You're replying to the wrong person.

Didn't mean to be racist, I just had such a different experience to you, I thought the only thing that could have turned you sour to the game was the evils committed by the nazis in the game. I thought this game had really great pacing, brutal action with some really fun guns, and the storyline really touched me. Personally, having played them all as well, I thought this better than 2009 by a long shot.

Not an excuse to be yet another lame internet troll abusing the image of jewish people placed in a negative context to insult or belittle someone else, especially since he's ignoring everything else the guy said about why he dislikes the game.

You know that you can play this game already if you bought it on uplay?

Umm, what do you mean? Why should I be offended? What does "wow" mean?

Well, again, the majority of individual "bugs" DICE has been mentioning and "addressing" (yeah, hah, not) have been caused by the low tickrate, nothing else.

And if you think a tickrate of 10 is enough for a first person shooter, or any online game, really, take a look at this or even better, this. Then tell me you don't see the problem with a) the distance a player (or other clients - his targets) can travel between ticks, and b) what I already said in my post concerning gun fire rates. You don't see the issue with having a game update 600 times a minute, and yet having guns firing at 700+ rpm? Again, this is the sole cause of the "0 hp bug" (which they also said they fixed or no, wait, "greatly lowered the incidence of" - although me and my friend, together with loads more online, agree it's just as bad as before that news post), and "kill trading", as well as being shot by bullets while already having retreated behind cover. A very important note, here - in Frosbite games, simulation (so, interpolation / lag compensation) and hit detection is done on the client side while a limited hit test is done by the server.

As far as comparing to BF3 - that game had far longer dev. time, as well as dev done on it after release, than BF4 does, now. You can work a little magic with client side interpolation and lag compensation, insofar as fixing animation bugs and making things look smoother / feel a little more responsive, but you can't magically fix the problems I mentioned by those means. Also, a plethora of BF3 players - including several friends of mine as well as lots of quite knowledgeable folk on forums and the like - would tell you BF3 was also far from "fine". It might have worked a teensy bit better than BF4 at most times, but it still was rife with issues, including far too low a tickrate causing rubberbanding, etc., etc. (One of the videos I linked below even elaborates on this and explains that some people noticed delays of 1 or 2 seconds even, concerning getting hit behind cover).

But don't take my word for it. Let me throw you some more links proving that not only is 10 way too low a tickrate for this, or any online game (especially considering DICE kept and keep trying to push BF4 as a "competitive game" fit for ESL etc., which makes me just wanna laugh my balls off), but also proving that DICE themselves know this is a real problem, and probably have for far longer than they're willing to admit - they're actually addressing the tickrate. Finally.

1 - A nice video getting a little technical - the guy knows his stuff, and disproves things people say as a counter-argument against upping the tickrate in fanboyish defence of the game, idiotic like "upping the tickrate would cause way too much network traffic for a game so complex as BF4" or "it would cause way too much CPU load". And what he says is entirely right concerning interpolation and lag compensation - that causes more CPU load than receiving a little more data would (depending on how much more data is being delivered, of course).

2 - Another video the guy made about it a day or two earlier, with some further explanation of the problems associated with too low a tickrate, from a wider perspective, also referring to ping and how the issues have nothing to do with it, as well as looking at FPS and how it relates to this all. He relates it all quite well, a very thorough explanation. He also shows a couple of videos of the delay in seeing people shooting causing some shots to not even show up on the receiving end, which has all to do with what I mentioned about the relationship between the games' tickrate, and fire rates of guns. If you don't check out any other links of mine, check out these first two at the very least, please.

3 - A Kotaku article about the new CTE ( Community Test Environment) DICE has launched, a closed ongoing beta where they test new features / fixes / tweaks before launching them, live. Just like CSS beta used to work. Guess what? They're messing around with a tickrate of 30! 3 times as many updates a second, both ways, also from client to server! So, DICE knows very, very well how big a deal this tickrate malarky is, and are trying to finally address it (although they have of course known this was a problem for far, far longer - as long as Frostbite games have been played online, really). And everyone playing is noticing far, far less rubberbanding issues, kill trading, incidences of the "0 hp bug", and all those other nasty bugs associated with too low a tickrate. Oh, another interesting "bug" that the article mentions that I even forgot about because of DICE "fixing" it somewhat fast when a player made a video about it, was that sometimes, if the range was far enough, shots / hits would get counted twice, resulting in double damage from 1 bullet. "A competitive BF4 player, JackFrags, managed to replicate the bug.. ..So when you fired a bullet at a certain distance, it would be intersecting with a player for two ticks instead of one, and the game would count it as two hits. The fix for that was to make sure the game never counted the same bullet twice, but the tickrate remained the same." Yep, they "fixed" it by hard coding the game to say "this cannot happen, a bullet cannot hit a player twice", which is a shitty workaround rather than a proper fix.

4 - The video from LevelCapGaming linked to in the Kotaku article, above. This guy is one of the most knowledgeable and well-known video makers for BF4, and plays a lot of the game. He always fact-checks his stuff, and doesn't spout nonsense or conjecture. Watch what he thinks about the new tickrate of 30 they're playing around with in the CTE. Heck, look at the video title - Battlefield 4 CTE Tickrate Fixed Netcode?

5 - A forum post about the CTE update. What strikes me as a true sign of the unwillingness of DICE to admit to its' mistakes, and admit that all the earlier "bugs" they professed working on were caused by the low tickrate, is the wording of this updates' notes. They basically say that all the stuff people have been complaining about is affected by the update, but word it very carefully so as to not actually directly address specific "bugs" they've mentioned before. Also, what's very telling about how the entire engine needs re-working from the ground up in its' netcode, is the fact that - as they say - the tickrate increase has an actual range limit, unbelievably. So instead of the tickrate being a map / server-wide increase, the games' netcode is apparently so performance heavy and / or so fragile / vulnerable to packet loss and choke, etc., that they need to limit the increase in tickrate to specific ranges, which is a very convoluted way of upping the netcode that likely causes them a lot of coding nightmares, as you need to constantly keep comparing player distances and adjusting tickrates on the fly, per client.

This is about as exhaustive a proof for the issue with such a low tickrate you'll find, which is why I took my time to type this all out. There is no more arguing against what I'm saying / linking to here, no way to offer any form of reasonable counter-argument, or in any way be left with delusions concerning the "netcode problems" or low tickrate issues present in the game, as well as earlier Frostbite engine games. It's plain to see, and understand.

All this being said, though, consider that - as I mentioned earlier - other games like CS:GO (128 in this case) are running many, if not most of their servers at 100+, or at a minimum 60+ tickrate. However, Frostbite games run client-side stuff at 30 steps a second, and currently the tickrate is running at 10. The engine running stuff at 30 steps a second is what's causing them to go for a tickrate of max 30, as more would be pointless - the game itself isn't producing frames of data faster than 30 times a second, which is still pretty damn low, all things (such as gun fire rates, bullet velocity, and player movement speed) considered.

I'll end with a theory one guy had in a forum I was reading concerning all this stuff while typing out this long post. If they up the tickrate of the game across all clients, client-side, CPU load would likely not increase much, if at all. However, there would be an increase of bandwidth by about 3-fold (give or take), considering an upping of the tickrate to 30. This would mean higher server costs for DICE, who rent them from a collocation. Also, this would increase CPU load on the server end somewhat significantly, meaning they could run less virtual servers per physical server they rent, meaning that they could rent out less servers to clans etc, or they'd have to up the cost of renting a server for players, or - shock and horror - they'd make less money off renting servers to players! Oh no! :P