@grimuletz That boots part was in response to user troubleshooting we're asked to do by CMs when highlighting game issues. It's a bit of running joke now.
I fully agree with this ''It's not their fault for asking, it's (y)ours for keeping on giving money and time to them.'' and i also agree it's very likely in vain but i'll still try as i think many would like to see these improvements. When they said we have a 10 year roadmap then reduced player count or lack of revenue for a period of time would force them to take some action to sort some things out. I doubt they'll stop supporting Apex at the first hurdle and they did a few rounds of improvements with Anthem for example before cutting the string.
Adding unnecessary visual and audio clutter has also been a complaint for awhile. Simple things like my health bar flashing instead of my screen when i charge an evo or the kill leader blinding me amongst many others. It's just not needed.
@OldTreeCreeper So they're just holding onto what they have.. I'll have a look and think on those numbers and come back as i want to check some bits from the updates and those times. I didn't even think to look at AHQ activity.
@DoYaSeeMe They're old but still relevant and the Kovaak article just explained a bit more how high ping effects your matches. Clientside tickrate was 60hz for the first video and likely went to 20 in the second if he alt tabbed out to check and Apex was running in the background. Either way, even if they did increase it since, the server side is still 20 with a huge network delay and a simulation that still favours people with ridiculously high ping leading to many being shot behind cover ect. The time that passes when you're meant to be safe has increased significantly since then as we're well beyond milliseconds and that's without mentioning actions not even happening.
The problems we have now are much much worse than they were when Battle(non)sense's made those reviews and likely hasn't done more as there's nothing more to update us on. I haven't seen any announcement to make any of us think otherwise. In fact the only thing i heard about server side was the partial downtime maintenance and that wasn't even on the servers the matches are played on.
Graphical optimisations won't be much improvement if the main problem is on the network or server side. I'm not saying there won't possibly be minor improvements but my PC can already run Apex well above 144fps most of the time so reducing GPU load for extra frames won't really solve the major issues although i would welcome those changes as long as they don't effect the quality of the experience like the silent nerf to Caustic and Bangalore past update.
In reply to what you said a few post ago as i just needed to double check before posting, battlefield had more players in match (64) destructible environment (we don't have here) and bullet physics simulation on a fully server side hit registration to mitigate how far behind cover you get hit and this is all running on 64tick servers over 5 years ago so yes, i believe they can do it.
The developers just need to feel like the changes are necessary and the e sport market is just one incentive for them to do it that will lead to improvements for everyone else.
@Midnight9746 The days of providing a quality experience are overshadowed by profit.
I don't know how the contracts/agreements work with server providers. I know when it's community rented you used to be able to do it on a monthly basis but this was years ago for the users. What arrangement Respawn have with Multiplay and if they're locked into a contract is still to be confirmed as it's just hearsay atm. Hopefully something can be changed or improved upon.
Thanks for the input. Appreciate it.
@apostolateofDOOM apex tracker says 12,102,689 Tracked Players.
