Spend some Money on servers

[LetoII.3782]

@"LordEnki.9283" said:For me the change in server location tripled my ping (Oklahoma) and it has been noticable since that change. However MO's response to those who complained was pretty much three paragraphs of "Too bad, I think it's better for everyone".

Virginia is definitely further from Oklahoma than Texas.The move to the east coast reflects where their majority customer base lives

[aspirine.6852]

Jesus christ your servers S.U.C.K. Get some news ones ffs.

[DemonSeed.3528]

I'm getting long map loads now, afraid to take wp cos it takes ages. Also I don't appear translucent when stealthing, and some others experiencing the same and sounds not loading. I would reload map but there is a queue :P

[Player.9621]

it doesnt effect the devs or their friends so nothing will happen

[Aeolus.3615]

@aspirine.6852 said:Jesus christ your servers S.U.C.K. Get some news ones kitten.

its amazon servers, also amazon has been migrating their tecnology during this year, dont forget that most servers are just vm's and sometimes nested ones.

[geist.4126]

I wonder if the map cap on EBG is higher than on the other maps. 3 way fights in garrison aren't as laggy as most of the "normal" fights I had in EBG recently. My ping indicates that a map zerg is coming by going from 50ms to 130ms+ (+ fps drops and skill lags) even when that's the only greater group in closer vicinty. Same day we had a three way fight in alpine garrison and the ping mostly stayed at 50-60ms but I got some skill lag and fps drops.Not sure how or why this is way worse in EBG, but I think reduced player numbers really could help

[RisingDaewn.8703]

EBG has higher map caps, but 3 way fights tend to lead to rubberbanding and skill lag everywhere, even if only two servers are triggering their skills.

Just having that third server standing anywhere near, causes lag.

[Caedmon.6798]

@"geist.4126" said:I wonder if the map cap on EBG is higher than on the other maps. 3 way fights in garrison aren't as laggy as most of the "normal" fights I had in EBG recently. My ping indicates that a map zerg is coming by going from 50ms to 130ms+ (+ fps drops and skill lags) even when that's the only greater group in closer vicinty. Same day we had a three way fight in alpine garrison and the ping mostly stayed at 50-60ms but I got some skill lag and fps drops.Not sure how or why this is way worse in EBG, but I think reduced player numbers really could help

EBG has always been a lagfest.I stopped playing on it entirely since a year back or so.Everytime i was on that map you had constant 3 way zoneblobs going back to that same crappy wooden sm to lag the whole place out.And then start asking why is it lagging ? Could barely properly roam on that map.And it would be so easy to avoid as to not constantly going back with 3 full blobs to that same wooden shitty sm so you can press 1111111 while having 800 ping,amazing.

[Zaig.4152]

@SkyShroud.2865 said:

@TinkTinkPOOF.9201 said:

@SkyShroud.2865 said:

@TinkTinkPOOF.9201 said:

@SkyShroud.2865 said:

@TinkTinkPOOF.9201 said:There is also no "old build" for the server, as that is one of the main selling points to AWS infrastructure, that it scales with use. Rather than having 20 servers to handle the game at peak and slow times, you pay for use, be it 5 servers or 100, it scales with load. BUT, we are not (at least i am not) talking about lag for busy times, or lots of zerg fights on the map, but being on a BL with almost no one else and seeing maybe 5 other people over an hours time and still getting more skill lag than say a few month ago.

Build here refers to software. "Server" term can refer to either hardware or software. This I am referring to software which is why the newest hardware is mentioned at the latter, they are two different things.

So you have info on the coding and changes on the back end? Please do share.

It just a logical assumption. How can amazon cloud architecture be using ancient hardware?

What? You might want to read my posts again, you seem to be jumping all over the place.

Huh, so you suggesting that anet did not pay them enough to scale appropriately?But you asking base on my reply, so I am not sure what I am getting wrong.

This is way old, but my two cents. Scaling is only horizontal, meaning they can spin up more servers quickly for more instanced maps, ect. Cloud really shines here. But WvW maps can't be instanced the same and therefore can't scale the same way. Unless they bought dedicated VMs, there will be times when the WvW VM will be constrained just by the nature of being on shared infrastructure. I've seen a reduction in VM performance on Azure by 10 fold or more certain times of day. Getting 1/10 of the CPU and general performance in a layer beyond your control will result in unpredictable end user experiences, which is what I think we see often in GW2 WvW now. They should have kept WvW on prem on dedicated hardware IMHO.

[Riba.3271]

@Zaig.4152 said:

@SkyShroud.2865 said:

@TinkTinkPOOF.9201 said:

@SkyShroud.2865 said:

@TinkTinkPOOF.9201 said:

@SkyShroud.2865 said:

@TinkTinkPOOF.9201 said:There is also no "old build" for the server, as that is one of the main selling points to AWS infrastructure, that it scales with use. Rather than having 20 servers to handle the game at peak and slow times, you pay for use, be it 5 servers or 100, it scales with load. BUT, we are not (at least i am not) talking about lag for busy times, or lots of zerg fights on the map, but being on a BL with almost no one else and seeing maybe 5 other people over an hours time and still getting more skill lag than say a few month ago.

Build here refers to software. "Server" term can refer to either hardware or software. This I am referring to software which is why the newest hardware is mentioned at the latter, they are two different things.

So you have info on the coding and changes on the back end? Please do share.

It just a logical assumption. How can amazon cloud architecture be using ancient hardware?

What? You might want to read my posts again, you seem to be jumping all over the place.

Huh, so you suggesting that anet did not pay them enough to scale appropriately?But you asking base on my reply, so I am not sure what I am getting wrong.

This is way old, but my two cents. Scaling is only horizontal, meaning they can spin up more servers quickly for more instanced maps, ect. Cloud really shines here. But WvW maps can't be instanced the same and therefore can't scale the same way. Unless they bought dedicated VMs, there will be times when the WvW VM will be constrained just by the nature of being on shared infrastructure. I've seen a reduction in VM performance on Azure by 10 fold or more certain times of day. Getting 1/10 of the CPU and general performance in a layer beyond your control will result in unpredictable end user experiences, which is what I think we see often in GW2 WvW now. They should have kept WvW on prem on dedicated hardware IMHO.

No reason to necro 2 year old threads, just make a new one :)

[LetoII.3782]

@Threather.9354 said:

@Zaig.4152 said:

@SkyShroud.2865 said:

@TinkTinkPOOF.9201 said:

@SkyShroud.2865 said:

@TinkTinkPOOF.9201 said:

@SkyShroud.2865 said:

@TinkTinkPOOF.9201 said:There is also no "old build" for the server, as that is one of the main selling points to AWS infrastructure, that it scales with use. Rather than having 20 servers to handle the game at peak and slow times, you pay for use, be it 5 servers or 100, it scales with load. BUT, we are not (at least i am not) talking about lag for busy times, or lots of zerg fights on the map, but being on a BL with almost no one else and seeing maybe 5 other people over an hours time and still getting more skill lag than say a few month ago.

Build here refers to software. "Server" term can refer to either hardware or software. This I am referring to software which is why the newest hardware is mentioned at the latter, they are two different things.

So you have info on the coding and changes on the back end? Please do share.

It just a logical assumption. How can amazon cloud architecture be using ancient hardware?

What? You might want to read my posts again, you seem to be jumping all over the place.

Huh, so you suggesting that anet did not pay them enough to scale appropriately?But you asking base on my reply, so I am not sure what I am getting wrong.

This is way old, but my two cents. Scaling is only horizontal, meaning they can spin up more servers quickly for more instanced maps, ect. Cloud really shines here. But WvW maps can't be instanced the same and therefore can't scale the same way. Unless they bought dedicated VMs, there will be times when the WvW VM will be constrained just by the nature of being on shared infrastructure. I've seen a reduction in VM performance on Azure by 10 fold or more certain times of day. Getting 1/10 of the CPU and general performance in a layer beyond your control will result in unpredictable end user experiences, which is what I think we see often in GW2 WvW now. They should have kept WvW on prem on dedicated hardware IMHO.

No reason to necro 2 year old threads, just make a new one :)

Sometimes it's good to remind Anet a problem is old