Dodgy servers [ Edited ]

[apostolateofDOOM]

@DoYaSeeMeOnce we're in then why would we wait to rejoin for the next match when we could just stay in the server for the following matches too, unless we decide to leave or timed out for being afk?

''all it takes are a few lag spikes and you'll be back to the bad experience, getting shot around corners, seeing enemies teleport or stutter, hits not registering, rubber banding, etc..''

We get this anyway because of the algorithm we rely on putting us all over both geographically and different server providers giving a very inconsistent experience... but by giving choice all this would be minimised by having a closer and generally more stable connection that's not being routed everywhere. If the problem isn't my end or the connection to the server then more focus can go to fixing where the problems actually are.

They could keep the quick play ''ready'' now and combine that with server selection to fill the same servers as they don't need to be exclusive ques. Quick play would be as is as it's just lowering priority for certain things and filling up whatever over some time anyway so it shouldn't drastically effect times to wait.. the only people that are having to wait are those choosing to.

This could also apply to ranked servers and SBMM resolving more issues than it causes.

[DoYaSeeMe]

@apostolateofDOOM Let's say that, in an area, there is 1 low-ping high end server available for each 100 players. if 60 of them would keep staying connected, then the other 40 would not have the chance of playing on that server for hours. Even worse, there could be a category of players that would use ways to keep the game connected 24/7, so that they never lose the connection. This would be very unfair, especially to the more casual players .

An increased waiting time also reduces grinding by a lot, at least 2-3x slower. This translates to a much less rewarding experience, harder battle passes that would barely sell, less interest in events because they would be difficult to master. This would ruin the retention, killing the game in little time. That's why a lot of game developers strive for low waiting times, automating as many steps as possible to keep their players in the action phase as much as possible.

Anyway, the servers Apex uses are not just from the public cloud. There are dedicated game servers in the mix as well. I don't know what their capacity is, but the list definitely grows, it has more data centers than during the Titanfall days for sure.

[apostolateofDOOM]

@DoYaSeeMe Battlefield Heroes had both a ''play now'' button and server selection that didn't negatively effect player retention. In fact, it was hugely popular over 6+ year lifespan and successful both with the amount of engagement from users during events but also the amount they earnt through cosmetic microtransactions from those events. This has been proven to work.

On a side note.. Price shouldn't be compared nowadays but players from BFH would spend 5 bucks back then dressing your character with millions of combinations making your hero completely unique.. with an average user spending $20 (4 characters) unlike your current Apex model of 20 bucks for one which you get a set outfit from about 50 options, excluding recolours, with everyone still looking the same. It's just lazy of Respawn, especially when cosmetics are their main content. Anyway, back to the server points.. xD

If there are to many people on the closest server then you could either wait or join the next closest to you. Again, that's your choice. I would also argue that when you meet players in specific regions knowing where they're from (very likely closer to you than the current method) you'll not be in the closest server all the time when playing with friends with all of you making compromises. MY and THEIR compromise, not some algorithm fudging it for all like sticking at home Russians, Turkish, frankly all over.. on my team when i'm in UK.. Either the game is dead (apparently not the case) or their algorithm isn't perfect leading to a bad experience. So let me make the decision and give the power to the user.

Where's the source that the dedicated servers are increasing? I also think having people stay in the server 24/7 is just a bad excuse. While it's possible, in thousands of hours playing both BFH and DirtyBomb, i have never once encountered someone staying in a server 24/7. You'll surely get the regulars there but unlike crafting and such in an mmo there's no reason to be logged in when you sleep and if those dedicated to the game are grinding higher ranks 8hrs a day compared to your casual 1 hour a week player then give them the slightly better ping if they're prepared to wait for it... One size obv doesn't fit all when everyone complains about servers.

Who will likely notice? The guy who lives and breaths the game 12 hrs straight grinding pred or some guy playing 30 mins a month? Keep the automation there for the casuals but SBMM or no SBMM, ranked specific and normal servers could benefit us all. Not likely given Respawns history of implementing new things.. 

[DoYaSeeMe]

@apostolateofDOOM For example, Bahrain data centers were added to the list in 2020: https://www.reddit.com/r/apexlegends/comments/gifzoz/apex_legends_ad
ded_a_new_serverbahrain/ Interestingly, some people complain about not finding matches and waiting too long when connected to that server. For me, this means that either the queues consist only of players connected to that server or the matches are only hosted on machines inside that specific data center.

It's hard to compare Apex with Battlefield Heroes. BFH is from a different reality, what worked then doesn't necessarily work as well now. I can't find BF numbers, but I doubt it scaled so fast and to such high numbers of players (Apex was the fastest scaling multiplayer game at the time of its launch, probably still holds the record). Also, BFH doesn't look like it required nearly the same amount of computing power (by considering the standards back then) as Apex needs now. All in all, BFH was probably less expensive to host on dedicated servers, while the cloud was not as spread, as strong and as accessible as today.

I could probably go on and on, but the thing is that they won't touch this part, it's way too late now for such a change at the core of the game.

[apostolateofDOOM]

@DoYaSeeMeBahrain complaints don't make sense as i have London selected and still get connected to other data centers after a small wait.. Germany often.

I'm just using BFH as an example and there are plenty of others that were successful but if using both instant and server select worked then and on more recent titles then it should now as it's using the exact same method of combining different ways to join the same servers. Nothing really difficult for them to do.

If anything, automated should be improved with more players to draw from and it should be in a better position to give a more stable experience overall. This can also be said with broken rank mix we currently have.

Which then begs the question, why is it so crap for most now?

Also why does it matter what computer power is needed to run the game? I'm not just talking about dedicated servers (there are various ways to cover that cost anyway) but what about manually selecting servers?

So not having a server select is a core part of the game that can't be touched now?

[apostolateofDOOM]

@DoYaSeeMe You said it yourself. ''game servers don't waste resources on handling lobby stuff and matchmaking, they need all the power to process the matches they hold''.

It would be interesting to see these articles of how not having a server selection (with the current automated system still in place too) leads to a better experience and if they need updating that with our team mates missing or high ping players in match, general stability ect.. The only thing that could be said from the users point is increased engagement but engagement and enjoyable engagement are two very different things.. Just look at our quests or ranked splits.

So far, you said having it will mean separate ques - I have given an example how that's not the case.

Lead to a bad experience - Will generally make it better with closer proximity players.

Cost of servers - I know ways they can cover that cost so you should know more than i and it's not like they're begging for change here if they have to fork some of that themselves.

People exploiting staying in the same server 24/7 - There is no need or benefit in Apex unlike other games.

Increased waiting times leading to less engagement and ultimately less money spent on passes and content. - I gave you an example of how that's not the case, actually quite the opposite.

Most important part.. People will have to wait - Only if they choose to.

There are also potential fixes to problems i outlined earlier like ranked and SBMM giving user a choice how they want to play.

That last part of it being a core part of the game they can't touch now is rubbish. They won't, not can't..

I have shown every excuse you made to not be the case but not once have you come up with a solution yourself. All we get is ''It's fine, they made the best compromise..'' and why people understandably get frustrated when it's clearly not fine and the person who advertises himself as being knowledgeable on such matters comes up empty handed with just reasons as to why they can't when time tested examples prove otherwise.

I agree automating as many steps as possible is generally a good thing but when it's the ONLY option to play.. one size doesn't fit all and is by far the most common complaint for this game.. servers and stability. Excluding audio.. 

[BaldWraithSimp]

@apostolateofDOOM I can confirm the Bahrain situation. I have myself tried finding games in it, but it's of no avail at certain times. Only peak time is best to play on it.

From my experience if you have a asterisk on the server you selected, you will always be on the geographical server that you selected. I had never experienced that big of ping inconsistencies ever. I don't know how you guys get on different locations tbh.

[Daze623]

@BaldWraithSimp I get on different locations using the data center. Whenever I pick Singapore server I end up playing with english talking players and when I pick tokyo I end up playing with japanese talking players. The only thing I wish is that the ping at the start screen would be a bit more accurate or they should just take it off.

[apostolateofDOOM]

@BaldWraithSimp I always have London selected but end up in Frankfurt.

Ping isn't the only issue and it's not just your ping to the servers but others too which can effect your gameplay.

[hayhor]

@BaldWraithSimp I get on different locations all the time. But I think that is because there are so many in the US.