Re: Dodgy servers

@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.

@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.

@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.. 

@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.. 😛

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.