a mounted machine or mini gun or whatever. Not everything needs a 30 or 40 mm gun on them. Keep that for the LAV type vehicles. Scout vehicles should have scouting stuff on them, like a spotting camera or a soflam like device to tag and lock onto enemy vehicles but should only have some sort of machine gun on them, to further tell the user that this vehicle is best unseen...because it will not stand up in a fight... As for server browsers, I feel that is just a cop out. They could still do these rotating modes and still have a browser, that way players could still look through the available servers to find the best one for their area, instead of letting luck choose for them. Sure, we use it to find a preferred mode but we also use it to find servers that are close to our area for the best ping and the most players actually in it.

[@Tuhoeterra]

i feel like ground vehicles have to many crew positions. They should revert to BF4 layout and for goodness sakes can we get APS and thermal/IR sights.

[@AceWolf2009]

@@Tuhoeterra Even BFV layout would be better. I get some vehicles having room for more people, like transport helicopters or transport ground vehicles, even LAVs can carry a squad of soldiers and have a few crew but again, not every vehicle needs to hold x amount of people.

[@Sinistriz]

This whole "oh this skin is p2w, oh this skin is p2w, and this skin is also p2w"... sooo annoying, people have no idea what they talk about, they just like to complain about everything as much as possible... great video lossy, thanks!

[@Tonsured]

The maps in BF 2042 are not that great - Only a few. Without a server browser you usually can only get in 1 map. If you don't want to play the map, in that gamemode, you out of luck! Then you maybe play another mode, or keep trying to matchmaker for a decent map. After a while, you just quit the game instead. That's how i feel. Without a server browser, i quit the game more than I am playing it because of that.

[@BigDavos]

If you have seen the movie “Idiocracy” then you should be very nervous because we are living in the beginning of the transition to a stupid society. You mean to tell me Dice devs cant figure out how to make it possible to play all modes in 2022? Man cmon…

[@KidConiferous]

There isn’t enough people playing to split everyone up. Literally as simple as that

[@mattthemightymeme]

As a South African, this is very frustrating as I have to wait longggg minutes in a queue in the hopes to find a game. Yes the server browser works in Portal, but it limits the games that are available. I hope they change their mind in the future as I started playing the game more now, because of updates. The reasoning behind it is just stupid, and seems lazy…

[@anderson92]

I don't see what the big deal is, once persistent portal servers are up, that will just become the server browser won't it? I already pretty much exclusively play on portal servers because of their custom player counts

[@MxIxTxC]

Jets should be moved to their own vehicle type, each team should then have 2 attack helicopters and 2 transport. Move the new vehicle and bolt e into the same class. Yes this would result in more vehicles on the battlefield but should also result in more vehicles focusing on each other rather than infantry. Essentially what I have in mind would allow each team to have a counter to what the enemy team is using.

[@chaimkobylinski1988]

jets should be a counter to hellis, but nobody is taking them

[@fidelgames]

They don’t have to add server browser but at least add the option of map/mode voting at the end like in bf1

[@Bricksandgamesstudio]

I still don't get how portal isn't the exact same as a server browser

[@derv1sh135]

This is such a frustrating catch 22, people get fed up with waiting for a game cause no server browser to find viable modes and quit, Dice won’t add browser cause it’ll show how few people are playing

[@chaimkobylinski1988]

I am main jet pilot and must say that jets right now are extremely boring and unsatisfying. Separating them from helis and buffing guns vs infantry or adding 3rd type of gun against infantry should be a no brainer

[@smmikeman]

So we were able to have 100’s of entry point with a server browsers in past games… but I guess we just don’t have the technology anymore. I’m not buying that.

[@alvo6100]

No server browser in australia means , matchmaking dies about a week after new map release . portal also here are just a few low ping servers and are all 1000% hardcore etc, so not same as regular conquest, etc. now we wait for next map release to play consistently for about a week, then dead again. no moore money for EA or Dice

[@rareham3992]

I really liked the myth busting you did at the end lossy. I’m not just saying that because I’m in it I swear🐸

[@harrysherrard8732]

Im so pissed off from waiting for a game to fill players then just being kicked out because it takes too long.

[@jayj7418]

Obviously bs excuses made my dice,once again.

[@jeraldehlert7903]

I think persistant portal servers will bring back the sense of community this game has always had.

[@jeraldehlert7903]

Oh, also I've been a fan of the franchise since 1942

[@alexgrenlie862]

Having different modes is just lazy design instead of having more maps. While the game has improved substantially since launch and I do play it and enjoy it I don't think they're gonna suddenly add 4 new maps because that involves actual work. Even the recent patches haven't fixed maps that are poorly designed and broken like all the camping that happens on kaleidoscope for example

[@rickd6914]

I think Breakthrough being added to Portal would see me using Portal vs AOW. I'm not a fan of Conquest in 2042 because the maps are just too big. I only enjoy the Exodus maps in the Conquest mode.

[@petrushall]

How do i iknow if am playing on europ server or asia....? sometimes it feels like iam playing on server at moon..

[@MS-wz9jm]

If only we could go back to the battlelog server browser. Great server browser UI, filters etc. Moving away from it was a terrible decision.

[@DigitalinDaniel]

I've said it many times, I think they should just remove all game-modes except Conquest... to keep everyone together, and focus on making large "Conquest 64 player" size experiences unique to each map... make maps that have lots of aircraft and aerial-flags to capture, maps that are infantry only, long-noodley-maps that feel like Rush/Breakthrough. You can make Conquest feel like anything and keep everyone together on full servers... They have always done this thing where they try to make maps suite game-modes that they weren't made for and it seems like such a waste of time and fun. This access to any vehicle also sucks, make maps that only have helicopters... or only have humvees... Make maps that are era-restricted, let players jump across the ages a WW2 experience one map, and a BF2142 experience the next, why is Portal even separate from the main game?

[@shawnyscore6988]

In regards of exodus conquest. Battle of the bulge should absolutely be there. Its a great map. Beautiful and plays well. On next gen I would rather have a full time flashback conquest mode. I really do preferer the 128 player version of the base maps. Why not make conquest 64 and conquest 128. With all portal maps included. Stranded was made smaller and is the same size for both 64 and 128. I prefer 128 on stranded as well. Im sure 128 players would make the portal maps so chaotic and fun. It works for Rush Choas. The layout of the base maps for 64 players is sometimes nonsense. Im looking at you Kaleidescope and discarded! Sever browser would be great but it wouldn't be my #1 on my wishlist

[@lk3njil]

The thing they need to do in my opinion is to add Breakthrough and persistance server in portal.

[@Lossy]

Yes!!!

[@manimal_prime5665]

The lack of a basic server browser in the core mode of 2042 has broken this game for me. You can't play with any more than three of your friends and you are auto queued into the same map maaaaaany times in 2042's current match making system. DICE loves to throw portal around as an alternative to what is ailing AoW, but that rings hollow if no one joins your portal server because most of the player base is in AoW. There is no excuse for not having a server browser and this will continue to frustrate the player base and further turn them off from this title. It's a shame because this franchise used to be about supporting the micro communities that propped it up for so long and now those communities are just afterthoughts and in some cases, purposefully placed to the side in favor of trying to cater to the casual player base.

[@marciNekel_]

Real reason for lack of server browser is small amount of servers. But they had to come up with some explanation.

[@chaimkobylinski1988]

nah, only on steam you have 10k players and there is crossplay this time. there are plenty of servers