129 replies to this topic

[Clit Beastwood]

Southern California, 100 down 5 up, tested with multiple routers and direct connected to modem.

Ping before, 70-80ms, 110 streaming.
Ping now, 110-130 ms, even worse hitreg, etc. Have experienced intermittent desyncs, have all but given up playing recently. If my weapons aren't going to hit there's no point in shooting them.

[Gattsus]

Indiandream, on 30 August 2014 - 08:06 AM, said:

Perhaps if pings weren't so effed up in Asia they might have a larger playerbase there? It's a chicken and egg.

Asians hate playing videogames

I said the same a while ago, if they offer a better service, they might increase their user base.

MWO is not a top quality game and offers a bad service (ping wise and business model), thus, making it very difficult to compete with other well established games such as DOTA 2 or LOL.

Tracing route to 192.99.109.129 over a maximum of 30 hops

1 3 ms 1 ms 1 ms 192.168.0.1
2 2 ms 2 ms 3 ms n218250252254.netvigator.com [218.250.252.254]
3 4 ms 2 ms 2 ms 10.193.232.118
4 3 ms 7 ms 4 ms wtsc3a014.netvigator.com [218.102.40.14]
5 5 ms 3 ms 3 ms tenge1-1.br01.hkg05.pccwbtn.net [63.218.255.9]
6 40 ms 45 ms 44 ms TenGigE0-5-0-1.cr04.hkg05.pccwbtn.net [63.218.21
4.117]
7 40 ms 41 ms 41 ms TenGE0-4-0-2.cr03.sin02.pccwbtn.net [63.218.228.
13]
8 277 ms 283 ms 276 ms xe-2-0-0.milano51.mil.seabone.net [93.186.128.22
3]
9 278 ms * * mil-1-6k.it.eu [91.121.131.17]
10 274 ms * 276 ms fra-1-6k.de.eu [213.251.128.66]
11 278 ms 280 ms 281 ms sbg-g1-a9.fr.eu [91.121.128.80]
12 278 ms 279 ms 277 ms 37.187.36.153
13 * * * Request timed out.
14 * * * Request timed out.
15 287 ms 287 ms 289 ms 192.99.109.129

Trace complete.

Gattsus, on 31 August 2014 - 05:53 PM, said:

I said the same a while ago, if they offer a better service, they might increase their user base.

MWO is not a top quality game and offers a bad service (ping wise and business model), thus, making it very difficult to compete with other well established games such as DOTA 2 or LOL.

My ping went up ~100.


Tracing route to 192.99.109.129 over a maximum of 30 hops

1 3 ms 1 ms 1 ms 192.168.0.1
2 2 ms 2 ms 3 ms n218250252254.netvigator.com [218.250.252.254]
3 4 ms 2 ms 2 ms 10.193.232.118
4 3 ms 7 ms 4 ms wtsc3a014.netvigator.com [218.102.40.14]
5 5 ms 3 ms 3 ms tenge1-1.br01.hkg05.pccwbtn.net [63.218.255.9]
6 40 ms 45 ms 44 ms TenGigE0-5-0-1.cr04.hkg05.pccwbtn.net [63.218.21
4.117]
7 40 ms 41 ms 41 ms TenGE0-4-0-2.cr03.sin02.pccwbtn.net [63.218.228.
13]
8 277 ms 283 ms 276 ms xe-2-0-0.milano51.mil.seabone.net [93.186.128.22
3]
9 278 ms * * mil-1-6k.it.eu [91.121.131.17]
10 274 ms * 276 ms fra-1-6k.de.eu [213.251.128.66]
11 278 ms 280 ms 281 ms sbg-g1-a9.fr.eu [91.121.128.80]
12 278 ms 279 ms 277 ms 37.187.36.153
13 * * * Request timed out.
14 * * * Request timed out.
15 287 ms 287 ms 289 ms 192.99.109.129

Trace complete.

[Cpn Crunch]

Ping before patch approx 30-40
Games today ping 3200+
Location: Canada

[mrdead69]

Prior to Server move ping sat between 250-300, post server move 450-550

Location: Perth, WA

More than half of OMC's AU members are reporting similar increases. Tracert's are pretty much all the same, depending on location.

[Gambit001]

I have been observing the game's performance since after the patch.
After 2 days of playing, I have decided to post this.
My 2cents:

My ping is normally in the high 230 to 250 range during non-peak hours, going up to about 290ms during peak hours, local time.
From my observations, it does not seem to matter what time it is in the US/Canada.
My ping is dependent on peak or non-peak local time.

After the datacenter move, I have consistently been getting 320 or so ping in-game, at best.
The thing is, if you do a ping/traceroute combo, the result is the normal, non-peak ping of 230 to 250.
It is a little higher during peak hours (+20 to 30ms or so), which is still normal.

Here are the results (unless address has been changed):

Old IP: 70.42.29.65

Spoiler

C:\>ping -n 100 70.42.29.65

Pinging 70.42.29.65 with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=237ms TTL=53
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=237ms TTL=53
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=236ms TTL=53
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=237ms TTL=53
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=237ms TTL=53
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=237ms TTL=53
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=236ms TTL=53
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=237ms TTL=53
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=236ms TTL=53
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=238ms TTL=53
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=237ms TTL=53
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=236ms TTL=53
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=238ms TTL=53
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=237ms TTL=53
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=237ms TTL=53
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=236ms TTL=53
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=238ms TTL=53
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=236ms TTL=53
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=238ms TTL=53
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=237ms TTL=53
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=239ms TTL=53
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=236ms TTL=53
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=238ms TTL=53
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=238ms TTL=53
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=236ms TTL=53
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=239ms TTL=53
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=235ms TTL=53
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=236ms TTL=53
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=237ms TTL=53
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=237ms TTL=53
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=237ms TTL=53
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=237ms TTL=53
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=237ms TTL=53
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=237ms TTL=53
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=236ms TTL=53
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=237ms TTL=53
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=236ms TTL=53
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=238ms TTL=53
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=237ms TTL=53
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=236ms TTL=53
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=237ms TTL=53
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=236ms TTL=53
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=236ms TTL=53
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=236ms TTL=53
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=236ms TTL=53
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=236ms TTL=53
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=238ms TTL=53
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=236ms TTL=53
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=237ms TTL=53
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=237ms TTL=53
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=236ms TTL=53
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=236ms TTL=53
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=238ms TTL=53
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=237ms TTL=53
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=236ms TTL=53
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=237ms TTL=53
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=238ms TTL=53
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=238ms TTL=53
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=236ms TTL=53
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=237ms TTL=53
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=238ms TTL=53
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=237ms TTL=53
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=237ms TTL=53
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=238ms TTL=53
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=237ms TTL=53
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=237ms TTL=53
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=236ms TTL=53
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=236ms TTL=53
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=238ms TTL=53
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=246ms TTL=53
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=237ms TTL=53
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=239ms TTL=53
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=237ms TTL=53
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=237ms TTL=53
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=236ms TTL=53
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=237ms TTL=53
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=236ms TTL=53
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=236ms TTL=53
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=239ms TTL=53
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=238ms TTL=53
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=237ms TTL=53
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=236ms TTL=53
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=238ms TTL=53
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=236ms TTL=53
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=237ms TTL=53
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=236ms TTL=53
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=237ms TTL=53
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=236ms TTL=53
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=236ms TTL=53
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=237ms TTL=53
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=238ms TTL=53
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=238ms TTL=53
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=236ms TTL=53
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=236ms TTL=53
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=237ms TTL=53
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=238ms TTL=53
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=236ms TTL=53
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=237ms TTL=53
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=236ms TTL=53
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=237ms TTL=53

Ping statistics for 70.42.29.65:
Packets: Sent = 100, Received = 100, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 235ms, Maximum = 246ms, Average = 236ms

C:\>tracert 70.42.29.65

Tracing route to relay-1.mwtactics.com [70.42.29.65]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 192.168.1.1
2 5 ms 8 ms 5 ms 100.72.0.1
3 7 ms 5 ms 6 ms 121.96.7.58
4 7 ms 5 ms 6 ms 121.96.7.58
5 56 ms 229 ms 9 ms 121.96.7.113
6 7 ms 7 ms 6 ms 202.78.119.1
7 175 ms 178 ms 179 ms 106.187.28.61
8 177 ms 176 ms 179 ms otejbb205.int-gw.kddi.ne.jp [59.128.7.193]
9 159 ms 159 ms 161 ms lajbb001.int-gw.kddi.ne.jp [203.181.100.14]
10 172 ms 162 ms 162 ms tr-la7.int-gw.kddi.ne.jp [59.128.2.210]
11 230 ms 224 ms 221 ms 64.208.27.113
12 219 ms 219 ms 219 ms ae4-70G.scr3.LAX1.gblx.net [67.17.111.66]
13 242 ms 241 ms 241 ms te9-1-10G.asr1.YYZ1.gblx.net [67.16.144.86]
14 238 ms 238 ms 237 ms INTERNAP.Gi1-0-11.asr1.YYZ1.gblx.net [64.214.196
.26]
15 244 ms 247 ms 258 ms border1.te9-1-bbnet2.tor001.pnap.net [70.42.24.1
96]
16 240 ms 237 ms 239 ms relay-1.mwtactics.com [70.42.29.65]

Trace complete.

C:\>

As you can see, there is a difference between in-game and out-of-game communication.
This has happened before in previous patches.
It was worse back then, with a ping of somewhere in the lower 500ms at best while in-game.
I really don't know what they changed aside from what has been publicized, but this unreliable in-game ping issue was what caused me to stop playing MWO for quite a while.
Don't get me wrong, I love playing MWO.
However, this might just break the camel's back for me, again.


Update:
After confirming that the IP has indeed changed, I did another ping/traceroute combo.
It looks like the issue is now with the routing.
The new routing is a few hops shorter compared to before the move, but the latency went up on the hop from my ISP in the Philippines to Denver (hop 7 to 8).
From Denver, it stayed pretty much in that range going to Montreal.

New IP: 192.99.109.129

Spoiler

C:\>ping -n 100 192.99.109.129

Pinging 192.99.109.129 with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 192.99.109.129: bytes=32 time=456ms TTL=54
Reply from 192.99.109.129: bytes=32 time=465ms TTL=54
Reply from 192.99.109.129: bytes=32 time=446ms TTL=54
Reply from 192.99.109.129: bytes=32 time=465ms TTL=54
Reply from 192.99.109.129: bytes=32 time=454ms TTL=54
Reply from 192.99.109.129: bytes=32 time=457ms TTL=54
Reply from 192.99.109.129: bytes=32 time=465ms TTL=54
Reply from 192.99.109.129: bytes=32 time=459ms TTL=54
Reply from 192.99.109.129: bytes=32 time=465ms TTL=54
Reply from 192.99.109.129: bytes=32 time=447ms TTL=54
Reply from 192.99.109.129: bytes=32 time=462ms TTL=54
Reply from 192.99.109.129: bytes=32 time=458ms TTL=54
Reply from 192.99.109.129: bytes=32 time=449ms TTL=54
Reply from 192.99.109.129: bytes=32 time=464ms TTL=54
Reply from 192.99.109.129: bytes=32 time=437ms TTL=54
Reply from 192.99.109.129: bytes=32 time=428ms TTL=54
Reply from 192.99.109.129: bytes=32 time=465ms TTL=54
Reply from 192.99.109.129: bytes=32 time=443ms TTL=54
Reply from 192.99.109.129: bytes=32 time=448ms TTL=54
Reply from 192.99.109.129: bytes=32 time=458ms TTL=54
Reply from 192.99.109.129: bytes=32 time=448ms TTL=54
Reply from 192.99.109.129: bytes=32 time=463ms TTL=54
Reply from 192.99.109.129: bytes=32 time=454ms TTL=54
Reply from 192.99.109.129: bytes=32 time=464ms TTL=54
Reply from 192.99.109.129: bytes=32 time=453ms TTL=54
Reply from 192.99.109.129: bytes=32 time=464ms TTL=54
Reply from 192.99.109.129: bytes=32 time=459ms TTL=54
Reply from 192.99.109.129: bytes=32 time=437ms TTL=54
Reply from 192.99.109.129: bytes=32 time=451ms TTL=54
Reply from 192.99.109.129: bytes=32 time=455ms TTL=54
Reply from 192.99.109.129: bytes=32 time=437ms TTL=54
Reply from 192.99.109.129: bytes=32 time=464ms TTL=54
Reply from 192.99.109.129: bytes=32 time=461ms TTL=54
Reply from 192.99.109.129: bytes=32 time=464ms TTL=54
Reply from 192.99.109.129: bytes=32 time=447ms TTL=54
Reply from 192.99.109.129: bytes=32 time=463ms TTL=54
Reply from 192.99.109.129: bytes=32 time=453ms TTL=54
Reply from 192.99.109.129: bytes=32 time=465ms TTL=54
Reply from 192.99.109.129: bytes=32 time=438ms TTL=54
Reply from 192.99.109.129: bytes=32 time=441ms TTL=54
Reply from 192.99.109.129: bytes=32 time=462ms TTL=54
Reply from 192.99.109.129: bytes=32 time=462ms TTL=54
Reply from 192.99.109.129: bytes=32 time=442ms TTL=54
Reply from 192.99.109.129: bytes=32 time=466ms TTL=54
Reply from 192.99.109.129: bytes=32 time=452ms TTL=54
Reply from 192.99.109.129: bytes=32 time=462ms TTL=54
Reply from 192.99.109.129: bytes=32 time=459ms TTL=54
Reply from 192.99.109.129: bytes=32 time=465ms TTL=54
Reply from 192.99.109.129: bytes=32 time=459ms TTL=54
Reply from 192.99.109.129: bytes=32 time=451ms TTL=54
Reply from 192.99.109.129: bytes=32 time=461ms TTL=54
Reply from 192.99.109.129: bytes=32 time=465ms TTL=54
Reply from 192.99.109.129: bytes=32 time=441ms TTL=54
Reply from 192.99.109.129: bytes=32 time=461ms TTL=54
Reply from 192.99.109.129: bytes=32 time=465ms TTL=54
Reply from 192.99.109.129: bytes=32 time=456ms TTL=54
Reply from 192.99.109.129: bytes=32 time=460ms TTL=54
Reply from 192.99.109.129: bytes=32 time=457ms TTL=54
Request timed out.
Reply from 192.99.109.129: bytes=32 time=465ms TTL=54
Reply from 192.99.109.129: bytes=32 time=448ms TTL=54
Reply from 192.99.109.129: bytes=32 time=447ms TTL=54
Reply from 192.99.109.129: bytes=32 time=464ms TTL=54
Reply from 192.99.109.129: bytes=32 time=437ms TTL=54
Reply from 192.99.109.129: bytes=32 time=462ms TTL=54
Reply from 192.99.109.129: bytes=32 time=464ms TTL=54
Reply from 192.99.109.129: bytes=32 time=440ms TTL=54
Reply from 192.99.109.129: bytes=32 time=464ms TTL=54
Reply from 192.99.109.129: bytes=32 time=448ms TTL=54
Reply from 192.99.109.129: bytes=32 time=465ms TTL=54
Reply from 192.99.109.129: bytes=32 time=461ms TTL=54
Reply from 192.99.109.129: bytes=32 time=446ms TTL=54
Reply from 192.99.109.129: bytes=32 time=465ms TTL=54
Reply from 192.99.109.129: bytes=32 time=453ms TTL=54
Reply from 192.99.109.129: bytes=32 time=461ms TTL=54
Reply from 192.99.109.129: bytes=32 time=461ms TTL=54
Reply from 192.99.109.129: bytes=32 time=459ms TTL=54
Reply from 192.99.109.129: bytes=32 time=456ms TTL=54
Reply from 192.99.109.129: bytes=32 time=443ms TTL=54
Reply from 192.99.109.129: bytes=32 time=458ms TTL=54
Reply from 192.99.109.129: bytes=32 time=440ms TTL=54
Reply from 192.99.109.129: bytes=32 time=465ms TTL=54
Reply from 192.99.109.129: bytes=32 time=447ms TTL=54
Reply from 192.99.109.129: bytes=32 time=466ms TTL=54
Reply from 192.99.109.129: bytes=32 time=458ms TTL=54
Reply from 192.99.109.129: bytes=32 time=456ms TTL=54
Reply from 192.99.109.129: bytes=32 time=465ms TTL=54
Reply from 192.99.109.129: bytes=32 time=448ms TTL=54
Reply from 192.99.109.129: bytes=32 time=511ms TTL=54
Reply from 192.99.109.129: bytes=32 time=463ms TTL=54
Reply from 192.99.109.129: bytes=32 time=447ms TTL=54
Reply from 192.99.109.129: bytes=32 time=465ms TTL=54
Reply from 192.99.109.129: bytes=32 time=450ms TTL=54
Reply from 192.99.109.129: bytes=32 time=433ms TTL=54
Reply from 192.99.109.129: bytes=32 time=462ms TTL=54
Reply from 192.99.109.129: bytes=32 time=445ms TTL=54
Reply from 192.99.109.129: bytes=32 time=464ms TTL=54
Reply from 192.99.109.129: bytes=32 time=463ms TTL=54
Reply from 192.99.109.129: bytes=32 time=465ms TTL=54
Reply from 192.99.109.129: bytes=32 time=465ms TTL=54

Ping statistics for 192.99.109.129:
Packets: Sent = 100, Received = 99, Lost = 1 (1% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 428ms, Maximum = 511ms, Average = 456ms

C:\>tracert -d 192.99.109.129

Tracing route to 192.99.109.129 over a maximum of 30 hops

1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 192.168.1.1
2 6 ms 6 ms 6 ms 100.72.0.1
3 6 ms 6 ms 5 ms 121.96.7.58
4 5 ms 5 ms 5 ms 121.96.7.58
5 6 ms 7 ms 6 ms 121.96.7.113
6 38 ms 36 ms 39 ms 121.96.3.9
7 7 ms 6 ms 7 ms 202.78.110.250
8 433 ms 396 ms 397 ms 206.72.210.214
9 * 449 ms * 198.27.73.193
10 * 472 ms 467 ms 198.27.73.207
11 445 ms 460 ms 466 ms 198.27.73.233
12 478 ms 458 ms 463 ms 192.99.109.129

Trace complete.

C:\>

Hop 8 : United States Denver Coresite
Hop 9 : France Paris Ovh Hosting Inc.
Hop 10 : Canada Beauharnois Ovh Hosting Inc.
Hop 11 : France Paris Ovh Hosting Inc.
Hop 12 : France Roubaix Ovh Hosting Inc.


I have been looking forward to the seemingly positive changes in the game, as well as the highly anticipated Community Warfare.
I might just drop in from time to time and see if the routing has improved.
Just don't blame me if I do poorly in a drop.
So, I apologize in advance.


Edit: changed /quote to /spoiler
Edit 2: updated ping/traceroute to new IP

Edited by Gambit001, 01 September 2014 - 06:10 PM.

[Major Derps]

DV McKenna, on 31 August 2014 - 12:05 AM, said:

For the complainants from the Asia regions, do some traceroutes and post them.
If like another Aus based player your all being routed through Europe, that is not PGI's problem nor is it there fault, that's down to ISP and above.

(probably the first time i have defended PGI and i feel sick)

Sorry, but it is PGIs problem. What started as acceptable ping, has now gone to unplayable ping. This isn't a matter of 'I don't like this, this is OP' whining, this is literally game breaking for a good portion of their player base.
Whilst the stated is not under PGIs direct control, it is a factor which should have been considered in the planning stages of the migration. To simply discount part of you consumer base, is not a smart business decision; certainly not for a F2P, which needs every little bit of support it can get. Without local servers, a centralised server is required at the least. Every other online game has some form of localised servers.

For the most part, this is not fair trading (for those with money in the game), plain and simple.

[WarHorseOne]

WarHorseOne, on 31 August 2014 - 04:42 PM, said:

Public holiday / long weekend in Canada, I doubt we see anything remotely official even recognising this till at least Wednesday down-under time.

Perhaps I should spend more time reading the forums and less whiny and b**ching on them. lol

http://mwomercs.com/...ver-lag-issues/

[Darth Futuza]

Little to no change for me.

[slide]

I've said this in another thread but will repeat here. I have access to 3 different services as follows.

Optus wireless (from home) before move 280-300 ms ping, after move 300-320ms
Dodo wired (from home) before move 250-270ms ping. after move 380+ms
iiNet wired (from work about 40kms from home) before move steady 250-255ms, after move 252ms (only one game checked but steady)

Apparently not all ISP are created equal. However I do find a 100+ms change to be quite odd and it should have been factored into the move of the data centre. Just about any ISP will have a customer locked into a contract of some sort, making it difficult, as well as expensive to change providers.

Location: Adelaide, South Australia

Edited by slide, 01 September 2014 - 03:48 AM.

[p4r4g0n]

Since the data centre migration, I have experienced increased ping numbers ranging from 50ms to 80ms with lag spikes of 100ms or more. Having heard that many Asian, Australian, NZ players are facing similar if not worse experiences, I checked the connection to 192.99.109.129 which appears to be the backend server if the info in the system.cfg file is correct.

Since my ISP blocks traceroutes, I used PingPlotter to check the connection and it appears that the first hop outside Malaysia in the North American continent has pings in the low 200's which is consistent with pre-move pings. However, the subsequent hops after are either:

• to 198.27.73.7 registered to OVH a Canadian web host provider based in Montreal with pings in the high 300's with occasional spikes before routing to the unnamed hops that lead to 192.99.109.129; or
  
• to the unnamed hops that lead to 192.99.109.129 which has pings in the low 300's which is around 30ms to 50ms more than it used to be IIRC

Noted packets losses ranging between 5% to 10% on the Malaysia / Singapore hops but more significant packet losses exceeding 15% with occasional spikes to much higher levels on hops beyond this. The Canadian OVH network hops frequently show high packet losses.

Upon checking with the Digital Attack Map, I note significant issues for the US and some for Canada which might explain the high spikes that result in de-syncs, rubber-banding, etc.

Conclusion: It is not possible to conclude at this time whether the location of the new data centre is the cause of the increased pings at this time. A re-test will be required after the internet congestion / disruption on the North American continent has been reduced or eliminated.

Edited by p4r4g0n, 31 August 2014 - 09:28 PM.

[Ismael]

Ping dropped from 135 to 119
Desync/Lag got worse

Berlin/Germany

[RalphyNoPants]

My ping in Minneapolis has gone from the 40 to 50 range to 140-160. Additionally every little thing seems to cause a crash to desktop. Computer information is below. if someone sees anything obviously wrong, please let me know.

Edited by No Pants, 31 August 2014 - 11:28 PM.

[Oderint dum Metuant]

WarHorseOne, on 31 August 2014 - 04:42 PM, said:

No routing through the Europe this time but still getting an in game ping around 340ms.
[Tracing route to 192.99.109.129 over a maximum of 30 hops
1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms home.gateway.home.gateway [192.168.1.254]
2 12 ms 12 ms 12 ms 172.18.209.7
3 12 ms 12 ms 12 ms 172.18.65.173
4 13 ms 12 ms 13 ms TenGigE0-5-0-0.chw-edge902.sydney.telstra.net [139.130.207.81]
5 15 ms 14 ms 14 ms bundle-ether14.chw-core10.sydney.telstra.net [203.50.11.100]
6 17 ms 15 ms 15 ms Bundle-ether17.oxf-gw2.sydney.telstra.net [203.50.13.70]
7 14 ms 15 ms 15 ms bundle-ether1.sydo-core01.sydney.reach.com [203.50.13.38]
8 14 ms 15 ms 15 ms i-0-3-2-0.sydo-core02.bi.telstraglobal.net [202.84.220.189]
9 157 ms 159 ms 159 ms i-0-2-0-3.1wlt-core01.bx.telstraglobal.net [202.84.140.222]
10 157 ms 157 ms 157 ms i-0-4-0-1.eqla01.bi.telstraglobal.net [202.84.251.154]
11 157 ms 156 ms 157 ms tisparkle-peer.eqla01.pr.telstraglobal.net [134.159.61.26]
12 155 ms 155 ms 154 ms xe-11-1-0.paloalto2.pao.seabone.net [89.221.35.129]
13 221 ms 221 ms 221 ms pal-5-6k.ca.us [178.32.135.206]
14 * * * Request timed out.
15 288 ms 288 ms 288 ms 198.27.73.175
16 286 ms 287 ms 286 ms bhs-g1-6k.qc.ca [198.27.73.1]
17 286 ms 286 ms 286 ms 198.27.73.231
18 287 ms 286 ms 286 ms 192.99.109.129
Trace complete.

Using this as an example.

The first 7 Hops are all inside Australia
Hop 8,9,10 seem to be Hong Kong
Hop 11,12 USA

Hop 13 is where it gets odd, the IP comes back to France...although the hostname is .us and is where you take a substantial MS hit

Hop 15 onwards is Canada.

Mokey Mot, on 31 August 2014 - 06:52 PM, said:

Sorry, but it is PGIs problem. What started as acceptable ping, has now gone to unplayable ping. This isn't a matter of 'I don't like this, this is OP' whining, this is literally game breaking for a good portion of their player base.
Whilst the stated is not under PGIs direct control, it is a factor which should have been considered in the planning stages of the migration. To simply discount part of you consumer base, is not a smart business decision; certainly not for a F2P, which needs every little bit of support it can get. Without local servers, a centralised server is required at the least. Every other online game has some form of localised servers.

For the most part, this is not fair trading (for those with money in the game), plain and simple.

I understand what your saying, but servers move all the time, if the ISP is routing inefficiently that is not PGI's problem, one of your fellow countymen tested two different ISP's one home, one work in another thread, and he got a far better ping from his work ISP.

Edited by DV McKenna, 01 September 2014 - 12:23 AM.

[Oderint dum Metuant]

Gattsus, on 31 August 2014 - 05:53 PM, said:

I said the same a while ago, if they offer a better service, they might increase their user base.

MWO is not a top quality game and offers a bad service (ping wise and business model), thus, making it very difficult to compete with other well established games such as DOTA 2 or LOL.

Tracing route to 192.99.109.129 over a maximum of 30 hops

1 3 ms 1 ms 1 ms 192.168.0.1
2 2 ms 2 ms 3 ms n218250252254.netvigator.com [218.250.252.254]
3 4 ms 2 ms 2 ms 10.193.232.118
4 3 ms 7 ms 4 ms wtsc3a014.netvigator.com [218.102.40.14]
5 5 ms 3 ms 3 ms tenge1-1.br01.hkg05.pccwbtn.net [63.218.255.9]
6 40 ms 45 ms 44 ms TenGigE0-5-0-1.cr04.hkg05.pccwbtn.net [63.218.21
4.117]
7 40 ms 41 ms 41 ms TenGE0-4-0-2.cr03.sin02.pccwbtn.net [63.218.228.
13]
8 277 ms 283 ms 276 ms xe-2-0-0.milano51.mil.seabone.net [93.186.128.22
3]
9 278 ms * * mil-1-6k.it.eu [91.121.131.17]
10 274 ms * 276 ms fra-1-6k.de.eu [213.251.128.66]
11 278 ms 280 ms 281 ms sbg-g1-a9.fr.eu [91.121.128.80]
12 278 ms 279 ms 277 ms 37.187.36.153
13 * * * Request timed out.
14 * * * Request timed out.
15 287 ms 287 ms 289 ms 192.99.109.129

Trace complete.

Even a child can spot the problem in this one.

Everything is normal until hop 8, look at it, Milano51 and yes the IP comes back to Italy, then you go back to France and austria (like Uk traffic) before being shuttled back

Edited by DV McKenna, 01 September 2014 - 12:31 AM.

[Amardez]

DV McKenna, on 31 August 2014 - 11:58 PM, said:

I understand what your saying, but servers move all the time, if the ISP is routing inefficiently that is not PGI's problem, one of your fellow countymen tested two different ISP's one home, one work in another thread, and he got a far better ping from his work ISP.

Yes servers move all the time and a few people are always affected, but the scale this seems to affect means some blame should be PGI's if they had done even a fraction of the testing that they should of something would have shown up that made them ummmmm something is not right here. Heck the can get a list of all of our ips pretty easy and a randomly selected list from that would show a pattern just by trace routing them with an automated program.

Edited by Amardez, 01 September 2014 - 12:46 AM.

[The Basilisk]

Good old Germany here.
Ping went from around 120 (105 - 130ish) to around 100 ( 95 - 105ms)
But there are lots of hangs, freezes, lagging, warping and every other thing that you simply can't have on a competitive shooter.
Hitting enemys is now next to guessing.

[Dagon Zur]

Central EU here, my Ping remained more or less the same (130-150) but i still have huge lag spikes (10-30 seconds of frozen time) with usual "you have been destroyed" message after the desync ends..

Btw, I never had such lag spikes before July-August...

PGI ,please hire some professional help!!!

We wil spend more money afterwards, we promise!

edit: added money incentive

Edited by Dagon Zur, 01 September 2014 - 01:23 AM.

[WarHorseOne]

DV McKenna, on 31 August 2014 - 11:58 PM, said:

Using this as an example.

The first 7 Hops are all inside Australia
Hop 8,9,10 seem to be Hong Kong
Hop 11,12 USA

Hop 13 is where it gets odd, the IP comes back to France...although the hostname is .us and is where you take a substantial MS hit

Hop 15 onwards is Canada.


I understand what your saying, but servers move all the time, if the ISP is routing inefficiently that is not PGI's problem, one of your fellow countymen tested two different ISP's one home, one work in another thread, and he got a far better ping from his work ISP.

I made the mistake of assuming pal-5-6k.ca.us was somewhere in California USA and not actually looking it up.

My latest trace:

Spoiler

Tracing route to 192.99.109.129 over a maximum of 30 hops
1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms home.gateway.home.gateway [192.168.1.254]
2 13 ms 13 ms 12 ms 172.18.209.7
3 13 ms 13 ms 13 ms 172.18.65.173
4 13 ms 13 ms 13 ms TenGigE0-5-0-0.chw-edge902.sydney.telstra.net [139.130.207.81]
5 13 ms 13 ms 14 ms bundle-ether14.chw-core10.sydney.telstra.net [203.50.11.100]
6 15 ms 15 ms 15 ms Bundle-ether17.oxf-gw2.sydney.telstra.net [203.50.13.70]
7 15 ms 15 ms 15 ms bundle-ether1.sydo-core01.sydney.reach.com [203.50.13.38]
8 15 ms 15 ms 15 ms i-0-3-2-0.sydo-core02.bi.telstraglobal.net [202.84.220.189]
9 157 ms 159 ms 159 ms i-0-2-0-3.1wlt-core01.bx.telstraglobal.net [202.84.140.222]
10 157 ms 157 ms 157 ms i-0-4-0-1.eqla01.bi.telstraglobal.net [202.84.251.154]
11 157 ms 157 ms 157 ms tisparkle-peer.eqla01.pr.telstraglobal.net [134.159.61.26]
12 154 ms 154 ms 155 ms xe-11-1-0.paloalto2.pao.seabone.net [89.221.35.129]
13 * 221 ms 221 ms pal-5-6k.ca.us [178.32.135.206]
14 284 ms * 284 ms 198.27.73.177
15 288 ms * 420 ms 198.27.73.175
16 286 ms 286 ms 286 ms bhs-g1-6k.qc.ca [198.27.73.1]
17 287 ms 288 ms 287 ms 198.27.73.231
18 286 ms 286 ms 293 ms 192.99.109.129
Trace complete.

4: Oz (Adelaide)
5: Oz
6: Oz
7: Oz
8: Hong Kong
9: Hong Kong
10: Hong Kong
11: Taiwan
12: Italy
13: France
14: Canada (Montréal)
15: Canada (Montréal)
16: Canada (Montréal)
17: Canada (Montréal)
18: Canada (Montréal)

[Amardez]

Dagon Zur, on 01 September 2014 - 01:21 AM, said:

Central EU here, my Ping remained more or less the same (130-150) but i still have huge lag spikes (10-30 seconds of frozen time) with usual "you have been destroyed" message after the desync ends..

Btw, I never had such lag spikes before July-August...

PGI ,please hire some professional help!!!

We wil spend more money afterwards, we promise!

edit: added money incentive

By the look of that badge you have already spent a chunk of cash.

[Oderint dum Metuant]

WarHorseOne, on 01 September 2014 - 01:39 AM, said:

I made the mistake of assuming pal-5-6k.ca.us was somewhere in California USA and not actually looking it up.

My latest trace:

Spoiler

Tracing route to 192.99.109.129 over a maximum of 30 hops
1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms home.gateway.home.gateway [192.168.1.254]
2 13 ms 13 ms 12 ms 172.18.209.7
3 13 ms 13 ms 13 ms 172.18.65.173
4 13 ms 13 ms 13 ms TenGigE0-5-0-0.chw-edge902.sydney.telstra.net [139.130.207.81]
5 13 ms 13 ms 14 ms bundle-ether14.chw-core10.sydney.telstra.net [203.50.11.100]
6 15 ms 15 ms 15 ms Bundle-ether17.oxf-gw2.sydney.telstra.net [203.50.13.70]
7 15 ms 15 ms 15 ms bundle-ether1.sydo-core01.sydney.reach.com [203.50.13.38]
8 15 ms 15 ms 15 ms i-0-3-2-0.sydo-core02.bi.telstraglobal.net [202.84.220.189]
9 157 ms 159 ms 159 ms i-0-2-0-3.1wlt-core01.bx.telstraglobal.net [202.84.140.222]
10 157 ms 157 ms 157 ms i-0-4-0-1.eqla01.bi.telstraglobal.net [202.84.251.154]
11 157 ms 157 ms 157 ms tisparkle-peer.eqla01.pr.telstraglobal.net [134.159.61.26]
12 154 ms 154 ms 155 ms xe-11-1-0.paloalto2.pao.seabone.net [89.221.35.129]
13 * 221 ms 221 ms pal-5-6k.ca.us [178.32.135.206]
14 284 ms * 284 ms 198.27.73.177
15 288 ms * 420 ms 198.27.73.175
16 286 ms 286 ms 286 ms bhs-g1-6k.qc.ca [198.27.73.1]
17 287 ms 288 ms 287 ms 198.27.73.231
18 286 ms 286 ms 293 ms 192.99.109.129
Trace complete.

4: Oz (Adelaide)
5: Oz
6: Oz
7: Oz
8: Hong Kong
9: Hong Kong
10: Hong Kong
11: Taiwan
12: Italy
13: France
14: Canada (Montréal)
15: Canada (Montréal)
16: Canada (Montréal)
17: Canada (Montréal)
18: Canada (Montréal)

Yup, might have to query it with your ISP. But i wouldn't expect a knowledgeable response until you get up the chain

As to the oddity of the name yea, that caught me as well, but the IP number and the MS jump didn't sit right so i checked it out.

Edited by DV McKenna, 01 September 2014 - 02:12 AM.