It may seem strange, but why even in advancing modes by EA in 16v16 or 32v32 is the same 45Hz tick rate used (not 60 or higher)? Okay, maybe in 128 player modes this worked very badly and increased the load by X times on the server and client, but what has happened since BF4?I understand that the start of the game was rather unsuccessful in terms of performance. On medium-low fps it was around 60-80, now with rays in high it is about 80-100.Maybe DICE has a plan to implement this feature next season (if the game survives)?P.S. Say thank you for not 30Hz.

Well could be all fixed if the community would be able to rent servers like in the good old days.

@kregora wrote:@AdamonicThe "getting killed around the corner" issue definitely happens more often on low tick servers. But the "magic insta-kill bullets" happens more often on high tick servers.So 60Hz should become standard, but when @CyberDyme observations are correct, I wonder if there maybe is an issue with migh ticks on previous gen consoles?Hi @kregora ,No the old gen consoles (certainly like the PS4 i used to play BF3/BF4 on), did perfectly well also connecting to and playing on higher tick servers!We had a shorter period of time when EA/DICE had indeed some servers running at 60Hz and some even up at the 120Hz rate I think it was. Some other vets may recall this for certain, but think that was the highest we got for the PlayStation. So the consoles can definitely handle it.But as said by @emerson1975 and others, it all down to the money that EA./DICE are willing to spend on it, because its more expensive to rent the higher tick servers from their server park partners vs when just getting some 30-45Hz servers instead.

Low tick rate along with players playing non local servers has made the game a complete mess and far worse than launch ever was in regards to netcode!Bullets not getting hit markers but getting blood splatter along with a weird delay in hit markers and kills then we have insta deaths eighty percent of the time and dying meters behind cover, this has made the game completely unplayable with my massive ping of 20ms

@emerson19752042 have never had good netcode, but it seems to have gotten worse since the last patch.The netcode are now so bad that the game is almost unplayable and you feel that half your deaths are 'buggy' - instadeaths, kills around corners/cover. And this goes for both 64 and 128 player-modes.

@OskooI_007 @Dont_Qwit @DuaneDibbley I dunno about all that stuff but I DO know from the player's perspective our clan's ability to host our own servers (BF1942 through BF4) set them up the way we wanted and have the ability to admin as we saw fit (and judging by the fact that they were almost always packed, players agreed) was a FAR SUPERIOR experience than what we're are all going through in the last few years.I don't know why EA/Dice adopted this new matchmaking system and removed the ability to host our own servers but in my view it sucks.

Server tickrate | EA Forums

37 Replies

ProDeMatrix
4 years ago
I also recognized that the server of 2042 does not offer a good experience. But i dont know that the tickrate is only 45 hz. This is a shame if its true. BF4 had 244 hz servers (rare ones). And today the most servers run on 60 hz. Also BF1 had 60hz servers. That 2042 with much more action has only 45 hz is...
RMEChief
Legend
4 years ago
As far as I can tell, BT and Conquest are both 45 hz which is absolutely pathetic in 2022.
DigitalHype
Seasoned Ace
4 years ago
They buy compute cycles. Higher tickrate = more computing = more cost. Its all part of maximizing profit for shareholders and executives.
kregora
Seasoned Ace
4 years ago
@DigitalHype I guess its more like a limitation about what cpu types are available. The increase of team an map sizes doesn't help either.
Alone doubling the player size increased the bandwidth requirements by four.
I remember as BF4 introduced the 60Hz tick rate and for quite some time it only worked smooth on 48p servers, an then only when you avoided every map with lots of water in it, like Paracel Storm.

Maybe that is the reason, why we don't have naval vehicles in it, because the netcode can't handle that for 128 players.
CyberDyme
4 years ago
@ProDeMatrix wrote:
I also recognized that the server of 2042 does not offer a good experience. But i dont know that the tickrate is only 45 hz. This is a shame if its true. BF4 had 244 hz servers (rare ones). And today the most servers run on 60 hz. Also BF1 had 60hz servers. That 2042 with much more action has only 45 hz is...
Hi @ProDeMatrix ,
Just to clarify, as for BF4 we still have the Battlelog.com server browser, so we have full transparency to the servers there:
For the consoles, then the vast majority of servers are just running 30Hz. All of them are 64 player servers.
There is like 1 out of 10 servers that runs at 45Hz. And they are all less than 64 player servers. Some though up to 44 players.
So though not sure, but it could be that 64 player servers are not enabled/capable to support higher than 30Hz tick rates?
Multiplayer - Battlelog / Battlefield 4
With regards to higher tick rates, there could of course be some, but when I checked the list just right now, there is not a single server running anything higher than 45Hz.
Maybe they are only there for PC BF4 these days, as when looking at the server list for PCs, there all are with 60Hz tick rates? (but no live servers above that either?)
As others rightfully shared in this thread, its all about the money, as renting more computational power to run our servers costs more money. => less profit to EA/DICE. We daily observe how the old servers are suffering to deliver the required processing capacity to deliver a fluid gameplay and timely hit registration even at the low 30Hz tick rate. This is something we have complained about now for many many years. But despite this, we are still observing the servers set to support the game are not up to the task. Rubber banding, bullet sponging and players frequently loosing the connection to the server mid game are all part of the daily experience playing this game. And it has been an issue across now multiple BF game generations...
The player experience is suffering badly from this.
emerson1975
4 years ago
Higher tick rate the higher cpu usage your gonna get so I doubt very much it’s ever going to increase.
Many people are struggling on pc with poor performance as it is!
RMEChief
Legend
4 years ago
The 45 hz tick rate is why you get killed around corners, unload a clip into a player to kill them, and feel like the enemy one-shot you, because if you are getting more than 45 fps, your system/screen is updating more than there are updates going in and out.
60 hz should be the standard for first person shooters.
Sooxzay
4 years ago
60 Hz Servers for BF2042.. a dream.
ProDeMatrix
4 years ago
@CyberDymeBattlenonesense make some nice videos about this topic:
Dice tested 55hz servers for Xbox One: https://youtu.be/GoZqakBAoHM?t=127 (we now have Xbox Series X/S....)

Battlefield 1 has 120hz servers: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BSkPRNXN6e8

And what a higher Tickrate mean for a Battlefield game: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nO9bZm8ceY

The reason why there are so less high tickrate server today is, that they cost more for the community and most admins decide to use 30 or 60 hz for his smale playerbase.

Iam as an customer expect a more advanced product than the previous.
kregora
Seasoned Ace
4 years ago
@Adamonic The "getting killed around the corner" issue definitely happens more often on low tick servers. But the "magic insta-kill bullets" happens more often on high tick servers.

So 60Hz should become standard, but when @CyberDyme observations are correct, I wonder if there maybe is an issue with migh ticks on previous gen consoles?