Dodgy servers
Want to know if people are having trouble playing the game atm, trying to play ranked here and I keep ending on bad servers that make me lag out of existence. My ping is fine, I checked if I joined w...
Forum Discussion
@Daze623 I'm not defending the system, but so far it's the most acceptable compromise for this type of game. Over time, other ways have been proven unfair to some players, easier to exploit or circumvent, unsustainable for a long period or unviable financially.
So, you think it would be easier for a player to choose from a list of hundreds or thousands of IPs, that is updated every few seconds, with addresses constantly added, removed or rearranged, and often to have the connection refused because that one server got filled in the meantime. OK...
Server list is always sorted by ping, it's by far the most relevant and efficient thing to use. But it's just not the ping to the client, it's most probably the lowest ping to the lobby server that client is connected to. When the game starts, the lobby server passes the clients to the game server and I think here the routing comes into play. For example, if a player is 20ms from the lobby server and that lobby server is 10ms from the game server, that player most probably won't be 30ms from the game server. If routing is favorable, he'll can get less than 20ms, but otherwise 100-300ms can happen. At this point, it's too late to cut out the players that have considerable lag, because the new match is already initiated. By the way, I think this moment when the players connect to the game is where we sometimes lose some of the teammates, as their connection to the game server timeouts (bad or unstable routing to that game server).
Still, the game can be enjoyable even at 150ms ping, you can find many examples from streamers. A constant ping doesn't cause rubberbanding or stuttering, it's the instability that causes those. For the game to be kept smooth, there is network buffering applied, but too much instability can mess it up badly and the result is hits not registering, receiving too many bullets at once, teleportation, stuttering, sometimes leading up to errors that break the game (physics errors, game logic ,etc.).
What can I say, keep being vocal, take it out on others that have different opinions and refer to hard working people with disrespect. It does work in politics...
So, you think it would be easier for a player to choose from a list of hundreds or thousands of IPs, that is updated every few seconds, with addresses constantly added, removed or rearranged, and often to have the connection refused because that one server got filled in the meantime. OK...
Server list is always sorted by ping, it's by far the most relevant and efficient thing to use. But it's just not the ping to the client, it's most probably the lowest ping to the lobby server that client is connected to. When the game starts, the lobby server passes the clients to the game server and I think here the routing comes into play. For example, if a player is 20ms from the lobby server and that lobby server is 10ms from the game server, that player most probably won't be 30ms from the game server. If routing is favorable, he'll can get less than 20ms, but otherwise 100-300ms can happen. At this point, it's too late to cut out the players that have considerable lag, because the new match is already initiated. By the way, I think this moment when the players connect to the game is where we sometimes lose some of the teammates, as their connection to the game server timeouts (bad or unstable routing to that game server).
Still, the game can be enjoyable even at 150ms ping, you can find many examples from streamers. A constant ping doesn't cause rubberbanding or stuttering, it's the instability that causes those. For the game to be kept smooth, there is network buffering applied, but too much instability can mess it up badly and the result is hits not registering, receiving too many bullets at once, teleportation, stuttering, sometimes leading up to errors that break the game (physics errors, game logic ,etc.).
What can I say, keep being vocal, take it out on others that have different opinions and refer to hard working people with disrespect. It does work in politics...
@DoYaSeeMe "Over time, other ways have been proven unfair to some players, easier to exploit or circumvent, unsustainable for a long period or unviable financially."
Proof on this claim?
"So, you think it would be easier for a player to choose from a list of hundreds or thousands of IPs, that is updated every few seconds, with addresses constantly added, removed or rearranged, and often to have the connection refused because that one server got filled in the meantime. OK..."
If they do it properly, yes.
"Still, the game can be enjoyable even at 150ms ping, you can find many examples from streamers. "
Maybe for you and those streamers. I hate playing games with high ping.And like I said I know what causes lag spikes so please stop treating me like an idiot.
"What can I say, keep being vocal, take it out on others that have different opinions and refer to hard working people with disrespect. It does work in politics... "
Take out on others? I never once personally attacked you so how do you feel like someone is taking it out on you?
This is the same system that they released the game with. For 7 seasons and almost 2 years there's no improvement to it, yeah I guess they are "hard working".
Proof on this claim?
"So, you think it would be easier for a player to choose from a list of hundreds or thousands of IPs, that is updated every few seconds, with addresses constantly added, removed or rearranged, and often to have the connection refused because that one server got filled in the meantime. OK..."
If they do it properly, yes.
"Still, the game can be enjoyable even at 150ms ping, you can find many examples from streamers. "
Maybe for you and those streamers. I hate playing games with high ping.And like I said I know what causes lag spikes so please stop treating me like an idiot.
"What can I say, keep being vocal, take it out on others that have different opinions and refer to hard working people with disrespect. It does work in politics... "
Take out on others? I never once personally attacked you so how do you feel like someone is taking it out on you?
This is the same system that they released the game with. For 7 seasons and almost 2 years there's no improvement to it, yeah I guess they are "hard working".
- @Daze623 Proof against that claim? Any of the similar games letting you pick the exact non-dedicated game server (not area) to play?
Those continuously updating lists are horrendous, I've seen them in older games and developed similar stuff. The proper thing to do is to have the best one picked automatically because it's a 99.9% certainty that you'd want the lowest possible ping. But game servers don't waste resources on handling lobby stuff and matchmaking, they need all the power to process the matches they hold.
I don't like playing at 150, I'm usually at 60-70, but the experience still varies greatly at this average. This is what shows me that the other factors have a much more significant influence than expected.
And finally, about taking it out on others, here's a quote from you: "The fact that you think this flawed system is fine is honestly scary and is probably one of the reasons why this game is suffering through a lot of technical issues cause they have people like you defending horrible system design.". Basically, I have a small role in your suffering for not validating your view of the system. - @DoYaSeeMe "Proof against that claim? Any of the similar games letting you pick the exact non-dedicated game server (not area) to play?"
So you have nothing to back up your claims that it was "proven" huh?
"Those continuously updating lists are horrendous"
That's pretty much just opinion at this point. I liked the old style as simply it gave me the option on where I want to play and gave me enough information to know what I was getting myself into.
"And finally, about taking it out on others, here's a quote from you: "The fact that you think this flawed system is fine is honestly scary and is probably one of the reasons why this game is suffering through a lot of technical issues cause they have people like you defending horrible system design.". Basically, I have a small role in your suffering for not validating your view of the system. "
I apologize if it came off rude but that is what it is to me.
You hush people out who voice their discontent just because you think the system is "fine".
And frankly I couldn't careless if you validate my view of the system.
I just don't like people who say "it can't be" even though it is in the realm of possibility. - @Daze623 Games that let you pick the server typically run on dedicated servers, they don't burst into public cloud servers. The cost for Respawn moving Apex to dedicated game servers only would be extremely high and very risky as the number of concurrent players can vary by millions. Alternatively, having only as many dedicated servers as they can afford would mean a lot worse global coverage, of course the result being high lag and very long queues for a lot of players. If you are now at 150ms average, you'd probably have even more lag in that case.
At this point, It's too time consuming to search all the articles that I've read and brought me to the conclusions above. It's not worth it, as me being right or wrong is not going to solve your problem. And I'm certainly not hushing anyone, but rather suggesting people to take a more rational and constructive approach, by looking at the problem from more/different angles and maybe adjust the expectations accordingly. - @DoYaSeeMe Is this the same articles that told you back then that "it's not worth it" to show real time ping and then after 5 months they added a way to show real time ping? LOL
Well if you're trying to suggest people to take a more "rational" and "constructive" approach you're not really doing a great job cause so far the only thing I got from you is "no it can't work because reasons I can't really back up" @Daze623 ''I liked the old style as simply it gave me the option on where I want to play and gave me enough information to know what I was getting myself into.''
^ This. When gaming sessions can range anywhere from 30mins quick sessions to 8+ hrs grinds then performance is a priority for most of us, especially in an FPS. It's a joke the information they provide isn't accurate from the server to the end user.
@DoYaSeeMe It has already been done to have server selection AND instant play so why not here. The current method we have now that you're endorsing would likely be fine for an RPG but not shooters. Ping is a priority for us but for respawn it's also que time and i imagine the things the user would consider as priority are dropped to fill the servers faster after x amount of time leading to generally worse performance which is already bad for various reasons.
Just look at ranked for example.. We have effectively 2 tiers from bronze to gold/plat and plat to pred. That's not to put us in with similar skills like it advertises but to keep que times low. We accepted this with the decline of players on PC but since crossplay being introduced there is no excuse for it now. I know they could prioritise rank over other factors as many on my friends list are in different servers at the same time, same rank and with same server selected as me so i'll cautiously assume it'll be the same with pubs.
Couldn't they increase the amount of dedicated servers more inline with the lower limits of concurrent players instead of expecting most to make do with various providers that really aren't up to the task just to cover capacity which has dropped since release, relying on an algorithm (which isn't 99.99% the best way that you make out) when we could manually do it ourselves and give us the OPTION to wait if we so chose. I would rather wait to have a rank match with equally skilled players than the algorithm sticking sub golds on my team but we don't have that option so at least give us the option to have a quality gaming experience if we choose to wait as that'll be our choice.
We are getting an S5 upgrade!!! - Answer HQ We want this but not in dreamland.
- @apostolateofDOOM Ok. Let's say you do have a list of servers. On what criteria would you like to select the server?
@DoYaSeeMeDepend if i'm playing competitively or casually, also mood and time.
Ones that are dedicated to the game for best performance, also which friends are playing on and/or those of roughly equal skill. Some days i might not care and just want to join instantly for quick mess around. Would i be willing to wait a considerable time to meet those requirements? Absolutely.
I would have a choice.@apostolateofDOOMWell, your willingness to wait can't guarantee you a better experience, and it can actually turn really bad in some scenarios.
Let's say you're in a separate queue, with others that are also willing to wait. If too many are in that queue, you will either have to wait a considerable amount of time before every match (until the queue "rotates") or get denied with a "server full, try later". If the queue builds up too slowly, some of the players would reach their waiting limit and put the queue in a vicious cycle until it eventually empties.
When you do get to play on that good server, all it takes are a few lag spikes and you'll be back to the bad experience, getting shot around corners, seeing enemies teleport or stutter, hits not registering, rubber banding, etc..Also, creating 2 different types of queues would obviously split the playerbase, resulting in an additional delay for everyone. This would eventually push all the players to the performance queue, since there's waiting anyway. Basically, things would either return to the current state or get even worse.
@DoYaSeeMeOnce we're in then why would we wait to rejoin for the next match when we could just stay in the server for the following matches too, unless we decide to leave or timed out for being afk?
''all it takes are a few lag spikes and you'll be back to the bad experience, getting shot around corners, seeing enemies teleport or stutter, hits not registering, rubber banding, etc..''
We get this anyway because of the algorithm we rely on putting us all over both geographically and different server providers giving a very inconsistent experience... but by giving choice all this would be minimised by having a closer and generally more stable connection that's not being routed everywhere. If the problem isn't my end or the connection to the server then more focus can go to fixing where the problems actually are.
They could keep the quick play ''ready'' now and combine that with server selection to fill the same servers as they don't need to be exclusive ques. Quick play would be as is as it's just lowering priority for certain things and filling up whatever over some time anyway so it shouldn't drastically effect times to wait.. the only people that are having to wait are those choosing to.
This could also apply to ranked servers and SBMM resolving more issues than it causes.- @apostolateofDOOM Let's say that, in an area, there is 1 low-ping high end server available for each 100 players. if 60 of them would keep staying connected, then the other 40 would not have the chance of playing on that server for hours. Even worse, there could be a category of players that would use ways to keep the game connected 24/7, so that they never lose the connection. This would be very unfair, especially to the more casual players .
An increased waiting time also reduces grinding by a lot, at least 2-3x slower. This translates to a much less rewarding experience, harder battle passes that would barely sell, less interest in events because they would be difficult to master. This would ruin the retention, killing the game in little time. That's why a lot of game developers strive for low waiting times, automating as many steps as possible to keep their players in the action phase as much as possible.
Anyway, the servers Apex uses are not just from the public cloud. There are dedicated game servers in the mix as well. I don't know what their capacity is, but the list definitely grows, it has more data centers than during the Titanfall days for sure. @DoYaSeeMe Battlefield Heroes had both a ''play now'' button and server selection that didn't negatively effect player retention. In fact, it was hugely popular over 6+ year lifespan and successful both with the amount of engagement from users during events but also the amount they earnt through cosmetic microtransactions from those events. This has been proven to work.
On a side note.. Price shouldn't be compared nowadays but players from BFH would spend 5 bucks back then dressing your character with millions of combinations making your hero completely unique.. with an average user spending $20 (4 characters) unlike your current Apex model of 20 bucks for one which you get a set outfit from about 50 options, excluding recolours, with everyone still looking the same. It's just lazy of Respawn, especially when cosmetics are their main content. Anyway, back to the server points.. xD
If there are to many people on the closest server then you could either wait or join the next closest to you. Again, that's your choice. I would also argue that when you meet players in specific regions knowing where they're from (very likely closer to you than the current method) you'll not be in the closest server all the time when playing with friends with all of you making compromises. MY and THEIR compromise, not some algorithm fudging it for all like sticking at home Russians, Turkish, frankly all over.. on my team when i'm in UK.. Either the game is dead (apparently not the case) or their algorithm isn't perfect leading to a bad experience. So let me make the decision and give the power to the user.
Where's the source that the dedicated servers are increasing? I also think having people stay in the server 24/7 is just a bad excuse. While it's possible, in thousands of hours playing both BFH and DirtyBomb, i have never once encountered someone staying in a server 24/7. You'll surely get the regulars there but unlike crafting and such in an mmo there's no reason to be logged in when you sleep and if those dedicated to the game are grinding higher ranks 8hrs a day compared to your casual 1 hour a week player then give them the slightly better ping if they're prepared to wait for it... One size obv doesn't fit all when everyone complains about servers.
Who will likely notice? The guy who lives and breaths the game 12 hrs straight grinding pred or some guy playing 30 mins a month? Keep the automation there for the casuals but SBMM or no SBMM, ranked specific and normal servers could benefit us all. Not likely given Respawns history of implementing new things..
- @apostolateofDOOM For example, Bahrain data centers were added to the list in 2020: https://www.reddit.com/r/apexlegends/comments/gifzoz/apex_legends_ad
ded_a_new_serverbahrain/ Interestingly, some people complain about not finding matches and waiting too long when connected to that server. For me, this means that either the queues consist only of players connected to that server or the matches are only hosted on machines inside that specific data center.
It's hard to compare Apex with Battlefield Heroes. BFH is from a different reality, what worked then doesn't necessarily work as well now. I can't find BF numbers, but I doubt it scaled so fast and to such high numbers of players (Apex was the fastest scaling multiplayer game at the time of its launch, probably still holds the record). Also, BFH doesn't look like it required nearly the same amount of computing power (by considering the standards back then) as Apex needs now. All in all, BFH was probably less expensive to host on dedicated servers, while the cloud was not as spread, as strong and as accessible as today.
I could probably go on and on, but the thing is that they won't touch this part, it's way too late now for such a change at the core of the game. @DoYaSeeMeBahrain complaints don't make sense as i have London selected and still get connected to other data centers after a small wait.. Germany often.
I'm just using BFH as an example and there are plenty of others that were successful but if using both instant and server select worked then and on more recent titles then it should now as it's using the exact same method of combining different ways to join the same servers. Nothing really difficult for them to do.
If anything, automated should be improved with more players to draw from and it should be in a better position to give a more stable experience overall. This can also be said with broken rank mix we currently have.
Which then begs the question, why is it so crap for most now?
Also why does it matter what computer power is needed to run the game? I'm not just talking about dedicated servers (there are various ways to cover that cost anyway) but what about manually selecting servers?
So not having a server select is a core part of the game that can't be touched now?@DoYaSeeMe You said it yourself. ''game servers don't waste resources on handling lobby stuff and matchmaking, they need all the power to process the matches they hold''.
It would be interesting to see these articles of how not having a server selection (with the current automated system still in place too) leads to a better experience and if they need updating that with our team mates missing or high ping players in match, general stability ect.. The only thing that could be said from the users point is increased engagement but engagement and enjoyable engagement are two very different things.. Just look at our quests or ranked splits.
So far, you said having it will mean separate ques - I have given an example how that's not the case.
Lead to a bad experience - Will generally make it better with closer proximity players.
Cost of servers - I know ways they can cover that cost so you should know more than i and it's not like they're begging for change here if they have to fork some of that themselves.
People exploiting staying in the same server 24/7 - There is no need or benefit in Apex unlike other games.
Increased waiting times leading to less engagement and ultimately less money spent on passes and content. - I gave you an example of how that's not the case, actually quite the opposite.
Most important part.. People will have to wait - Only if they choose to.
There are also potential fixes to problems i outlined earlier like ranked and SBMM giving user a choice how they want to play.
That last part of it being a core part of the game they can't touch now is rubbish. They won't, not can't..
I have shown every excuse you made to not be the case but not once have you come up with a solution yourself. All we get is ''It's fine, they made the best compromise..'' and why people understandably get frustrated when it's clearly not fine and the person who advertises himself as being knowledgeable on such matters comes up empty handed with just reasons as to why they can't when time tested examples prove otherwise.
I agree automating as many steps as possible is generally a good thing but when it's the ONLY option to play.. one size doesn't fit all and is by far the most common complaint for this game.. servers and stability. Excluding audio.. 😛
- @apostolateofDOOM I can confirm the Bahrain situation. I have myself tried finding games in it, but it's of no avail at certain times. Only peak time is best to play on it.
From my experience if you have a asterisk on the server you selected, you will always be on the geographical server that you selected. I had never experienced that big of ping inconsistencies ever. I don't know how you guys get on different locations tbh. - @BaldWraithSimp I get on different locations using the data center. Whenever I pick Singapore server I end up playing with english talking players and when I pick tokyo I end up playing with japanese talking players. The only thing I wish is that the ping at the start screen would be a bit more accurate or they should just take it off.
- @BaldWraithSimp I always have London selected but end up in Frankfurt.
Ping isn't the only issue and it's not just your ping to the servers but others too which can effect your gameplay. - @BaldWraithSimp I get on different locations all the time. But I think that is because there are so many in the US.
Well, what I think happens is that when lobby servers are at maximum capacity, they pass new players / queues to the closest data center, which also needs to be under a certain ping value (e.g. 100ms). Bahrain is probably too far away from all the others, so players there have to wait or manually connect to other data centers. London is probably a couple of ms away from Frankfurt and these 2 are some of the biggest and busiest data centers in Europe. Probably the same can be said about the US data centres, that's why you end up playing in different locations.
- @apostolateofDOOM sorry, would reply to you in detail, but I have some busy days and it's either forum debates or playing the game. Of course I prefer the latter 🙂
Meanwhile, check multiplay.com if you didn't already, there is info on the hybrid cloud and a downloadable case study for Apex.
Then, check Jon Shiring's resume. He's the lead dealing with most of Apex's online stuff. Doesn't seem like a noob that has no idea of what he's doing.
Good bits of information can also be found in Battle(non)sense's videos on youtube (besides Apex analysis). For example, an interesting thing to see is the result of messing up with network buffering settings, in Valorant's analysis video.
Also good to get "educated" on various matters is riot games' tech blog.
The replies that I'm giving are not coming just from one article, they are based on many things that I've read so far and they do mix with my own reasoning and experience. @DoYaSeeMe I'm not meaning to vent or debate with you trying to prove you wrong.. I would just like to find a different way we can get a better experience and have you suggest something that's different instead of ''this is what we got and it's good enough'' as you do that a lot when imo many improvements could actually be made on a few things. As much as i like a good debate. 😛
Educating myself on code and networking is boring as hell.. I tired many times but I'll check those out and might post something about it after here. If you don't want to reply then that's fine but i would welcome your input. Enjoy your games. 🙂
@apostolateofDOOM it automatically tries to put me to Amsterdam all the time even if my best ping and pl is London. I always go in and change it back to London.
I live in Western Australia but play on different servers all the time. I play Sydney, Singapore, Tokyo, Frankfurt, Salt Lake City and Oregon. My problem is that the ping on the server select screen is hugely different to the in game ping. Sometimes Frankfurt indicates as 218ms but when I join and start a game, it says 290? That is a huge difference. I don't mind playing at 220-240 but above that, it is hard.
- @apostolateofDOOM in the links I mentioned there's not just code and networking technicalities, there are also interesting numbers that are revealed. For example, Respawn projecting Apex Legends for a peak of 200k players at launch says a lot.
Here are some questions:
- How do we know, when we have a bad experience, that we aren't already on a dedicated game server?
- How do we know, when we have a good experience, that we aren't on a public cloud server?
- How do we know with certainty when it's the server at fault and not other factors, like network instability, hardware issues, etc.?
