Move the servers closer to south america? This is awful.

[Khisanth.2948]

There isn't actually any better choice unless Amazon decides to add a datacenter somewhere in Texas. The current alternatives are in northern California and Oregon.

[Ashen.2907]

> @"Razor.6392" said:

> I don't care. Do it now. NOW.

 

Buy the company.

[Zaklex.6308]

> @"Khisanth.2948" said:

> There isn't actually any better choice unless Amazon decides to add a datacenter somewhere in Texas. The current alternatives are in northern California and Oregon.

 

At one time they used the NCSoft data center in Texas...but that was for GW1 and I don't even know if NCSoft sill has it's own data center. Besides, Amazon could choose to mirror it other regions of the world, for a price of course and then there's the little matter of is it worth it to pay that much extra for mirrored copies in other regions. Of course if Microsoft, Facebook and Google would get their acts together and really start laying out those huge new fiber cables across the Atlantic and Pacific some of these issues could be reduced(though not eliminated since data usage is growing at Moore's Law rates).

[ckotoc.5421]

> @"Razor.6392" said:

> I don't care. Do it now. NOW.

 

I suggest you to move to a more civilised part of the world.

[Razor.6392]

> @"ckotoc.5421" said:

> > @"Razor.6392" said:

> > I don't care. Do it now. NOW.

>

> I suggest you to move to a more civilised part of the world.

 

Will they teach me how to properly spell civili**z**ed in there? =)

[Steve The Cynic.3217]

> @"Zaklex.6308" said:

> Of course if Microsoft, Facebook and Google would get their acts together and really start laying out those huge new fiber cables across the Atlantic and Pacific some of these issues could be reduced(though not eliminated since data usage is growing at Moore's Law rates).

 

Actually, no. Most of the ping problems are caused by *distance* and the time it takes the packets to *travel*. The speed of light is *high*, but it isn't *infinite*, and those hundreds of ms of round-trip ping for Australians, for example, are based mostly on the time it takes the packets to travel across the Pacific Ocean. (And they only manage about two-thirds of the speed of light, anyway.)

[Astralporing.1957]

> @"Razor.6392" said:

> > @"ckotoc.5421" said:

> > > @"Razor.6392" said:

> > > I don't care. Do it now. NOW.

> >

> > I suggest you to move to a more civilised part of the world.

>

> Will they teach me how to properly spell civili**z**ed in there? =)

Yes.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/civilised

 

> Also especially British, **civ·i·lise**.

 

 

[Edge.8724]

130 ping? That is considered best for me. I usually sit around 130 and 300 ping. Sometimes, for reasons I don't know, It can go up to 3000. lol

[ParaNoidAndroid.1406]

Haha, 130 ping! I get an average of 250-300 ms ping. You don't see me complaining. Except, maybe in PvP.

[huluobo.7036]

My distance is farther, on the other side of the earth

[RoseofGilead.8907]

I miss 130 ping.

[TheGrimm.5624]

> @"Razor.6392" said:

> I'm not in NA and I often get an unplayable and inadmissible 130 ping. This is unacceptable. How is this okay for game companies to let their gamers™ be at an obvious disadvantage when the game is supposed to be competitive? I CAN'T DODGE IN TIME.

>

> Put the servers on the house right across the street from where I live. See, there's a place that just happens to be renting and with some refinement it could be adapted into office space VERY easily.

>

> I did most of the job for you ANet, now go on and fix this incredibly crucial issue. Now.

 

No offense but I am in NA and 130 ping would be awesome. When not on travel ping is usually 200-900 ping. Always amazed at how well this game runs when you can WvW with ping close to 1K.

[phokus.8934]

> @"Steve The Cynic.3217" said:

> > @"Zaklex.6308" said:

> > Of course if Microsoft, Facebook and Google would get their acts together and really start laying out those huge new fiber cables across the Atlantic and Pacific some of these issues could be reduced(though not eliminated since data usage is growing at Moore's Law rates).

>

> Actually, no. Most of the ping problems are caused by *distance* and the time it takes the packets to *travel*. The speed of light is *high*, but it isn't *infinite*, and those hundreds of ms of round-trip ping for Australians, for example, are based mostly on the time it takes the packets to travel across the Pacific Ocean. (And they only manage about two-thirds of the speed of light, anyway.)

Not entirely based on distance but a combination of distance and how the traffic is routed. The more hops it takes the longer it’ll take to reach the destination.