[Data Center USA] Ping increased. Report your changes here.

[Mature]

Yesterday I had 2 "unable to join lobby" error

[Riardon]

Use the official forum feedback thread to report your ping changes.
Answer the questions and be constructive.
http://forum.square-enix.com/ffxiv/t...ter-Relocation

[Hamada]

TL;DR: If more actions in the game functioned like Mudras, where the Client is trusted without requiring a response from the server, much of FFXIV's clunky action execution problems would evaporate. That'swhat I think, anyway.
What do you think about FFXIV's overall responsiveness, relating to Ping and in general?

___________________________________________________

After the server move, there are a lot of players who have much worse Ping than before; and many who have much better. That's to be expected.
But the server move basically makes it such that almost every player understands the effect an increase from 70 to 150ms can be to FFXIV.

I think r/Anidamo on Reddit summarised the underlying issue with FFXIV's ping-reliant responsiveness:



The way the Client and Server communicate is (presumably, based on watching traffic via Network Monitoring programs) seems to favor waiting on the server before allowing the Client to proceed. This is quite frankly woefully inefficient and sluggish for a game that came out post-2010.

Legacy players will remember that a lot of the reasons why 1.0 felt so clunky to play was because every single action, including menu actions, would require a response from the server before executing that action. It does appear the same issue is at play, but to a lesser, though still noticable degree.

The following are also affected by FFXIV's tendency to wait on the server for input:
___________________________________________________

>Moving targets being more difficult to hit, as melee abilities start then stop if you aren't inside of the target

>Buffs/Debuffs need a tick to apply, or the next GCD used after them will not benefit from them unless you wait a moment (best exemplified with using Bio then Fester or Bane)

___________________________________________________

Now, my question is:
What do you think? Is FFXIV responsiveness about right? Is it sluggish, compared to other MMOs? Do you like that there is an activation-delay between a GCD and an oGCD being available?
I've seen people fall into one of three camps:
-They think XIV is a clunky MMO
-They think XIV is fine as it is
-They don't notice the sluggishness I an many other players talk about

I'm wondering how many people really think of this as a problem, and if so, how interested they would be in the game being overall more responsive.

important thread where the post got merged in this thread.

[kmmm]

Sure! I tracert to the current IP of my server (Balmung) as of typing this.

Tracing route to 204.2.229.82 over a maximum of 30 hops

1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms FIOS_Quantum_Gateway.fios-router.home [192.168.1.1]
2 5 ms 4 ms 5 ms lo0-100.PHLAPA-VFTTP-306.verizon-gni.net [98.115.101.1]
3 3 ms 7 ms 3 ms B3306.PHLAPA-LCR-21.verizon-gni.net [100.41.214.110]
4 * * * Request timed out.
5 * * * Request timed out.
6 10 ms 10 ms 10 ms 0.et-5-3-0.BR1.IAD8.ALTER.NET [140.222.239.49]
4 13 ms 9 ms 9 ms ae-3.a02.asbnva02.us.bb.gin.ntt.net [129.250.8.34]
8 48 ms 52 ms 52 ms ae-69.r06.asbnva02.us.bb.gin.ntt.net [129.250.5.193]
9 13 ms 9 ms 10 ms ae-2.r23.asbnva02.us.bb.gin.ntt.net [129.250.2.132]
10 44 ms 51 ms 42 ms ae-10.r22.snjsca04.us.bb.gin.ntt.net [129.250.6.234]
11 44 ms 52 ms 46 ms ae-40.r02.snjsca04.us.bb.gin.ntt.net [129.250.3.121]
12 49 ms 44 ms 46 ms ae-2.r00.scrmca02.us.bb.gin.ntt.net [129.250.4.33]
13 49 ms 44 ms 46 ms xe-0-1-0-1-1.r00.scrmca02.us.ce.gin.ntt.net [129.250.195.46]
14 44 ms * 49 ms 204.2.229.234
15 40 ms 46 ms 46 ms 204.2.229.82

Wow, what's going on with this? Mine's going through NTT in asbnva02 (second line 4) as well, but it gains about 20 pings while within Ashburn, VA and another 50+ when jumping to San Jose, CA. I have comcast tho.
Also, what causes the index numbers (first column) to get mixed around like that?

[duvvvv]

I'm from SEA, and high latency isn't new to me, but I used to play around 180ms and now I'm averaging 210ms, which has significant difference.
it seems once you hit 200+ms the lag is much more noticeable. I think my ISP (PLDT) is also the culprit, as it has an infamous reputation in my country, but I hope there's an alternative I could use before I resort to paying for VPN.

I could of course, transfer to the JP servers, but other than the cost, I can't just leave my current FC like that.
right now I've not touched the dungeons because I'm getting DC'd, just waiting until SB launch to see if anything changes.
any advice? thanks.

[Mature]

Dear mods

Can we have an update as to how things are going or what it's getting done to fix people's issues?

Thanks

[Valkyrie_Lenneth]

Dear mods

Can we have an update as to how things are going or what it's getting done to fix people's issues?

Thanks

Considering they made a whole thread for that, you probably wont get a reply on this one.

[Qojon]

The game feels so much better now. It's like I'm right there next to the datacenter.

[KisaiTenshi]

Time to chime in:
neolobby4:
Reply from 204.2.229.10: bytes=32 time=30ms TTL=55

Tracing route to neolobby04.ffxiv.com [204.2.229.10]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms *
2 15 ms 14 ms 5 ms *
3 8 ms 7 ms 8 ms 154.11.10.11
4 8 ms 8 ms 8 ms 10-1-2.ear3.Seattle1.Level3.net [4.16.169.73]
5 10 ms 8 ms 8 ms ae-1.r05.sttlwa01.us.bb.gin.ntt.net [129.250.8.217]
6 9 ms 9 ms 9 ms ae-1.r21.sttlwa01.us.bb.gin.ntt.net [129.250.2.88]
7 27 ms 26 ms 27 ms ae-3.r23.snjsca04.us.bb.gin.ntt.net [129.250.3.124]
8 30 ms 30 ms 30 ms ae-41.r02.snjsca04.us.bb.gin.ntt.net [129.250.6.119]
9 30 ms 30 ms 30 ms ae-2.r00.scrmca02.us.bb.gin.ntt.net [129.250.7.33]
10 35 ms 30 ms 30 ms xe-0-1-0-1-1.r00.scrmca02.us.ce.gin.ntt.net [129.250.195.46]
11 30 ms 30 ms 30 ms 204.2.229.234
12 30 ms 30 ms 30 ms 204.2.229.10

neolobby2:
Reply from 204.2.229.9: bytes=32 time=32ms TTL=55

Tracing route to neolobby02.ffxiv.com [204.2.229.9]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

1 1 ms <1 ms <1 ms *
2 63 ms 5 ms 5 ms *
3 8 ms 7 ms 7 ms ae0.100.STTLWAWBGR80.bb.telus.com [154.11.10.9]
4 8 ms 8 ms 8 ms 10-1-2.ear3.Seattle1.Level3.net [4.16.169.73]
5 9 ms 8 ms 8 ms ae-1.r05.sttlwa01.us.bb.gin.ntt.net [129.250.8.217]
6 8 ms 8 ms 8 ms ae-1.r21.sttlwa01.us.bb.gin.ntt.net [129.250.2.88]
7 28 ms 28 ms 28 ms ae-3.r23.snjsca04.us.bb.gin.ntt.net [129.250.3.124]
8 32 ms 32 ms 32 ms ae-45.r01.snjsca04.us.bb.gin.ntt.net [129.250.3.175]
9 32 ms 32 ms 32 ms ae-1.r00.scrmca02.us.bb.gin.ntt.net [129.250.7.31]
10 32 ms 32 ms 32 ms xe-0-1-0-1-1.r00.scrmca02.us.ce.gin.ntt.net [129.250.195.46]
11 * 32 ms 32 ms 204.2.229.234
12 32 ms 31 ms 31 ms 204.2.229.9

So Vancouver, Seattle (level 3), Seattle (ntt), Seattle (ntt), San Jose (ntt), San Jose (ntt), Sacramento (ntt), Sacramento (ntt)

Note that pinging the gateway is not representative of your game ping time. For that you need to trace the server ip.

In fact if I trace the ip address to Primal listed on arrstatus.com

Tracing route to 199.91.189.93 over a maximum of 30 hops

1 <1 ms 1 ms <1 ms *
2 5 ms 10 ms 18 ms *
3 8 ms 7 ms 8 ms 154.11.10.11
4 * 8 ms 7 ms 10-1-2.ear3.Seattle1.Level3.net [4.16.169.73]
5 * 78 ms 78 ms ae-1-11.bear1.Montreal2.Level3.net [4.69.203.133]
6 79 ms 79 ms 79 ms ORMUCO-COMM.car2.Montreal2.Level3.net [4.59.178.74]
7 * * * Request timed out.
8 74 ms 88 ms 74 ms 192.34.76.2
9 75 ms 75 ms 74 ms 199.91.189.234
10 * * * Request timed out.
11 * * * Request timed out.
12 ^C

It still shows the route going to Montreal. Which makes me wonder if the ip address is still the same or not.

The gateway ip addresses are pretty much consistant with other stuff I've accessed in California, however perhaps Square-Enix can turn on IPv6?

Also point of interest, if you've "turned off nagle" at the OS level, you would notice the difference between 30 and 100ms quite noticably. If you never turned off nagle, then your PC is quite literately framing everything in 200ms intervals, and thus only if you had more than 200ms RTT would you notice it.

Most MMORPG players that I know, know better than to tamper with their network card settings or the cable/dsl modem settings.

If you have CABLE and it's not channel bonded, you should be able to get 30-70ms (due to RF noise,) Channel bonding on cable occurs at settings over 30Mbps. If you have DSL and it's not channel bonded you should be able to get 8-40ms (unless you have FM radio interference) before it leaves your state in the trace routes. There is no excuse for an increase of more than 40ms. If you have fiber, you should not have a ping time worse than 10ms realisticly, depends if you are in California or in a city with a carrier hotel. eg, if you're 300 miles away from the capital or largest city in your state, then yeah you might be hard pressed to get below 70.

If you have channel bonded cable or DSL, then you will likely be unable to get sub-70ms due to the nature of channel bonding favoring bandwidth over latency. If this is something you feel is important ask your ISP about switching to fiber, or downgrading from a channel bonded package.

Channel-bonding on cable tends to be a bit less painful, but at the same time it's also extremely difficult to get low-latency on cable because of it, and Cable ISP's are reluctant to upgrade hardware in areas that aren't congested. DSL can force channel bonding off by unplugging the second phone line.

[KisaiTenshi]

This game was designed by japaneses for japaneses, below 50ms.
The difference between 60ms and 200ms is basically nothing, but 20 to 60ms does affect double weaving.
It's not bad, but you do notice it, at least I do.

This is a similar problem with Korean games in Korea. The games run fine at their sub-10ms latency, but when the games finally get localized for North America, latency makes the games so much more terrible, and PvP'ers who live in California end up ruling the server.

With FFXIV V1.0 all the servers were in Japan, with V2.0 North America's servers were actually in Montreal (and so were Europe's at the time.)

So no, FFXIV V2.0 was intentionally designed with the awful non-fiber internet of North America.