Forum Discussion

4 years ago

What makes you lack tick?

We finally get a response to servers and an open discussion for improvements to be made but the thread is quiet with everyone talking about butt cheeks and skins? Keep pushing or roll on your backs ...

discussion

Vdstrk

Seasoned Ace

4 years ago

@apostolateofDOOM

I definitely agree that were the competitive scene be the majority, then they will take that into consideration. They are willing to adjust what is there, but not change it. I guess that if they can simply tweak it, they can try to fix it, but if it needs more than just a simple tweak (say rewriting portions of the netcode), and it costs money (upgrading servers in general), then they will not do it.

The problem is, how many people are mostly/only playing ranked mode?
Since they are not willing to improve servers at all probably is because the number of "competitive" players in a casual game is very small.

Another aspect they did not talk about is packet management. I am no expert, so forgive me if I say something completely wrong here.
How big and how many are the packets sent in each update? For sake of simplicity, I can say that I may either send 50 packets with size of 5 or, 2 packets with size of 125. So... if my packets are dropped, which scenario has more likely an impact on performance, given the same tickrate?

Their competitors are games like Deep Rock Galactic, Rust, The Division 2, and similar casual games. They do not compete against CS:GO, Valorant etc... They only added a "wonky" ranked mode because back then it seemed like everyone wanted it.... just my opinion.

apostolateofDOO

4 years ago

@Vdstrk The only data that's public as far as i'm aware is 50% playing ranked.

I would say their competitors are any other BRs and they advertise themselves as an e sport with prize pools. That's their definition along with fast paced shooter, not mine.

From my very limited understanding, it's the full world state in one tick (most at much higher rates or some broken down into several but this should be achievable in the new mode) and as there's more information cause it's 60 players in a BR it's in lower amount of tick rate and losing one large packet of 125 will be more impactful than losing 5 smaller ones of 5 sent at a faster rate because it's less information lost.

This is covered in one of battle(none)senses videos in my other thread and i'm not the most tech savvy with networking so perhaps @DoYaSeeMe could explain it better than me.

I don't know that much about it all except the game runs pretty badly and it's not my connection as there's no difference between 60fps and 190+ which will increase (almost triple) my bandwidth so that's not the problem as it's exactly the same whichever i have it set to. Large portion of the problem imo is matchmaking as we didn't have this problem as bad in S1 and 2 but 20 per second is still really bad and it's cost being their main issue in a game that's made huge profit but biggest complaint is servers or performance backend with high ping player getting shot through door delay ect.

They know exactly how they can improve it but it's costly or inconvenient because they would need to restructure how they put people into matches.

Vdstrk
Seasoned Ace
4 years ago
@apostolateofDOOM

I have seen B N S videos. I check them out now and again to see if any new game releases with a decent netcode before spending money on it.

I would say that the number of players in ranked is less than 50% --I would guess that 50% of all players have tried ranked, but did not stick around it much.
Again, is 50% of what total number? what if less than 200K players engage in regularly play ranked? I don't believe the claim of 100M players... that is more likely account created since the game was released... which in a way is alarming, because can you imagine those numbers being inflated by cheaters been banned multiple times?

I have absolutely no doubts that the game is marketed as something different than what it is. And that is why I do not purchase per-ordered games anymore. They market the game as one thing, then you get half or less of it, in a state that is unacceptable to say the least.

They can implement a full world update, a partial one, a fraction of it --you name it, it does not make a difference to me as long as it works.
It does not work. And on top of it, they persist in saying that all is good, all is fine, we have a new legend, more skins... and guess what b@$$ that new legend will have too! oh, don't forget the new weapon, a bow!!!!
They nerf older legends because everyone has already all the skins for them, nerf AR and push lmgs and snipers, because people did not really buy skins for the sentinel I would guess.

I agree with you. I like Apex and I would like it to work better. I am just disappointed, and looking around for something to replace it with....