|
On June 13 2010 12:53 Vinnesta wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2010 12:44 backtoback wrote:On June 13 2010 12:28 schiznak wrote:On June 13 2010 12:21 Vinnesta wrote:On June 13 2010 12:08 Kegs.aus wrote:On June 13 2010 11:42 Skeyser wrote:
Pretty sure pingtest don't use the same servers as Blizzard, so what does this test proves? The tests prove nothing...but some IPs will route through the USA so it is impossible for some people to achieve a lower ping on a SEA server....i know my ISP does direct so i WILL get a lower ping.... But idc, why the fuck would I want to play with south east asians? I dont know any South East Asians and with no chat rooms and few english speakers I will probably never get to know any anyway, the US servers are WAY more compatible with Australians than friggin South East Asian ones..... Half the people who play this game regardless of where they are from will want to play on the US servers.. Almost all South East Asians are able to speak English, and most choose to do so online. You only have to look at the "Oceanic" servers on WoW to know that the Australian community can fit in the SEA community, and vice versa, very well in terms of time, language and location. Some ISPs in Australia connect through Singapore to the fibre optic cables that cross the Pacific, hence the lower latency that some Australians might get. Personally speaking, i was in a Singaporean WoW guild for a while, and while most of them could speak english competently as a second language, guild chat was mostly in malaysian and i could always feel a communication barrier when talking to anyone. (As a side note a few of my former guildies thought all white people smell awful  ) what language do singaporeans speak? cantonese or mandarin o.O? and i am sure it is so slang so aussies must be able to understand some what... like xiao la xD Singaporeans speak Hokkien.
Sounds delicious
|
I think we all should play on the same server :< find one that is the best for all of us, and just play there. I know there will be lag for a lot of people, buy having this split in the community is so bad for ESPORTS.
|
|
|
I live in Vietnam but i"ll play on NA servers if my ping isn't so bad :D
|
Try to ping some of these web sites, these are some of the main hosting companies in SG/MY, some of them should give you decent pings.
+ Show Spoiler +
|
I personally believe that region locking is fine provided we do have enough gamer population in each of the gateways.
The US gateway in bnetV1.0 tends to be overpopulated and I guess blizzard is just trying to find the easiest solution to solve this problem.
However, I still feel that battleV2.0 will be great if there isn't any region locking but new functions to improve latency problems like ping filters, country filters etc etc. The hosts of game room decides on these settings to filter out laggy gamers. <----- I'm referring to custom games.
As for ladder matches, region locking might be useful. Maybe?
|
At least peak hour will be during prime time for us. There's your silver lining if you're looking for one.
|
On June 13 2010 12:29 Manaldski wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2010 12:26 sluggaslamoo wrote:
Because you are avoiding all the hops between melbourne (or another city) to sydney, and the end-point of the Southern Cross Cable to the actual server. Do you understand that the latency from Melbourne to Sydney is 4ms and from Los Angeles to the Blizzard server in L.A will be 0-1ms?
Oh gosh, you are so wrong, where do you source your info from?
![[image loading]](http://www.speedtest.net/result/845690761.png)
Add about 20ms to get to the start of the cable, and about 20ms from the end point to get to the actual server.
150 + 60 + 20 + 20 = 250. Which is about what the guy I was replying to suggested.
|
On June 13 2010 12:29 Manaldski wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2010 12:26 sluggaslamoo wrote:
Because you are avoiding all the hops between melbourne (or another city) to sydney, and the end-point of the Southern Cross Cable to the actual server. Do you understand that the latency from Melbourne to Sydney is 4ms and from Los Angeles to the Blizzard server in L.A will be 0-1ms?
LOL @ this guy?
4ms?.... You get 10ms on LANs...
|
On June 13 2010 14:01 fearus wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2010 12:29 Manaldski wrote:On June 13 2010 12:26 sluggaslamoo wrote:
Because you are avoiding all the hops between melbourne (or another city) to sydney, and the end-point of the Southern Cross Cable to the actual server. Do you understand that the latency from Melbourne to Sydney is 4ms and from Los Angeles to the Blizzard server in L.A will be 0-1ms? LOL @ this guy? 4ms?.... You get 10ms on LANs...
Speed of light: 300000km/s = 300000m/ms = I don't think it's because of the distance lol
|
The whole over-crowding thing doesn't add-up either. Think about it, the time Australians will be on will be around the time when the USA-ians will be asleep, hell its even more efficient to do it this way.
|
On June 13 2010 14:18 sluggaslamoo wrote:
The whole over-crowding thing doesn't add-up either. Think about it, the time Australians will be on will be around the time when the USA-ians will be asleep, hell its even more efficient to do it this way.
But if they do it that way, how are they going to charge for server movement fees after the game is out for a while and most of the australians are trapped and want to move?
|
On June 13 2010 14:18 sluggaslamoo wrote:
The whole over-crowding thing doesn't add-up either. Think about it, the time Australians will be on will be around the time when the USA-ians will be asleep, hell its even more efficient to do it this way.
That is not necessarily true. For me currently in the Eastern United States it is 1:22 AM. This means that it will be 10:22 PM in the Western United States. Aaaand according to my handy dandy cell phone world clock application it is currently 3:22 PM in Sydney Australia. There's definitely a chance of an overlap.
|
You are kind of right, but most of the online games I've played this overlap only lasted about an hour. If you think about it 3:22 is about the time kids finish school, at the same time in America I would say not many people would stay up past 10:30. So lets say kids start playing at about 4pm, for the West coast that will be about 11:00pm, and on the East coast which the server is located, it is 2:00am.
This is much more efficient than having 80% load during peak and about 10% at off-peak. You could balance this out by having 85% and 30% (rough example). You could then scale down the servers at SEA, and invest more money into where it is needed most, the US servers.
On June 13 2010 14:23 Two_DoWn wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2010 14:18 sluggaslamoo wrote:
The whole over-crowding thing doesn't add-up either. Think about it, the time Australians will be on will be around the time when the USA-ians will be asleep, hell its even more efficient to do it this way. But if they do it that way, how are they going to charge for server movement fees after the game is out for a while and most of the australians are trapped and want to move?
Sorry, not sure what you mean by this.
|
On June 13 2010 12:26 sluggaslamoo wrote:Oh gosh, you are so wrong, where do you source your info from? Add about 20ms to get to the start of the cable, and about 20ms from the end point to get to the actual server. 150 + 60 + 20 + 20 = 250. Which is about what the guy I was replying to suggested.
My bad , the latency between Melbourne and Sydney is 12ms not 4ms, misread the value. You can check that here:
http://www.telstra.net/cgi-bin/trace
The LG server is in Melbourne, trace some US site and it will go through Sydney, you can see that by the DNS. Your speed test shows 60ms because you probably have DSL and high latency to your ISP local DSLAM-station , i have seen people from AUS with like 40ms, on avarage is about 20ms.
Still the latency from Perth to Sydney is 56ms (44ms from Perth to Melbourne + 12ms from Melbourne to Sydney). The link i gave that shows the Sydney-L.A latency includes all the the things you are talking about, and keep in mind that the cable could terminate in San Jose or Palo Alto. And the latency from Sydney to the start of the cable and from the end of the cable to L.A. is less then 20ms, 20ms through fiber are about 2000km.
Go do a trace from the Perth node to the Blizzard US server and you will see for yourself:
http://looking-glass.iinet.net.au/lg/
Pinging US Battle.net from there gives: 168ms from Sydney and 228ms from Perth.
|
On June 13 2010 14:33 sluggaslamoo wrote:You are kind of right, but most of the online games I've played this overlap only lasted about an hour. If you think about it 3:22 is about the time kids finish school, at the same time in America I would say not many people would stay up past 10:30. So lets say kids start playing at about 4pm, for the West coast that will be about 11:00pm, and on the East coast which the server is located, it is 2:00am. This is much more efficient than having 80% load during peak and about 10% at off-peak. You could balance this out by having 85% and 30% (rough example). You could then scale down the servers at SEA, and invest more money into where it is needed most, the US servers. Show nested quote +On June 13 2010 14:23 Two_DoWn wrote:On June 13 2010 14:18 sluggaslamoo wrote:
The whole over-crowding thing doesn't add-up either. Think about it, the time Australians will be on will be around the time when the USA-ians will be asleep, hell its even more efficient to do it this way. But if they do it that way, how are they going to charge for server movement fees after the game is out for a while and most of the australians are trapped and want to move? Sorry, not sure what you mean by this.
I get what you're saying, but as a college student I'll tell you that on days I have class either off or have class later in the day, I definitely stay up past 10:30. Of course I'm on the East Coast so the overlap from our side of the country won't be as bad as the west, but yeah I agree with you in the sense that you could invest more into one server than another and I would love to have the Australians join us in the US server (one of us.... one of us..... one of us....)
|
From Perth
Singapore
![[image loading]](http://www.speedtest.net/result/845715126.png)
Boston
![[image loading]](http://www.speedtest.net/result/845715773.png)
LA,, I assume this is where US west is located?
![[image loading]](http://www.speedtest.net/result/845716317.png)
San Francisco
![[image loading]](http://www.speedtest.net/result/845718120.png)
My isp seems to be supporting blizz on this one.
|
On June 13 2010 14:18 sluggaslamoo wrote:
The whole over-crowding thing doesn't add-up either. Think about it, the time Australians will be on will be around the time when the USA-ians will be asleep, hell its even more efficient to do it this way.
We do have people all over the world outside the USA connecting to the US gateway, not just australians. There are bound to be certain periods where over-crowding happens. I'm just guessing. We will never know unless we can get to see statistics & graph reports for the bandwidth usage in the US gateway.
|
So is it confirmed that we have to change our address to somewhere in the USA?
I was under the impression that we had to create an American battle.net account or use an already existing one. (Like the one my previous WoW account is tied to).
I assumed it was going to function like the US / EU difference does now, with a new SEA battle.net site to log into.
I might be confusing how this all works, if I screw up my initial copy I have from pre-order at EB. I will bite the bullet and buy a digital copy. Which I again I just think they are offering.
|
On June 13 2010 11:29 Depops wrote:Internode.
Internode are pretty much the only Aus ISP that gets good ping to SEA i recently had to change to Optus and my ping to SEA almost doubled
is this change to the SEA servers 100%?
it would be extremely stupid of them to make such a change with out doing there homework every one i know gets 400+ to SEA and only 250 US
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
