Ping fix

I had a ping of 35 on CoD UO, on the same server that we're using now (so the same connection). I'm getting 65-75 on RO2.

Yoshiro just stated in his 29th update that, that is the next thing they will be seriously looking into, and will be looking to fill a server to investigate it at length.


But yeh... it sucks that it is like this.... one of the biggest selling points for me was 64 players.. After playing RO1 with 32 like on the berlin map...i was thinking 64 on a combined arms would be sweet. but alas my dreams are yet to come true.

Consistent 40 ping?
Don't expect much do they?

Warlord said:

Consistent 40 ping?
Don't expect much do they?

Click to expand...

My thougts precisely. 100 or below is a much more realistic goal. I have never had consistent below 40 pings in any game. Below 100 gives a perfectly good playing experience.

-=THOR=- said:

I had a ping of 35 on CoD UO, on the same server that we're using now (so the same connection). I'm getting 65-75 on RO2.

Click to expand...

That's just the difference between using a ping response from non-processed messages and basing it on the travel time for game traffic. RO2's default 20 tick rate, which is what most FPS run on, means you get 0-50ms (25ms average) applied to all actions you take in the game, as they have to wait until the next tick to be processed. RO2 could display a ping derived from traffic that bypasses the processing cycles, but all that would do is make the number look better.

The short version: RO2 is showing you the real game-terms ping, the other game is showing you just the raw internet ping. Pings going up as the server load increases is a different matter entirely; that's a symptom of servers running beyond their hardware's capacity, forcing it to delay processing cycles beyond the normal tick rate, or simply skip them entirely.

yes the pings is what most my friends are mostly concerned about.
My ping is usually around 90 in RO2 on 64 ppl server but peaks to 130 ms on several maps with artillery etc.
It can be below 50 ms if the server is only populated with 40 ppl.

This makes it so hard to hit anything with a bolt esp. if you try to hit someone with a 200 ms ping.
Gaming experience could improve drastically once we get stable pings.

Someone posted that they get good pings on the 40-1 UK server. I found that this server is one of the worst peaking with pings up to 600 ms for everyone and more. Sorry admins of 40-1 but that is just my experience.
Otherwise it is a great server with nice people.

The most stable 64 ppl server nearby I found to be the TOGA server but still troubled by pings 120 ms +.
I don't know about relaxed realism servers as I don't like the name indicator at a great distance and the HUD.

Gudenrath said:

My thougts precisely. 100 or below is a much more realistic goal. I have never had consistent below 40 pings in any game. Below 100 gives a perfectly good playing experience.

Click to expand...

yea 100ms is good, but not for FPS..MMOs maybe...i can tell a difference between 20, 40, 60 100+ 150ms pings...

Krilnik said:

yea 100ms is good, but not for FPS..MMOs maybe...i can tell a difference between 20, 40, 60 100+ 150ms pings...

Click to expand...

I can tell the difference as well from the rare occurences of playing on servers that gives me constant 50 or below pings. But everything below 100 is going to give you a smooth play with bullet lag or movement issues being so small that they will be of no consequence.

I have being playing multiplayer FPS's for more than a decade, am based in Europe in an area that has plenty of servers and I can safely say that 50 below pings are not a common occurrence. 50-100 is the average and has been always. You are simply setting your standards too high.

plex said:

In Counter-Strike, COD4:MW, and TF2 servers located in Chicago i manage to get pings of 20 or lower!

In Red Orchestra 2 servers located in Chicago -- In 32 player servers i get ping around 50-60, in servers of 64 players i get ping of around 120-150 and it even spikes to 800+ ping sometimes..

I was in a RO2 server where they modified the server config file and made the tick 40 and the rates they upped to between 20000 - 40000 and the pings came down to lower 30's (In 32 player server) so maybe this is something that TWI can look into for improving the pings.

Click to expand...

what you get shown in that games is the ICMP ping aka network rountrip ping.

what you get displayed in RO is the game ping, calculated on a formula based on ICMPING and tickrate (I've posted it several times in the forum,,, too lazy to searc it again).

If the server is overloaded is "missing" processing some "ticks" which increase the displayed game ping.

btw. the server load is increasing exponentially with the number of the players. This is why you can see big difference betwenn an 64 player and a 50 player server load.

EDIt: http://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/showpost.php?p=23696&postcount=7
EDIT2: as you can see in the ^forumae the displyed ping is influenced by your FPS and server tickrate. Increasing the tickrate is decreasing the ping but increase the server load.

If the server is missing ticks -> decreased "real" ticks -> increase ping

If TWI manage to decrease/spread the server load :
- reduce the missing ticks
- increase the tickrate
. Both actions have as end effect reducing the displayed ping.

Gudenrath said:

My thougts precisely. 100 or below is a much more realistic goal. I have never had consistent below 40 pings in any game. Below 100 gives a perfectly good playing experience.

Click to expand...

There's an awesome Russian server I sometimes play on. I get a constant 140 ping and it's perfectly playable.

The problems only come on servers wheri you get lag spikes and desync, causing rubber-banding.

On the other hand, I've seen guys with 350 ping stay on a server for several rounds. I don't know how they get any fun out of that.

Yea the game is playable with a ping of 140...but why the hell is my ping 140? All the other games I play my ping is between 40-60.

l3earJew said:

Yea the game is playable with a ping of 140...but why the hell is my ping 140? All the other games I play my ping is between 40-60.

Click to expand...

Omg, it was explained twice in this thread alone:

Mekhazzio said:

That's just the difference between using a ping response from non-processed messages and basing it on the travel time for game traffic. RO2's default 20 tick rate, which is what most FPS run on, means you get 0-50ms (25ms average) applied to all actions you take in the game, as they have to wait until the next tick to be processed. RO2 could display a ping derived from traffic that bypasses the processing cycles, but all that would do is make the number look better.

The short version: RO2 is showing you the real game-terms ping, the other game is showing you just the raw internet ping. Pings going up as the server load increases is a different matter entirely; that's a symptom of servers running beyond their hardware's capacity, forcing it to delay processing cycles beyond the normal tick rate, or simply skip them entirely.

Click to expand...

Try being one of 3 americans in a european clan... I live in 100-150 Pingland for every game.

I don't understand why this hasn't been priority #1 to be honest. Doesn't matter what your FPS performance is when you're pinging 200-300+

I've had pings of 15-20, and it's a BIG difference between those pings that I normally have in RO2 and the pings of 15-20 in terms of reaction time.

Hope they can fix it, but I can live with a ping of 60 in RO2.

JayTac said:

I don't understand why this hasn't been priority #1 to be honest. Doesn't matter what your FPS performance is when you're pinging 200-300+

Click to expand...

You guys are chasing a red herring with ping times, for two reasons.

First, there's very little Tripwire can do about it. Let's say they pull a miracle out of nowhere and somehow manage to double server performance. This is a wildly unrealistic outcome, but let's run with that. This allows every server to double their tick rate for no performance loss. A 20 tick server goes to 40, shaving the necessary server-side delays from 0-50ms to 0-25ms. Okay, smaller fluctuation is good, sure, but it's still just a 13ms average difference. Considering your typical intracontinental internet traffic is going to be at 100 to 150ms to begin with, you're only shaving 10% off of it. Yay? And that's for a best-case outcome on the code side of things.

Second, it shouldn't matter. The only reason there's a noticeable difference between 50ms and 150ms is because the game's networking is so crude that it leaves the job of latency compensation up to the player. RO2 is one of only a scant handful of first-person shooters in the last decade to take that design approach. Virtually everything else uses one of two decade-old methods of automatically compensating for latency, because a first-person shooter is, almost by definition, fast-paced enough to demand it for any case where ping is higher than zero. 50ms is enough to make your shots miss moving targets in RO2, but you can get on a server across the world in, let's say TF2 for example, and still land headshots on targets that move at roughly three times the speed that RO2's characters can, because TF2's programmed to handle 400ms better than RO2 can handle 50ms.

Tripwire could make a pact with the devil to magically halve the internet delay for their game, but as long as the networking model remains as simple as it is, that still wouldn't be a good enough solution on its own. Focusing on ping times is missing the real heart of the issue.

Also, yes, you're likely to find amazingly local servers in games that are hugely popular. Simple geographical distribution is going to be in your favor when a game has 1500 active servers instead of 30.