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

[Malzian]

So maybe the problem isn't your internet but your connection to it. I use an Ethernet cable to connect to my modem it cost me less than 20 bucks and it fixed similar issues I had been having with overwatch and dark souls back when I was using wireless.

I'm not an expert but maybe you guys should do some research about your own gear before you cry fowl.

This is a red herring and not implicity true. The biggest component of your ping does not generally come from your connection to the router and is usually somewhere in transit between your Router and the destination. For instance, I am on a FiOS connection connected to my router with a cable. Running a traceroute I get this:

1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms Wireless_Broadband_Router.home [192.168.1.1]
2 8 ms 7 ms 7 ms lo0-100.NWRKNJ-VFTTP-304.verizon-gni.net [108.53.177.1]
3 9 ms 12 ms 12 ms B3304.NWRKNJ-LCR-22.verizon-gni.net [100.41.139.224]
4 * * * Request timed out.
5 * * * Request timed out.
6 9 ms 9 ms 10 ms 0.et-11-1-0.BR2.NYC4.ALTER.NET [140.222.239.35]
7 10 ms 12 ms 12 ms NTT.customer.alter.net [152.179.49.38]
8 11 ms 15 ms 14 ms ae-3.r24.nycmny01.us.bb.gin.ntt.net [129.250.5.61]
9 100 ms 90 ms 89 ms ae-2.r20.sttlwa01.us.bb.gin.ntt.net [129.250.4.13]
10 88 ms 90 ms 89 ms ae-0.r21.sttlwa01.us.bb.gin.ntt.net [129.250.2.54]
11 91 ms 92 ms 92 ms ae-3.r23.snjsca04.us.bb.gin.ntt.net [129.250.3.124]
12 98 ms 94 ms 97 ms ae-45.r01.snjsca04.us.bb.gin.ntt.net [129.250.3.175]
13 96 ms 97 ms 96 ms ae-1.r00.scrmca02.us.bb.gin.ntt.net [129.250.7.31]
14 97 ms 94 ms 96 ms xe-0-1-0-1-1.r00.scrmca02.us.ce.gin.ntt.net [129.250.195.46]
15 94 ms 95 ms 96 ms 204.2.229.234
16 95 ms 96 ms 94 ms 204.2.229.9

(Yes, I know there are 2 bad hops there, nothing I can do about that.)

Notice hop 9? That's an INTERNAL connection on NTT's network (not mine) that shoots my ping up from a nice, low 15ms Max up to the 90s (maxing at 100). Now I am not going to sit here and complain that my connection is ruined (it is slower than it was, but not ruined), but you need to be aware that the vast majority of issues like this are generally not within your own network.

[Gumbercules]

similar ping but 0% packet loss, my loss could get to the 20% marks or higher at times. =D

[Maero]

I had not tested before the move, however the game seems to run smoother now for me (Central Canada)

[Stormfur]

I was leveling monk on an alt last night in POTD it sometimes it felt like button presses didn't react so I'd have to mash them again, but that has always happened from time to time. Not sure if more or less since the move, and it's so inconsequential in the grand scheme of things.

I wonder why SE doesn't make more things client-side, like they did when they fixed mudras -- is it that the software is too easy to hack? Or some other reason?

[Maero]

I had around 100 (maybe a little over) before the move, now i sit at around 78.
Works for me, (so far)
And playing blm with 100 or so ping not doable? lol yes it is, maybe not 150+ but around 100 it is fine

[EorzeaHero69]

How about no

[Kosmos992k]

It's not an insult to warn people away from misinformation about**snip**

Good, then perhaps you should be warning them away from yourself.

I just tracrt'd Behemoth from my corporate network, I get a RTT averaging 67ms, which includes all the hops through NTT. From my residential connection, my RTT is more than twice that. That's not NTT's fault it's my ISP and their crap routing. The route from my corporate network hits an external ISP after 5 hops with a total RTT of less than 3ms. Then it bounces through level 3 (of all people) and once it hits the boundary router for NTT we're already at 60-67ms. The total routing time through NTT is sub 3ms. I don't have my home PC with the tracert I ran there for reference at the moment, but the majority of the additional routing time experienced was not within NTT. It's the routing of my ISP and their backbone peers.

This is what I have been saying the entire time, it's poor routing by the ISPs and backbone services for residential customers. However, due to that, and the number of hops involved, it's highly possible for that to be optimized with better routes and fewer hops. Looking at the tracert for my corporate net, the bounce through level 3 (starting in Atlanta) is what get's me to California and it's consuming almost 45 ms. Due to the hop to Atlanta (approximately 12-15ms) from my current location, my PC may as well be on the east coast distance wise.

The point of all of this is simple, optimized routing can make a *huge* difference to people's ping time. People with a 160ms ping from the continental US should be able to get under 100ms with better routing. Players in South America should be able to get improved pings too, again with improved routing. Taking those SA players who have gone from reasonable to ridiculous pings, I think you and I would have to agree that the initial hops that they take to the US are almost certainly the same now as they were before, it's the internal routing in the US that is causing the issue. And based on the traces I have seen, that's not an NTT issue it's a routing issue of the ISPs and backbone providers between NTT and the entry point from the undersea link. For example, for someone in SA seeing a 250ms increase in ping time, at least 200ms of that is coming from bad routing in the US. If that routing is optimized their ping should drop much closer to what it was before. But again, it depends on route optimization and of course network congestion.

You seem fixated on NTT as an issue, they are not. Their internal routing is not the issue based on the tracert outputs I have seen. It's the routing of traffic from the client to their boundary routers, and back to the client from that boundary that is the primary issue. That is something that can, and should change since the routing of the Internet is dynamic , it should optimize itself to a degree - depending on how many static routes are being forced in the path taken. Players complaining to the ISPs may help, but since NTT and SE are not the routing issue, complaining that SE should do something isn't going to help.

[MishaLune]

When the packets get redirected to Amsterdam instead of going straight to the game servers...90ms to 250+ms ping. I would say thats a reason to complain about the server move. Instead of getting better ping because of the shorter distance in my case i get higher because of stupid routing issues since the move. SE has not even said anything since the move at all, only attempted to fix it by offering a free server move and locked a lot of servers.

3 35 ms 35 ms 35 ms 172.28.255.29
4 58 ms 35 ms 34 ms 192.168.255.57
5 81 ms 39 ms 78 ms 10.208.3.45
6 33 ms 44 ms 34 ms 10.208.2.50
7 85 ms 87 ms 87 ms 84.16.8.85
8 74 ms 74 ms 73 ms 94.142.122.170
9 158 ms 158 ms 164 ms 94.142.117.229
10 207 ms 183 ms 166 ms 5.53.6.178
11 167 ms 170 ms 211 ms ae1-0-ntt-grtamstc1.net.telefonicaglobalsolutions.com [213.140.53.97]
12 197 ms 179 ms 186 ms ae-4.r25.amstnl02.nl.bb.gin.ntt.net [129.250.2.146]
13 180 ms 172 ms 172 ms ae-5.r23.asbnva02.us.bb.gin.ntt.net [129.250.6.162]
14 252 ms 244 ms 328 ms ae-10.r22.snjsca04.us.bb.gin.ntt.net [129.250.6.237]
15 261 ms 251 ms * ae-19.r01.snjsca04.us.bb.gin.ntt.net [129.250.3.27]
16 328 ms 252 ms * ae-1.r00.scrmca02.us.bb.gin.ntt.net [129.250.7.31]
17 250 ms 252 ms 253 ms xe-0-1-0-1-1.r00.scrmca02.us.ce.gin.ntt.net [129.250.195.46]
18 318 ms 250 ms * 204.2.229.234
19 288 ms 251 ms 251 ms 204.2.229.9

[Raikki]

If they had picked Dallas, and people in Vancouver or Calgary or Seattle (with around 100-120ms ping) blah blah blah

Montreal -> Dallas: 42ms
Seattle -> Dallas: 53ms
Calgary -> Dallas: 70ms
Vancouver -> Dallas: 89ms

Ya got me on Vancouver. Obviously Dallas is a HORRIBLE place for a datacenter in North America. /s

[Ama_Hamada]

The delay on Bio and buffs like hallowed is intended and has absolutly nothinh to do with connection delay.

Proof: If it was due to 'lag', every def. CD would be affected and Swiftcast+Bio2 or Combust would have a application delay like Bio. Both not the case.

Just look at the application of slashing debuff of Stoms Eye compared to Dancing Edge.
SE applies debuff more than 1s later into the GCD than DE does, a nin weaving a oGCD after DE in will get the debuff effect, a WAR doing a oGCD like stun directly after SE will not.

That's intended game design.

Can't bane after Bio II (the bane fails to transfer even on hard cast bio II) but can bane after miasma and swiftcast miasma. (never fails to transfer) It is a coding issue, it might be "intended" but it needs changed. No reason for them to be so slow. All it does is make the game feel clunky and just gets worse each bit you are over 80 ms. (Meaning you feel it more and more as ping increases) If the game was intended to be playable at 200 ms, this clunklyness needs changing. ALL DOTs cept maybe miasma? appear too slow, like brd dots, bio, bio II.