Want to donate towards MO2 with the $149 package, but need to know if there will be NA servers

[Meltdown]

I played MO many moons ago for about 2 years.
Back then I lived closer to Europe where my ping was better.

But now living closer to the US, I would really like to know if this game will have an NA server. I searched on the forums, but all I can find is a NA server poll, but with little other information on what servers are going to be available.

And does anyone know where the alpha/beta servers are sitting currently?

Thanks

 

[Bernfred]

as long as your ping is under 200 ms you are very fine and its still playable with 300 ms.

 

[Meltdown]

My ping to US west coast is 157, my ping to Stockholm is ~300ms.
I don't want to play with a 300ms ping, its not 'playable', it's terrible.
I would consider 157 'playable'.

 

[Vakirauta]

Server is in London, you should ping there

 

[Bernfred]

My ping to US west coast is 157, my ping to Stockholm is ~300ms.
I don't want to play with a 300ms ping, its not 'playable', it's terrible.
I would consider 157 'playable'.

you are fine, NA west has around 150 to london and even the aussies can play if their connection has no packet loss.

 

[Bernfred]

Feedback- How to check Ping with ease! -Poll update-

Just a simple quick guide on checking your avg ping with the MO2 server. I had to move this into feedback/suggestions because of forums not allowing polls in guides section. Yes there is lots of way to do this. The easiest way I have found ping for MO2 without a long process is. Once you have...

mortalonline2.com

 

[Meltdown]

you are fine, NA west has around 150 to london and even the aussies can play if their connection has no packet loss.

I'm from New Zealand and no a 300ms ping for a twitch combat first person game is not 'fine'. I've played MO1 from here and it sucks. Hence my original post, asking if there was a going to be a NA server.

 

[Bernfred]

I'm from New Zealand and no a 300ms ping for a twitch combat first person game is not 'fine'. I've played MO1 from here and it sucks. Hence my original post, asking if there was a going to be a NA server.

haha you know when someone asks for NA server hes in general NA.

 

[Meltdown]

haha you know when someone asks for NA server hes in general NA.

 

[Bernfred]

they have test players around the world and they have no problem when their connection is packet loss free. they still work on the netcode and combat balance to make it work for worldwide pings.

 

[cwall]

it doesn't actually work for worldwide pings currently; videos taken from low ping perspectives (players from EU) are noticeably smoother than my experience with ~120ms (central US), and I have heard that the game is unplayable for Oceanic players

Star Vault insists that server optimizations and improvements to their "ping normalization" netcode will make the game playable regardless of ping, but I will believe it when I see it

due to the above, Star Vault also intends to only release one server, and there is no indication that the server will be hosted anywhere other than London, which is the location of the test server

 

[MaDeuce]

Beta is way smoother than what it was in Alpha. I seriously doubt there will be any back tracking and ONLY UNREAL advancement from here

 

[Meltdown]

Star Vault insists that server optimizations and improvements to their "ping normalization" netcode will make the game playable regardless of ping, but I will believe it when I see it

Thanks for the info, but no matter how optimised the netcode is, 150ms ping is still better than 300ms ping, especially when it comes to making fast-paced combat decisions and actions.

Is there a document somewhere where SV explains how their 'ping normalisation' will help when two players perform the same action at exactly the same time on their game clients, but one client has a much lower ping than the other?

For instance, I'm a mage and I cast a heal on my ally, but my ping is 300ms. At exactly the same time, an opponent shoots an arrow at the same ally, and they only have 150ms ping. Which one would resolve first? The heal or the arrow, assuming both actions have exactly the same time to reach the targeted ally...

Obviously in a ferocious battle, this could have dire consequences, if my heal gets there first, my ally might survive the arrow, if not my ally dies.

Would love to hear they resolve this on the server, being a game developer myself, having worked on multiplayer titles.

 

[cwall]

This is purely speculative, but my guess is that they pick a specific latency threshold (say, 300ms) and delay all actions performed by a player by an amount of time equal to the difference between the threshold (300ms) and the player's latency.

For example:
I have 125ms latency, therefore all of my actions would be delayed by an additional 175ms (300 - 125 = 175)
Other player has 25ms latency, therefore their actions would be delayed by an additional 275ms (300 - 25 = 275)

It may work differently, but this is my best guess at what they mean by "ping normalization"

There may be some additional complexity into determining a "normalized" way to ensure that players receive response data back to their clients, but at the end of the day, I don't see how any type of "ping normalization" does anything but impose lag on players with good connections... in which you're essentially sacrificing smooth gameplay to even the playing field.

 

[Meltdown]

This is purely speculative, but my guess is that they pick a specific latency threshold (say, 300ms) and delay all actions performed by a player by an amount of time equal to the difference between the threshold (300ms) and the player's latency.

For example:
I have 125ms latency, therefore all of my actions would be delayed by an additional 175ms (300 - 125 = 175)
Other player has 25ms latency, therefore their actions would be delayed by an additional 275ms (300 - 25 = 275)

It may work differently, but this is my best guess at what they mean by "ping normalization"

There may be some additional complexity into determining a "normalized" way to ensure that players receive response data back to their clients, but at the end of the day, I don't see how any type of "ping normalization" does anything but impose lag on players with good connections... in which you're essentially sacrificing smooth gameplay to even the playing field.

Unreal engine's netcode by default uses a client/server model, with some server authority thrown in the mix. I'm guessing in MO1's case instead of sending the command, i.e heal this player, they may use a client-side hitbox to determine if the player was healed on the client, i.e the player had the ally correctly in their view and aimed on when they pressed the heal button, and then successful heal action would be sent to the server, which would then process the heal command on that player's health, and update all game client's in the healed player's sphere of influence to reflect the new health value. As you can see with this model latency will have a big impact on how the server resolves the heal command, vs getting hit by an arrow command as per my above post.

The kind of network model you're talking about sounds more like something that could be done with deterministic lockstep, where players have to execute every other player’s commands at the same point on every client. This means every client has to wait until they have commands from every other client in order to execute them, and the server tick rate would determine the number of times per second to process these messages to provide a realistic simulation. Usually this would be around 20 messages per second though, but how their ping normalisation would work with this, I'm not quite certain.

Perhaps someone from SV could clarify how it works.

 

[cwall]

Yeah, I don't know if there has ever been a technical explanation of their implementation.

 

[Eldrath]

The simple and honest answer is that there won't be. You should move on.

 

[Magos]

EU's will fight tooth and nail for their ping advantage, though a server in NY would benefit more players. /thread

 

[Zerotrigger]

One server to rule them all

 

[Meltdown]

The simple and honest answer is that there won't be. You should move on.

I'd love to know SV's reasoning behind this.
Is it to keep all players on one server, to keep the game feeling 'populated' ?
If so, then why make the main continent map 3x the size??? That just further dilutes the population.

FFS make the main continent in MO2 half the size of the MO1 main continent, and split the population into two servers. The game still feels populated and everyone has their happy ping.

Every decent MMO out there has at least an EU and an NA server.