PS2 confirmed to only have servers in one area of USA

[SKYeXile]

Originally Posted by Kayos

If anyone is actually interested in Lag Compensation this is an article from Valve that explains a bit more about it.
It's actually a pretty interesting read.

https://developer.valvesoftware.com/...g_compensation

Scroll to the top of that page to learn more too.

Yea, good read.

PS2 is said to use a hybrid though, so movement probably wont be authorised by the server.

[Kran De Loy]

Originally Posted by Revanmug

And what is wrong with people nowaday?! You got used to crap. Well good for you but I refuse to eat shit like you would.

This a valid complain that wouldn't affect anybody in a bad way btw. You get a good ping next to san diego, perfect! Opening a server on the east coast doesn't change that...

If sony decide that this "issue" is not important enough to affected them negatively, then so be it but I will have said my piece and will simply not play. You got a probleme with my standard that has no affect on you?

Somewhat, as I don't want SOE to lose 1 single customer. But really if you want to lose out on playing a truely superb free game because you're being petty then it has no more to do with me. All I did was try to point out that you're acting spoiled.

Also great way to miss out on the first third of my post that you just happened to clip while quoting me.

[Tarconus]

Originally Posted by Kayos

If anyone is actually interested in Lag Compensation this is an article from Valve that explains a bit more about it.
It's actually a pretty interesting read.

https://developer.valvesoftware.com/...g_compensation

Scroll to the top of that page to learn more too.

That's for hit detection which can be compensated for in such a way. What I am saying is seeing someone before the other person is where the problem with someone having 100's more ms of ping then you comes in.

[Kran De Loy]

Originally Posted by Tarconus

It's benificial to everyone, how soon you see something on your screen effects how soon you start reacting. That means a lot in a shooter not so much in a hot key mmo.

Plus relying on your good skills? WTF everyone relies on their skill there will be people that are better then you and worse then you, should you just not let people use any weapons if they kill to many people.

You kind of missed my point.

I'll try again. People with high pings, but are still very good at the game, will be good because they've learned a different play style than someone with low pings who is just good at reacting quickly.

The difference (and it isn't a bad difference) is that the HP player is continuously anticipating things bases on their own observations of the environment around them and over all are a more thought out play style (can't really call it cautious as that implies the person hangs back, but that's not true).

Edit: Just because you give yourself more room to react does not mean that you can not act quickly and precisely.

[Kran De Loy]

Originally Posted by Tarconus

That's for hit detection which can be compensated for in such a way. What I am saying is seeing someone before the other person is where the problem with someone having 100's more ms of ping then you comes in.

100's does not equal 100.

But yeah I agree that too high of a ping is a pain in the ass, but how high is too high? Over 120-150 is annoying, under 200 is livable. Demanding under 100 or bust is just spoiled.

Also having everything in one location is still a bad idea.

Edit: and by annoying I mean I understand if people do not want to play because of it, because honestly getting shot and killed after already being around the corner for a good half second is ridic and many FPS's have coding that allows for pings of 150 or so to kill someone while they've been under cover for a good half second.

Does PS2 have it code like that? Dunno.

[Brusi]

Originally Posted by xSquirtle

There is a significant difference, which is why even blizzard still launches games on multiple server locations.

Diablo III just launched... does that have multiple server locations?

[Kran De Loy]

Originally Posted by Brusi

Diablo III just launched... does that have multiple server locations?

Dunno, but if so their servers suck. Frequently I get lag issues, 'specially at peak hours.

[Tarconus]

Originally Posted by Kran De Loy

You kind of missed my point.

I'll try again. People with high pings, but are still very good at the game, will be good because they've learned a different play style than someone with low pings who is just good at reacting quickly.

The difference (and it isn't a bad difference) is that the HP player is continuously anticipating things bases on their own observations of the environment around them and over all are a more thought out play style (can't really call it cautious as that implies the person hangs back, but that's not true).

No I got your point, the person that is good with a high ping is going to be even better with a low ping. The player that has a HP and anticipating things is the same as a low ping player except that low ping player will learn of the situation around them sooner and then react sooner.

What about the player that does alright when they have a low ping because they get the information sooner but may not have as fast of reaction time to it. Now they play on high ping and well they are SOL. That's the problem with funneling everyone onto one location of servers. You are screwing people over based on their geographical location, something that unlike hardware or different isp or whatever, they most likely can't change. Or if they can they aren't going to do so based on a game.

Is it hard for them to set up servers on the east coast, in multiple locations in Europe, and in Asia, and Australia? Nope, they can even set up remote so they can access the servers, reset them ect. Big companies do it all the time, blizzard does. Even tribes ascend set up a west coast server because of ping.

The only reason I see them not wanting to do it is the cost. That's it. This engine won't make ping times irrelevant it can't because the information will get to you faster the less ping meaning you see the guy coming around the corner before he even turns to see you.

I am not saying I won't play the game, but the servers being in one location doesn't mean the player base wont' be split. There will still be multiple servers, so whats the difference if some of those are east coast. The answer is $$

[Tarconus]

Originally Posted by Kran De Loy

100's does not equal 100.

But yeah I agree that too high of a ping is a pain in the ass, but how high is too high? Over 120-150 is annoying, under 200 is livable. Demanding under 100 or bust is just spoiled.

Also having everything in one location is still a bad idea.

Edit: and by annoying I mean I understand if people do not want to play because of it, because honestly getting shot and killed after already being around the corner for a good half second is ridic and many FPS's have coding that allows for pings of 150 or so to kill someone while they've been under cover for a good half second.

Does PS2 have it code like that? Dunno.

Right so we agree somewhat then. I am not saying it has to be under a hundred but when I was in the tribes ascend beta and was getting close to 200 and others were below, getting killed all the time wasn't fun.

They will lose player base if people on the east coast, or wherever is farthest from the location can't hit the 150 or so mark. Over 200 ping when people today are used to playing shooters with p2p connections or on servers very close to them wont' fly.

[Kran De Loy]

Originally Posted by Tarconus

Edited to keep the posts compact.

Pretty much exactly. I'm gonna say it again for people skipping ahead in the thread, but servers all in one location is bad. Very Bad Idea. I honestly do not recall seeing any argument on that point specifically anywhere in this thread.

However, the bulk of the arguments going on here tho are rooted in people claiming pings of 130-180 as so high as to make the games unplayable.

That and what got me posting in this thread in the first place was when ElectroFreak and Kaff tried to explain why they were being hysterical the same people they were trying to help got bitchy about some slightly off putting choices of phrase.

[Revanmug]

Originally Posted by Kran De Loy

Somewhat, as I don't want SOE to lose 1 single customer. But really if you want to lose out on playing a truely superb free game because you're being petty then it has no more to do with me. All I did was try to point out that you're acting spoiled.

Also great way to miss out on the first third of my post that you just happened to clip while quoting me.

I won't be playing PS2 for it's graphic and animation since there are better game for that. Immersion? Don't make me laugh. Arma III is what I need for that. Only the gameplay interest me and if the fps part of the gameplay (which is big part of it btw) ain't precise then no, I am not interest.

You keep saying those are petty reason or i'm spoiled but... Where is it SAID that I shouldn't voice my fear about say game? Why should I be force to play a game I don't like? Did you post in every possible thread that someone is acting spoiled because there ain't vehicule animation... there ain't continent capture, That ttk might be too low, etc. etc.

We are talking about something basic for an online game and, even yourself admit it, they took a pretty stupid decision (NOWAIT I didn't fully read your post so forget that!).

All this thread need is an answer and you bring nothing like most people. Don't be surprise by people's reaction.

Originally Posted by SKYeXile

Yea, good read.

PS2 is said to use a hybrid though, so movement probably wont be authorised by the server.

huh a hybrid server/client base lag comp?!?

Please god no... instant death and dieing behind corners inc. Then again, that style usually favor laggers... Oh well

[Nabeshin]

Originally Posted by Tarconus

Don't even... ? what you don't have an argument? I am turning 30 this year I already know my reaction time is no where near when I was 16.

^Truth

It's kinda sad, a lot of times I see people, my mind reacts but my fingers no longer move fast enough to keep up.

[Kran De Loy]

Originally Posted by Revanmug

I won't be playing PS2 for it's graphic and animation since there are better game for that. Immersion? Don't make me laugh. Arma III is what I need for that. Only the gameplay interest me and if the fps part of the gameplay (which is big part of it btw) ain't precise then no, I am not interest.

You keep saying those are petty reason or i'm spoiled but... Where is it SAID that I shouldn't voice my fear about say game? Why should I be force to play a game I don't like? Did you post in every possible thread that someone is acting spoiled because there ain't vehicule animation... there ain't continent capture, That ttk might be too low, etc. etc.

We are talking about something basic for an online game and, even yourself admit it, they took a pretty stupid decision (NOWAIT I didn't fully read your post so forget that!).

All this thread need is an answer and you bring nothing like most people. Don't be surprise by people's reaction.

Right. Well. Okay. .. Ugh Bye I guess.

[Phellix]

Many of you are still assuming this is being placed on the west coast, what the fuck? I'm shocked so many are people are jumping to the conclusion that their ping is going to be unplayable and cry WTF SONY SERIOUSLY? I NO PLAY YOUR FREE GAME. Nobody knows anything yet, simmer the fuck down.

[Tarconus]

Originally Posted by Phellix

Many of you are still assuming this is being placed on the west coast, what the fuck? I'm shocked so many are people are jumping to the conclusion that their ping is going to be unplayable and cry WTF SONY SERIOUSLY? I NO PLAY YOUR FREE GAME. Nobody knows anything yet, simmer the fuck down.

We are assuming that because that's where they are located and where the PS1 server is now. Second no matter where it is since it's going to be in one location someone may have a bad ping to it because geographically they are farther away.