good bye FFXIV, thanks to the lag, you lost another customer.

[Raist]

That's very nitpicky. It might be a misconception when applied to a true measure of speed, but the reality is that this is a common understanding when talking about the internet. Boy you must be fun at parties.

Actually, no it isn't being nitpicky. In the networking world there is a very clear distinction between them. Bandwidth is capacity. Increasing capacity of a container does not equate to increasing the speed at which it can travel across the same medium. It increases the payload... but the container still travels the same distance in the same amount of time (the typical definition of speed). Throughput is not the measure of performance when it comes to small packet communications like what is used in games and things like VOIP. Latency is the metric you use, because it is about response time, not how big a package you can deliver (provided you can encapsulate a large enough chunk, which has not been an issue since we crossed about the 384k bandwidth mark).

The difference is with one you may get up to 16MB delivered in 110ms with one, but get up to 75MB delivered with the other. The time for that transfer can STILL be 110ms in both cases. The difference is you packed stuff in a bigger box that was traveling at the same speed. When the package is able to be delivered in the same number of handshakes, it takes the same amount of time to complete the process because both lines are moving the same number of packages at the same speed. So a 2K package that gets broken down into 1460 byte chunks will transfer in the same amount of time because it will be just two transferable units on both lines, both of which are in reality transferring the data at the same speed. 75MB takes longer to deliver the complete package on the narrower line because it can't send it all in one complete cycle--it has to break it up into 5 passes.... but each 16MB pass takes the same amount of time as the one 75MB pass because that is the capacity of the line and not the speed.

So, if the encapsulation is moving 2KB of data, and that can be transferred in the same number of handshakes on both lines with 80ms latency--both lines will deliver that same 2k in the same amount of time... they transfer the individual bits across the same number of channels (again, there is no issue of over-saturation here) at the same speed as determined by the combination of the medium's transfer speed, distance, and additional factors that determine the latency of the line (like delays in route). That is, in laymen's terms, what latency is--Delay. It is basically the amount of time it takes for the communication's round trip cycle to take place. It just isn't represented in the normal nomenclature many are accustomed to like MPH or KPH. It's just a flat measure of time, because when it comes to response times in this situation, that is what we need to know--how long it took to complete.

Line speed is more or less constant... it's bound to the physical characteristic of the medium (electricity vs light). Latency is the delay and is a product of distance traveled at the line speed, which can be impacted by things like noise, reflection, flat out interruptions that require retransmission. To a certain extent, Latency has a bottom that you can not reduce it past because it is a product of speed and distance. Bandwidth however is easy to manipulate--more channels, more wires, etc. increases the bandwidth. Bandwidth combines with your line speed and latency to determine overall throughput for a given period of time. So no.. Bandwidth is not speed. It may be perceived as such because you are comparing between over/under saturation of the bandwidth on different lines, but that is not speed. That is throughput, not speed.

[Edli]

To a certain extent, Latency has a bottom that you can not reduce it past because it is a product of speed and distance.

You cannot do anything about speed of light but you can reduce distance, that is how games reduce latency. When we play on private servers on counter strike for example we obviously pick the servers closer to us. I think there is a reason for that, oh yeah better latency. Having only one cluster of servers and in Canada was SE's choice. Saying SE has no fault whatsoever sounds strange to me.

[ElHeggunte]

You cannot do anything about speed of light but you can reduce distance, that is how games reduce latency. When we play on private servers on counter strike for example we obviously pick the servers closer to us. I think there is a reason for that, oh yeah better latency. Having only one cluster of servers and in Canada was SE's choice. Saying SE has no fault whatsoever sounds strange to me.

The servers being closer wouldn't guarantee these issues would go away if the problem is being caused by something between you and the server you're trying to connect to. Proximity to a server can help improve latency and reduce your chance of having a problem because you have to go through less hops to communicate with the server. However, it doesn't matter how close to the server you are if there's still a bad hop somewhere between you and it. You could be five miles away or five hundred and it would make no difference if your connection has to pass through something like a overloaded node regardless.

If distance were the only factor you would never see people living on the other side of the world being able to connect NA/EU realms just fine while other players fairly close to the servers experience problems.

So blaming SE and their server location is still scapegoating and failing to grasp the real nature of the problem.

[Edli]

The servers being closer wouldn't guarantee these issues would go away if the problem is being caused by something between you and the server you're trying to connect to.

The furthest away the servers are the higher the chance of encountering a bad hop along the way. No it wouldn't guarantee that every single issue would disappear but some would. When game developers create the infrastructure and the netcode their goal is not to make a 100% perfect scenario because that is impossible. They try to improve it on their side as much as possible.

What is happening on this thread is OP blaming SE, the others in here blame OP when in fact there are three options. It may be OP's fault, SE's fault or even both. However everyone just picks one option blindly and sticks to it with a passion. Yes there is a chance it might be SE problem, completely ignoring it is ridiculous especially when we know about this game server infrastructure.

However, this isn't counterstrike. This isn't an FPS in which the timing between clicking of the fire button by player A next to instantly hits player B.

Why does that matter? Latency is latency. All you're saying is, this game is laggy but not a big deal because is a slow game. My counter strike example was about how game developers usually reduce latency and that is done by reducing distance.

[ElHeggunte]

The furthest away the servers are the higher the chance of encountering a bad hop along the way. No it wouldn't guarantee that every single issue would disappear but some would.

I know, that's exactly what I said in the rest of the post that you didn't quote.

When game developers create the infrastructure and the netcode their goal is not to make a 100% perfect scenario because that is impossible. They try to improve it on their side as much as possible.

Of course, but that doesn't really have very much to do with where the servers are located as far as it pertains to this subject. SE could have servers evenly distributed all over the world and the OP could still be experiencing problems that aren't necessarily related to the servers. Someone somewhere is always going to have a bad hop to the server regardless of their proximity to it. So trying to specifically blame SE's server location without proof (you know, ping tests, traceroutes) is still scapegoating.

What is happening on this thread is OP blaming SE, the others in here blame OP when in fact there are three options. It may be OP's fault, SE's fault or even both. However everyone just picks one option blindly and sticks to it with a passion. Yes there is a chance it might be SE problem, completely ignoring it is ridiculous especially when we know about this game server infrastructure.

The side blindly throwing stones are the ones who keep insisting on blaming SE contrary to how the internet works and all the evidence provided. The counterargument says it's most likely (not that it necessarily is, just that it's the most likely cause) a local ISP problem or a bad hop, but that you also need to use available tools to narrow it down and communicate with the necessary parties in order to possibly get it fixed.

I don't think it's asking too much for people to do some research before playing the blame game and doing nothing to help alleviate their own situation. It's difficult to help those who don't even want to help themselves.

Why does that matter? Latency is latency. All you're saying is, this game is laggy but not a big deal because is a slow game. My counter strike example was about how game developers usually reduce latency and that is done by reducing distance.

It matters because not all games and services experience latency the same. An amount that could be crippling to one game might not even register on another. I don't pretend to speak for Fornix, but I believe that was his point.

[Edli]

Someone somewhere is always going to have a bad hop to the server regardless of their proximity to it. So trying to specifically blame SE's server location without proof (you know, ping tests, traceroutes) is still scapegoating.

I was not specifically blaming SE. What I'm against is this desire to throw the blame everywhere else but SE. Their decision to have only one cluster of servers for everyone and in Canada is a weird one no matter how you spin it.

Someone somewhere might still have problems or might not and that is the point. Only because someone somewhere will still have problems is not a good reason to not fix it for everyone else.

It matters because not all games and services experience latency the same. An amount that could be crippling to one game might not even register on another. I don't pretend to speak for Fornix, but I believe that was his point.

I picked CS as an example. I could have picked every other online game, even other MMOs. Is common knowledge on online gaming communities that you should pick the servers that are closest to you and that picking the ones that are far away is going to cause you problems. Only in here this logic apparently doesn't apply because reasons.

[ElHeggunte]

I was not specifically blaming SE. What I'm against is this desire to throw the blame everywhere else but SE. Their decision to have only one cluster of servers for everyone and in Canada is a weird one no matter how you spin it.

Someone somewhere might still have problems or might not and that is the point. Only because someone somewhere will still have problems is not a good reason to not fix it for everyone else.

I don't understand what they're supposed to fix? Are they supposed to move the servers? And who is "everyone else"? If people are still going to have problems no matter where the servers are located... then it doesn't matter where the servers are located.

The real argument should be would having the servers in a different location mean less people are afflicted, but evidence and common sense suggests no, it wouldn't. Because it's not an inherent problem of where SE decided to host the servers.

I picked CS as an example. I could have picked every other online game, even other MMOs. Is common knowledge on online gaming communities that you should pick the servers that are closest to you and that picking the ones that are far away is going to cause you problems. Only in here this logic apparently doesn't apply because reasons.

Yes, it's generally best to pick a server closest to you, but since distance isn't the only deciding factor and isn't even the immediate cause of the issue it isn't fully relevant to the topic. By your logic, no one over in the EU, even ones in this very thread talking about their lack of lag, should have stable connections because the servers they're connecting to are all the way in Canada. That's such a flimsy argument it'll blow away in a stiff breeze.

[Fornix]

Why does that matter? Latency is latency. All you're saying is, this game is laggy but not a big deal because is a slow game. My counter strike example was about how game developers usually reduce latency and that is done by reducing distance.

It matters because the minimal latency which FF XIV has does not come with an impact on gameplay. And as such the latency is acceptable. We're talking latency rates of roughly 100 ~ 140/160 ms for most European players. A fractional delay on skill timings of approximately 5% or less. For US players this will be even better.

If players complain that lag is what killed them, there's either one of two things going on:
- There's high latency due to an issue somewhere in the routing towards the servers, out of SE's hands; or
- They just plain and simple aren't skilled in playing.

[Edli]

It matters because the minimal latency which FF XIV has does not come with an impact on gameplay.

The problem is that this game is not FFXI. There are plenty of mechanisms that will instantly kill you and have really short casting time and there is a lot of movement so saying it doesn't matter is a bit strange.
The thing is that players learned to deal with lag. Take titan plumes, in an ideal scenario there is enough time for you to get out when you move the moment you see the telegraphs. That is not however how players actually do it because that would kill you. What it is showing you on screen is later than on what is actually happening on the server. You can notice it even when the whole group moves together. It always shows you as being the first to move when in fact on the other screens you're moving at the same rate as everyone else.

The way players learned to deal with it is by moving preemptively. So yeah, lag does affect this game. Is not as slow as you say it is, there is a lot of movement and quick avoiding you have to do.

[Fornix]

The problem is that this game is not FFXI. There are plenty of mechanisms that will instantly kill you and have really short casting time and there is a lot of movement so saying it doesn't matter is a bit strange.
The thing is that players learned to deal with lag. Take titan plumes, in an ideal scenario there is enough time for you to get out when you move the moment you see the telegraphs. That is not however how players actually do it because that would kill you. What it is showing you on screen is later than on what is actually happening on the server. You can notice it even when the whole group moves together. It always shows you as being the first to move when in fact on the other screens you're moving at the same rate as everyone else.

The way players learned to deal with it is by moving preemptively. So yeah, lag does affect this game. Is not as slow as you say it is, there is a lot of movement and quick avoiding you have to do.

Funny that you bring up the titan plumes. And mention moving pre-emptively. As moving pre-emptively on titan plumes means you'll be dropping the plume on another area than your fellow group players. Greatly increasing the odds of wiping. Much rather you want to stay stacked and on the moment the plumes appear, respond. There's no need to be hit there, even whilst playing from the other end of the ocean. Yes, as you move other players will be moving behind. But it doesn't matter. Them moving behind does not impact your success rate.

And the time for plumes to hit the ground and explode is 2 seconds. It is not extremely fast.

I've cleared every little tidbit of PvE content in this game asides from savage modes. And there is absolutely nothing in this game which is negatively impacted with a latency of up to around 200 ms. Never played with higher than that, but even with roughly 180 - 200ms when downloading along there's always still plenty of leeway.