Tick Rate Explained - A lot of complaints could be addressed if it were higher.

Apex only has 20 tick servers btw. 

60hz servers aren't the problem, at least not for Battlefield. There's a ton of different decisions that go into network design, most of which I don't have a deeper understanding of. However, I understand enough to know that blatant issues go deeper than just the server tick rates. 

For as much that is going on in BF, you can't just crank up the server update rate, it becomes more demanding on everyone's machine as well. So you have to keep that in mind. You can have 128 for games like Valorant or CSGO because it's slower paced, with less players, and just overall way less calculations that have to be made. I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure you can't have 128 tick servers for 64 players on the field, or it's not very practical at least. 

Apex wrote this article on how they tried to balance their game, it had a lot of insight, and frankly annoyed the hell out of me as well. They purposely try to balance high and low ping players to make it fair as possible regardless of what latency you have. In theory, that's all nice sounding, in practice, the guy with 150-200ms of latency, which is also probably suffering from packet loss, is now getting compensation for that to compete "fairly" with someone who has 20-30ms of latency. 

There's one simple reason why companies do this, to try and get more players in their game. If someone has a bad time with 200 ping, as they should, they're not going to be spending money on that game. Everything is about maximizing profits over any sort of actual fairness. 

BF has some MAJOR desync issues that are carrying over from 2042. It feels nearly identical. I imagine it's tied to lag compensation, amongst other things.