Request to upgrade the servers 🙏
I heard before that apex servers have 20 tick rate which is means if u even have 400FPS u will see your self getting killed through doors and covers, and making your abilities useless sometimes When...
Forum Discussion
@Elamami3440 Clientside, the tickrate is over 60, it was acknowledged by the dev that worked on the netcode. This change was pushed more than a year ago, right after Battle(non)sense's last video on Apex. Also, data is sent multiple times to reduce the damage caused by packet loss. That's why Apex is already using a lot of bandwidth, getting easily affected by congestion.
Serverside, tickrate is lower because of multiple reasons. First of all, the game uses public cloud (google,amazon and microsoft servers are involved), not just dedicated game servers. No one in this world has the money to update all data centers to top level just like that. Going from let's say 20 to 60hz means that a server has 3x less time to process an update, which can increase instability dramatically, possibly making the game unplayable during peak hours. Then, the bandwidth requirement would also triple, causing even more lag and packet loss for those with a weaker connection.
Here's a previous post of mine with links to some articles: https://answers.ea.com/t5/General-Discussion/Some-Interesting-Bits-Regarding-Apex-Servers-amp-Netcode/m-p/8764881/highlight/true#M69094
Serverside, tickrate is lower because of multiple reasons. First of all, the game uses public cloud (google,amazon and microsoft servers are involved), not just dedicated game servers. No one in this world has the money to update all data centers to top level just like that. Going from let's say 20 to 60hz means that a server has 3x less time to process an update, which can increase instability dramatically, possibly making the game unplayable during peak hours. Then, the bandwidth requirement would also triple, causing even more lag and packet loss for those with a weaker connection.
Here's a previous post of mine with links to some articles: https://answers.ea.com/t5/General-Discussion/Some-Interesting-Bits-Regarding-Apex-Servers-amp-Netcode/m-p/8764881/highlight/true#M69094
@DoYaSeeMe people are asking for server tickrate not client side - the server tick rate is at 20HZ. That the client side batches updates towards server means that if someone has packet drop - they will be clipping (basically teleporting every update) that is not great "netcode" - basically just fancy words that its decent - but it could be improved. Also you are wrong about cloud solutions, sizing that part is the easy thing - changing the code for the network is the hard part. Many companys can afford a top end cloud (I´m speaking from experience working in the IT industry, security - banking and telecom) the gaming industry is making a hell of a lot money during the past years, this is just a bad excuse...
To the OP, do like me - stop investing money into this game until they start prioritizing towards the consumer side.
Would changing the server tick rate magically resolve all our issues - no, the big and painful work is updating the netcode to support it/gain the benefits. And EA does not see that as a worthy investment, however they invest money into "cross platform" so yeah they wont be having any of my hard worked money anytime soon. What they dont realize is that once we get cross platform, its going to be aim assist vs aimbot - and most people will leave, since why bother constantly playing against an A.I aim. Most "predators" I run into on PC are playing on controller, gee I wonder why.
They need to acknowledge that aim assist on PC is broken and resolve it, they need to acknowledge that the netcode is not perfect in this game (you know people teleporting every second, you still get hit after taking cover behind a wall). Whenever they update the server rate or not, the netcode is far from being perfect. And whoever claims that has never played against someone that has packet drop - and how tilting it is when people teleport randomly. They need to acknowledge that EAC was probably not the best way to combat cheaters and put more pressure on EAC, combating cheaters should be done similarly, as such, in Valorant (for one, its anti cheat is 10 times more sophisticated than EAC, it also immediately bans - and not waits for people to climb to predator with aimbots and then ban them in waves - when the harm has already been made)..
Knowing big companies, they will read this and laugh that we - the peasants dare to tell them what they need to acknowledge (that's their mentality).
I do however applaud Respawn Entertainment for the work they have done, I just feel sorry for them - cant be easy when you have both hands tied. You guys made an awesome game.
- @NitromethaneAP if the server gets multiple updates from clients before processing the next tick, it's able to process a better simulation and make more corrections, while also improving the experience a bit for those that are a bit laggy.
Teleporting won't be reduced by increasing the tickrate server side. On the contrary, the issues may happen more often because of the server having less time and data to process an update.
Also, you are wrong about me being wrong about the cloud 🙂. Apex is able to scale a lot, but I wasn't talking about the scaling. I was referring to the level of the machines inside the data centres. Sure, Apex could use 3 times more servers to reduce the load on each machine, but that would mean playing with an even bigger lag for most of the players, especially during peak times. The current situation is proof: there are many concurrent players and Apex is often using the public cloud, putting players on higher lag servers when close ones are fully booked.@DoYaSeeMethat's not what happens in apex today, the teleporting during packet loss is updaded what it seems like every 1 second - how is that a better simulation (there are better netcoded games that handle this in many other ways).
Teleporting could be reduced in incretels if the server ticket was higher and it had a better netcode.
Increasing say cores in the nodes within the cloud is scaling the hardware. Scaling does not mean simply adding additional virtual clouds - or adding more nodes, it can mean upping the cores/memory in each node. What is called Vertical scaling, I think you are thinking of Horizontal scaling. Vertical scaling in a cloud is quite easy, since servers are already virtual. You basically change one parameter during boot up / deployment server that tells the virtual server how much "Juice" it should use.
Meaning that having a "top of the line cloud" is something complex, is not true (I know you never claimed it was) - and many companies can afford the very decent setups / not everyone can afford googles setup - but that is an entire different monster. But claiming that an company like EA cant afford a cloud to support Apex´s demands if it went 60hz on its servers is simply not true - and thats not the issue for them at all, thats within the netcode revamp that it would require. I havent seen the code base /netcode, but my guestimate is that the work either to be 300-500++h (thats why EA wont ever finance it). Why I stated that the cloud itself probably aint the problem here, even if cores/memory was an issue - it can be mounted/added (and for a company the size of EA, that should not be an issue at all).
