17 replies to this topic

[obeythefist]

I'm in West Australia, on TPG's 100mbit fibre.

My latency to the Oceanic servers is between 380-420ms.
My latency to the NA servers is between 280-320ms.

Something is obviously badly wrong here.

Do we have IP's/hostnames for tracert and diagnostics so I can try understand why this is the case?

[White Bear 84]

obeythefist, on 04 August 2015 - 08:06 PM, said:

Something is obviously badly wrong here.

You are with TPG?

[Chaosity]

See this: Oceanic Pings and Your ISP

Edited by Chaosity, 05 August 2015 - 12:36 AM.

[Saskia]

I am extremely pissed off! When I first started MWO my ping to North America was averaging 235. You changed servers and it rose to average 300. To play with my Euro friends I endure a 400 average ping now on the Euro server. But what really **** me the most was the Oceanic server dishing out a 330 ping. Yet my Finnish friend told me he got a 240 ping.

Yes, I read this link - http://mwomercs.com/...49#entry4603149

Something needs to be done asap!

[LoRdLoSs1337]

|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| WinMTR statistics |
| Host - % | Sent | Recv | Best | Avrg | Wrst | Last |
|------------------------------------------------|------|------|------|------|------|------|
| mygateway1.ar7 - 0 | 55 | 55 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| No response from host - 100 | 11 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Destination port unreachable. - 100 | 15 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Destination port unreachable. - 100 | 15 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Destination port unreachable. - 100 | 15 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Destination port unreachable. - 100 | 15 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Destination port unreachable. - 100 | 15 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Destination port unreachable. - 100 | 15 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Destination port unreachable. - 100 | 15 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Destination port unreachable. - 100 | 13 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Destination port unreachable. - 100 | 15 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Destination port unreachable. - 100 | 12 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Destination port unreachable. - 100 | 12 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Destination port unreachable. - 100 | 12 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Destination port unreachable. - 100 | 12 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Destination port unreachable. - 100 | 15 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Destination port unreachable. - 100 | 12 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Destination port unreachable. - 100 | 12 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Destination port unreachable. - 100 | 12 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Destination port unreachable. - 100 | 12 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Destination port unreachable. - 100 | 12 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| No response from host - 100 | 11 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Destination port unreachable. - 100 | 12 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Destination port unreachable. - 100 | 12 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| No response from host - 100 | 11 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| No response from host - 100 | 11 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| No response from host - 100 | 11 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| No response from host - 100 | 11 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| No response from host - 100 | 11 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| No response from host - 100 | 11 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|________________________________________________|______|______|______|______|______|______|
WinMTR v0.92 GPL V2 by Appnor MSP - Fully Managed Hosting & Cloud Provider

I get this from New Zealand
300+ ping
220 to NA

[Z01]

I am playing from Singapore and getting wonderful ping most of the time. Almost all matches less than 100 ping. Great to see autocannon and ppc registering hit from a distance. Last match 5 kills with my dual ERPPC. Though finding game is slower but well worth the wait.

Edited by Z01, 06 August 2015 - 08:35 AM.

[obeythefist]

Ok, TPG called me and the result of the ticket I placed with them was this:

They have a peering agreement with the hosting companies for games like World of Tanks which is why the routes are good. Other ISPs also have peering agreements which can result in better routes.

However, TPG and other Australian ISPs don't have peering agreements with the hosting company that PGI selected.

Sure, Australian ISPs hold a lot of the blame for being cheap and not having peering agreements, etc.

But PGI is also at least partially culpable here for not performing any due diligence. They could have chosen a hosting company in Australia, or a hosting company in SEA with connectivity to other countries superior in the region than Australians have to the USA.

Unless PGI takes action, it's better for many Australian players to deselect the Oceanic servers and continue to play exclusively on the NA servers, where the pings are lower.

[Jeffrey Wilder]

After much observation, I think server load might be the cause of the massive DCs at certain timings.

[Ironwithin]

obeythefist, on 09 August 2015 - 11:43 PM, said:

Ok, TPG called me and the result of the ticket I placed with them was this:

They have a peering agreement with the hosting companies for games like World of Tanks which is why the routes are good. Other ISPs also have peering agreements which can result in better routes.

However, TPG and other Australian ISPs don't have peering agreements with the hosting company that PGI selected.

Sure, Australian ISPs hold a lot of the blame for being cheap and not having peering agreements, etc.

But PGI is also at least partially culpable here for not performing any due diligence. They could have chosen a hosting company in Australia, or a hosting company in SEA with connectivity to other countries superior in the region than Australians have to the USA.

Unless PGI takes action, it's better for many Australian players to deselect the Oceanic servers and continue to play exclusively on the NA servers, where the pings are lower.

You're assuming Australians make up the majority of "Oceanic" players. What gave you that impression ?

[FatYak]

Ironwithin, on 10 August 2015 - 01:12 AM, said:

You're assuming Australians make up the majority of "Oceanic" players. What gave you that impression ?

PGI gave that impression.

I agree though, im still playing on the NA server as the Oceania one is horrendously unstable.

Another PGI letdown

[Rushin Roulette]

obeythefist, on 09 August 2015 - 11:43 PM, said:

However, TPG and other Australian ISPs don't have peering agreements with the hosting company that PGI selected.

From the link above your post it is TGP and the other provider"s" is Optus. Other users in Autralia who are not with these 2 providers are stating that they have much better ping. Blaming PGI for something your provider messed up is not really fair. It is even written exactly which providers this problem is caused by and why there is a problem.

[obeythefist]

Rushin Roulette, on 10 August 2015 - 02:54 AM, said:

From the link above your post it is TGP and the other provider"s" is Optus. Other users in Autralia who are not with these 2 providers are stating that they have much better ping. Blaming PGI for something your provider messed up is not really fair. It is even written exactly which providers this problem is caused by and why there is a problem.

Together these ISP's make up a very large proportion of the player base in Australia. Remember that PGI had a choice about which hosting provider they chose, and which country to position their servers in, and they were the ones who made the decision. ISP's are a lot bigger than PGI, and the cost for changing routes and peering arrangements is extensive.

The purpose of Oceanic servers is to make latency issues better for players in Oceania. Why then would PGI choose a hosting provider with bad peering arrangements to Oceanic ISPs? Malice or incompetence?

Should people be forced to change ISPs at considerable expense just because PGI couldn't be bothered doing a bit of route testing when they chose where to host servers? Is that what you are saying?

[Jeffrey Wilder]

Guess there are those expat families that work across Asia that connects nearer to the Oceanic server

[Tarogato]

obeythefist, on 10 August 2015 - 03:12 AM, said:

... just because PGI couldn't be bothered doing a bit of route testing when they chose where to host servers? Is that what you are saying?

But PGI did do some route testing before hand...

link to tracert requests here on forums
another link from over on reddit

[obeythefist]

Tarogato, on 10 August 2015 - 04:59 AM, said:

But PGI did do some route testing before hand...

So they knew the site wasn't optimal but they chose it anyway.

[Tarogato]

obeythefist, on 10 August 2015 - 06:08 PM, said:

So they knew the site wasn't optimal but they chose it anyway.

[Carl Vickers]

Must be a TPG thing as I'm with iinet and I get mid to early 60s ping. I think alot of the testing was done by peeps from iinet and telstra.

[Troutmonkey]

Here in Adelaide on Internode getting ~90ms, much better than the NA servers at ~250ms+

Edited by Troutmonkey, 10 August 2015 - 10:30 PM.