@CyberDyme wrote:
Hi @Dont_Qwit ,
It may come as a surprise to you and others, but the Apex Legend servers are running just at a measly low 20Hz tick rate.
I just shared above in the thread that BF2042 runs 45Hz. As reference, then other games like CS:GO run at a 64Hz tick rate and Riot Games' VALORANT offers a 128 Hz tick rate...
With Apex Legends, some of the leadership and tech folks did also come out to explain their reasoning for such a low tick rate and also admitted that they actually catered more to the 'less than perfect line' connected players, by also in Apex compensating high ping players for their delays and that the low ping players actually are then factually the ones suffering from this as a result in the gameplay and exchanges they have when facing such high ping players in the game.
An EA Apex techie wrote a good informative article about this subject a while back, which to great extend is also valid in similar fashion for the Battlefield games and their netcode/hit registration mechanics. So definitely worth a read to understand EA's position on this subject.
Personally I am playing with a near perfect line quality and very low latency. So I can unfortunately only be upset with the way this article has been written and the way the catering to the poor connected players is done by EA, as they write it as that is how it is becoming most fair to all the players in the game.
How so, I must ask?
As to me, it is absolutely not fair that I 24/7 is constantly not getting any hit markers despite right on target of (high ping) enemy soldiers, and experience repeatedly how they kill me long after I am behind cover. And I am the one caring to connect while using a good proper internet line for FPS gaming. Go figure...
EA Developer's article on Apex Legends, their server tick rate and netcode:
What Makes Apex Tick: A Developer Deep Dive into Servers and Netcode (ea.com)
I think it's worth noting a significant difference between Battlefield's tick rate and Apex Legends' tick rate.
Many games don’t compute full world states on each tick, making it misleading to try to compare one game with another based on a single figure like “20Hz” vs. “30Hz.”
The question is: What exactly is happening during each tick? We want the world state to be as accurate as possible, which is why our servers save the full world state on each tick. If we didn’t do this, it would probably save some of the CPU costs on our servers, but we would lose accuracy in our simulations, and that isn’t worth the risk.
- Apex Legends developer
Apex Legends has a fixed 20Hz tick rate, but it's sending an update of everything that's happened in the game world since the last tick.
Battlefield on the other hand has a variable 45Hz tick rate. The game server is updating some parts of the game world at 45Hz. Other parts of the game world are only being updated at 5Hz.
The variable update rate mostly has to do with which direction the player is facing and how far away the enemy players are. If enemies and vehicles are behind you, then the server sends you updates about them at 5Hz. But if they're in front of you and a close distance, the game server will send you 45Hz updates about their location.
The Apex team states they don't think a variable tick rate is worth the risk of loss simulation accuracy, and they're right. I'd rather have a fixed 20Hz tick rate where every change in the game world being transmitted in each tick. Instead of a variable tick rate where only some changes in the game world are being transmitted.
Because when only some of the game world changes are being sent, we get situations like this. Where invisible players just appear out of nowhere because there were behind a wall and the game server was only sending you 5Hz updates about their location.
I'd personally choose a fixed 20Hz tick rate over a variable 45Hz tick rate.
