Servers: Are they playable?

[aem]

Would help if you explain your answer and please post your location with your answer. It is likely that some servers work well for you and some don't depending on your location so specifly which servers work well for you and which done. CSS seems like it should be in a good location for USA and Europe, but it sounds like it spikes and/or has packet loss? Mach3 is good for Europe probably but not great for USA? I really don't know how playable the current servers are so please help me out.

I am trying to figure out if the server situation really is a problem or there are only a few players who feel this way. No point in anyone wasting time/money if the servers are good enough already. If we add another server it would most likely be north east USA to provide good connectivity for USA and Europe.

Also if you are in college and able to get a free license for Windows Server 2008 R2 from Microsoft Dreamspark, please let me know. Some hosts require you to supply your own license to use Windows so this expands server possibilites and could potentially lower monthly fees. Not sure if we will need it or not yet, but good to know if someone can provide a license if needed.

[Mastametz]

QUOTE (AEM @ Oct 17 2013, 03:20 PM) Also if you are in college and able to get a free license for Windows Server 2008 R2 from Microsoft Dreamspark, please let me know.

Would you like

Standard 64bit
Enterprise 64bit
Datacenter 64bit
Web 64bit
Web with SP1 64bit

[raumvogel]

I can sometimes play on Mach without too much problem.But most of the time it's lag spikes all over the place. I'm East Coast North America.

[sages]

Midwest USA-Mach can get laggy sometimes, usually when someone else is doing something on my internet. Other than that it is fine for me

[blake420]

small game mach isn't too bad for me most of the time, but if someone else is lagging then they will just bounce all over the place. i'm north mid-east (ohio).

I average a 145 ping to mach with out packet loss which isn't unplayable but I think my problem is when you add someone elses high ping then it's very hard to consistently hit them. there's atleast a dozen or so people who constantly small hop or large jump around on my screen.

my 40 ping on css is fantastic when it's not spikeing/crashing, i'd just be happy with a nice compromise.

[aem]

QUOTE (Sheriff Metz @ Oct 17 2013, 05:18 PM) Would you like

Standard 64bit
Enterprise 64bit
Datacenter 64bit
Web 64bit
Web with SP1 64bit

Most likely Standard 64bit but I can let you know for sure later after a good host is found and we know license requirements. Should be no immediate need for a license since Windows Server products have very long trial periods.

QUOTE (blake420 @ Oct 17 2013, 09:33 PM) my 40 ping on css is fantastic when it's not spikeing/crashing, i'd just be happy with a nice compromise.

To be clear, how bad is the spiking/crashing? Seems bad enough css is not used much? It shouldn't be too difficult to get a server with pings very similar to css, hopefully without the spiking/crashing. I am having trouble tracking down any good, reasonably priced windows server options in the better north eastern datacenters. CSS and similar ping options should be low 90's to about 140ms to most of Europe. The more EU friendly datacenters bring EU pings down by about 20ms. However, the "less EU friendly" datacenters may give slightly lower west USA pings, probably 10ms less.

[_xJammer_]

This is more of a question on the number of players who live in EU vs US. You will nearly always have +100ms once you go across the ocean, and the 2 best places for the servers is either Netherlands (I ran a server there before, majority of the US had 90-140ms ping) or East Coast US (basically the other side of the fiber that is connecting the EU with the US).

EUs will tell you that mach is better, USs will tell you the same about the US servers. Until alleg has enough population to separate EU/US into 2 effectively different playerbases you will always have this issue...

Moreover doing the poll on the forums is beyond inaccurate. I am fairly certain that pkk should be able to give you either the actual data, or set up a poll (that will cover those who actually play)

[aem]

QUOTE (_xJammer_ @ Oct 18 2013, 03:16 AM) This is more of a question on the number of players who live in EU vs US. You will nearly always have +100ms once you go across the ocean, and the 2 best places for the servers is either Netherlands (I ran a server there before, majority of the US had 90-140ms ping) or East Coast US (basically the other side of the fiber that is connecting the EU with the US).

EUs will tell you that mach is better, USs will tell you the same about the US servers. Until alleg has enough population to separate EU/US into 2 effectively different playerbases you will always have this issue...

Moreover doing the poll on the forums is beyond inaccurate. I am fairly certain that pkk should be able to give you either the actual data, or set up a poll (that will cover those who actually play)

Obviously players prefer servers closer to them. That question is are people happy enough with current servers or do we need a server with lower latency. EU's should not say they are happy if mach gives them low pings but games are still bad because US players lag too much. It is certainly difficult to accomodate both EU's and US players (and those from other parts of the world). If you want a single server most playable for all, the best option is a server in one of the north east US data centers that has the lowest EU pings possible. CSS is in a good location to provide good balance of latency between US and EU, but it sounds like it spikes or otherwise has issues.

pkk might have data on what part of the world players are from, but he won't have stats on something like "Are servers playable enough?" which is the point of this poll.

Also, USA has better pings to UK than Netherlands. Netherlands 2nd best. It is not a huge difference, but when pings are already high 10-20ms lower does help.

[raumvogel]

Perhaps we could try a pre-game on CSS on Saturday.

[_xJammer_]

QUOTE (AEM @ Oct 18 2013, 05:25 AM) Obviously players prefer servers closer to them. That question is are people happy enough with current servers or do we need a server with lower latency. EU's should not say they are happy if mach gives them low pings but games are still bad because US players lag too much. It is certainly difficult to accomodate both EU's and US players (and those from other parts of the world). If you want a single server most playable for all, the best option is a server in one of the north east US data centers that has the lowest EU pings possible. CSS is in a good location to provide good balance of latency between US and EU, but it sounds like it spikes or otherwise has issues.

pkk might have data on what part of the world players are from, but he won't have stats on something like "Are servers playable enough?" which is the point of this poll.

Also, USA has better pings to UK than Netherlands. Netherlands 2nd best. It is not a huge difference, but when pings are already high 10-20ms lower does help.

Hmm, I had UK server and didn't find it to be the case, I guess was a crappy hosting at the time.

And again, you are asking something on forums which truly belongs to a CSS poll. We have around 100 players on leaderboard atm. You will most likely get around 70-80 responses if you do organise a poll (and word it correctly). Here you will primarily get to know what forum whores think, majority of whom do not even play anymore.

As for the best option, it will depend on (again) where players are playing from. Given that the US generally has a good internet connection across the land (while EU has some serious issues with several countries) it would make sense to have the server on the EU side of the fibre (just move Mach to whatever the best datacentre there is).

P.S. especially given the circumstances, you might rephrase your question into "Do we want a new US server" as I am sure majority understand it as such already.