Tickrate Stuff

@DoYaSeeMeBattlefield.

''Doubling the data rate simply requires twice the bandwidth and probably twice as many server''

They pay tiny amounts for the data like $0.001 or 2 per gigabyte and you only have half the games population in ranked so it'll double to $0.003/4 per gb for that performance gain for 40% of the playerbase who played over 5 hrs in ranked (without bad LTMs forced on us increasing traffic to ranked it would be much lower overall) with the added revenue after of making it a more viable e sport and likely better performance for most users. They're not poor or doing badly enough not to make those improvements so they should double down. 

https://aws.amazon.com/free

Pricing calculator | Microsoft Azure

@apostolateofDOOMIf you want a proper comparison, please provide the following ( for Battlefield & Apex):

• average number of shots or projectiles / server update;
• hit calculation formula;
• number of different characters (usually distinguished by shape, size, animations types);
• average number of hitboxes / map;
• average number of interactibles / map;

There are more that can be added to the list, but these will suffice to prove how different these games are under the hood. Note: all of the above affect the amount of data being sent / received

@apostolateofDOOMWell, you brought Battlefield in, should be your task to do a detailed research to support your statement. Let me give you one basic comparison though:

- An explosion/destruction in Battlefield is visually more complex than an Apex deathbox, right? Well, yes, but this has a client side impact. Netcode wise, the explosion is calling an item to change state (which then plays the related animation on the client) or an animation to be played at a certain coordinate and moment in time, data which can be sent only once, in a single update. A deathbox is a simple object, but which is affected by the game's physics engine, so its position, rotation, skin id have to be sent continuously while the box is falling or carried by a flyer, while its owner banner id, list of item ids, amount per item, ping /dibsed flags per items, etc. have to be sent continuously to the players that loot the box. Already easy to conclude that this deathbox takes many times more data space in an update, for a longer period of time,so many ticks or updates.

@DoYaSeeMeThat's why i suggested in my thread to remove them (think i just put flyers and prowlers but deathboxes too if that's the case) as it doesn't really enhance the experience and it's an unnecessary drain on server resources when performance is already lacking.

The logic applied in improving performance is the same as waiting for 8 seasons for them to balance wraith and change her hitbox when anyone could have told them that's where the problem is. Then they release Horizon.. 😛

@apostolateofDOOMI'm totally against butchering the game for the sake of esport level of performance. The vast majority of players don't care about that or don't have devices powerful enough to support it anyway. I would prefer them to keep experimenting stuff rather than prioritizing esports, which implies a lot of rigidity.

Respawn didn't "wait" for 8 seasons to nerf Wraith properly, they just had more important priorities and goals to achieve that go way back, well beyond the launch of Apex. Also, fiddling with a legend's hitbox after players have already put thousands of hours in mastering that legend is pretty dangerous, so it's understandable why they tried to avoid it for so long.

@DoYaSeeMe The gas and particle changes ruin the game to accommodate inferior hardware when the game barely ran properly on last gen consoles so Respawn with all their ''experience'' but more importantly thirst for more profit decided to chop it for Switch and throw them into the same matches with console and PC too.  Another one size fits all approach as with everything else. It's also this thirst for profit that they don't increase the server costs and give us improvements. Chopping the game to keep their server expenditure the same to make those improvements would be a choice, not a necessity as many clients could take the increased rate just as the servers can provide them with an increased cost. 

Most users have better hardware and internet connections compared to 5 years ago.

Money is what it ultimately boils down to and evaluating cost vs benefits, is it sought after enough to warrant the changes, can we make more cost effective changes elsewhere and whatever other business considerations.

FPS games should be played at 60 fps standard over a decade ago with vast improvements in both user and server hardware since then. Why should they dumb the game down so a few can play a FPS at 30fps? Likely some of the sound and other issues are also related to lower spec platforms as a lot of the changes appear to be CPU, GPU or RAM cuts rather than server resources. You say that most won't be able to make the most of these changes but on PC playing FPS @ 60 is the bare minimum, not optimal so i imagine a lot of them would benefit and the same with next gen consoles.

Who knows. It wouldn't be the first time and a bit of a pattern now of they said they would or wouldn't do something that ends up not being the case with ''provide a quality experience'' or ''not milking our players'' or  ''we fixed audio'' or ''we fixed rank'' just to name a few off the top of my head.