I understand if you are firmly against giving server selection control to the players to avoid an unbalanced load on the servers or whatever other reasons you have. An alternative to the manual selection would be a button in the party interface, something like “find the servers with the best average latency.” It has to be optional, though; there will be cases when one user’s latency is more important, especially when the “average” latency is unplayable for one of the players. But from the user’s point of view, manual server selection would be best.
This does bring up a strong reason to have manual selection. I’m in West Virginia and if I’m playing with a friend in L.A. the best server for us would be Central U.S. but there’s nothing we can do to make that happen.
As I’ve said, manual selection would be very nice for us, but I understand why EHG might not want to cede control over the server selection. If they have full control, they can do elastic load balancing not solely based on the ping and user’s perception of what the best server is. That is, they might move you to a service that has higher ping, but less load. Even if it’s not implemented atm, having full control keeps the option open. Whatever their reasons, I just know from my personal experience that a far-flung party was no fun and quite confusing to your average player who is not a network engineer.
@sickpython Have I missed a comment from EHG to the effect of it not being planned?
You’ve twice posted with an apparent belief such an option is likely to never arrive, which strikes me as strange if you’re basing that entirely on whether it is already available. We’re talking about multiplayer not yet available to the majority of this early access game’s community. It’s obviously a WIP, and manual server selection is a QoL feature which is fairly easy to add later. It won’t be one of the first things they work on.
You might be right, and I might be overthinking. But, as I developer myself, I would have been reluctant to give users this power over the infrastructure. I think, if EHG engineers wanted to give it, adding a listbox with server selection would have been just a handful of man hours.
This is why MP is useless for me, ill never have less than 250ms, sometimes as high as 350ms. game is still playable but unless im using my party members as minions its a bad experience, I have PvP’d on Souls games and I have to put in 3-4x effort to kill someone due to desync
When occasionally I join a group in PoE its pretty awful, there is one gateway Frankfurt I routinely get packet loss on for 3 years, US server isnt that bad but the only saving grace is PoE has 2 netcodes Predictive and Lockstep, Lockstep is out of the question if you dont have sub 100ms
I didn’t see this post, but if confirms my intuition. It’s a big decision to let the players to load balance the servers. Perhaps things would have been different if there were hundreds of thousands of us and you’d have enough entropy. But even then, it would not be as good as a proper load-balancing algorithm, or even a possibility of having one in the future. Meanwhile, something has to be done for far-flung parties. I think a button to find the best servers for the entire party as I suggested, is a good compromise.
I dont really play with others much at all but as a rundown most games I do play; you play on the hosts server, so in say PoE you will get 6 players 3 from EU 2 from US and 1 from Australia, the EU (host) will have 30-90MS as the EU players, US players connecting to EU prob about 110 and I will have 350 connecting to EU
Now I can say ask them to play on Australian servers so I get 56ms and they all get 250-350m but thats unfair to them and now theres no reason to group with me
This is the basic way all online games work if you live in the southern hemisphere
I play PoE a lot and we have a very geographically diverse guild. PoE does allow manual server selection. When we do want to play together on my atlas, I often connect to London to which I have an ok connection and so do others. There is often no hope for the Aussies and Kiwis to play with us.
Exactly. When I played D3 years ago there was 3 Servers NA/EU/Asia on the menu you have ‘Join game’ if you click that the game prioritized Australians/Oceanic but were invisible (cant see games) only way to play with US players is to form a party but you had no way to play naturally with them. The game region locked you but didnt tell you… due to sheer numbers US have better quality players to play with. You dont want to always be carrying 3 strangers around
I joined Quin69s guild Juice to be able to play with psychos so I could level my gems, the only way I could play was forming group in chat
Ive lagged out of countless PoE rotations as the host is in Frankfurt and the connection is just hypershit
Poe Servers, Washington isnt normally as bad from memory. Casual 500 ping to South Africa
So you can see why not hyped for MP infact it makes everything worse for someone like me
Short of some ftl shenanigans, there’s not much that can be done with respect to the lightspeed nature of telecoms. Even if it were a direct path around the Earth’s surface. 6,371km radius 2pir gives a distance of 20,000 km from Aus to the UK, ish, which at 299,792 km/sec is 0.0668s in 1 direction or 0.133s round trip, so the absolute minimum ping the universe will allow an Aussie based on the non-existant direct path from oneside of the planet to the other is 133 ms. That’s ignoring any routing (increases distance), the signal being converted from light to electrons (which would be both non-instantaneous and drastically lower the signal travel speed) and any “network management” (deliberately adding in a pause) or things generally being clogged up at any point in the journey or bbeing sent on a weird-arse route.