Battle Servers and Europe

The battle servers are noticeably more laggy than running a local game. This is on a good system with high FPS and a fast, stable internet connection.

The battle servers are placed in the US. If I run a trace route to the battle servers I see that I have a ping of 140. Compared to the european Battle.net SC2 servers where I have a ping of 40.

The problem is that for europeans, the battle servers actually give a degraded experience. For example, if I got matched versus someone in my own country. Now the packets need a trip round the US and back, adding 100-200 ms of lag.

With COH2 having largely a multiplayer focus, especially in the light of the newly announced multiplayer factions, I really think this needs to be addressed!

The game is actually more expensive in Europe...

EDIT: added some testing results:

I recorded a video of commanding around a squad in CoH2 on the battle servers, where I counted the frames from the command was given until the squad starts moving. I did this at 30 fps.

I did the same for Starcraft 2 with a marine.

In COH2, it takes 17 frames from the command is given until the squad moves. This gives a command latency of 17/30*1000 = 567 ms.

In SC2, it takes 9 frames from the command is given until the marine moves. This gives a command latency of 300 ms.

The result is that the command latency in COH2 is almost DOUBLE of what it is in SC2. That's a pretty amazing result. In an appalling way. I would say every european player should be up in arms about this, at least those who play at a competitive level.

(Disclaimer: I am not saying battle servers are not an improvement. They are. This is not the discussion. I'm arguing for having a battle server in Europe. Keep this in mind when replying.)

Play from europe myself, and even if there is some lag, I still find it a huge improvement. The drops that were common earlier and lagging experience when running 2v2s and up are gone. For me the experience is only better.

Play from europe myself, and even if there is some lag, I still find it a huge improvement. The drops that were common earlier and lagging experience when running 2v2s and up are gone. For me the experience is only better.

Yes, the battle servers did make the connections more stable, no doubt about it, it's an improvement in that sense. But you are talking about something different.

My point is that it introduced noticeable command lag that was not there before, when playing against other european players in 1v1. What I'm asking for is just a battle server that's placed in Europe...

While I have no data to back it up, I too have the feeling that battleservers removed the worst laggs and hickups, but also removed any chance of those really smooth games I would have if I played someone really close. Right now I have som lagg, no matter who I play, but never as bad as I would sometimes have before the battleservers.

While I have no data to back it up, I too have the feeling that battleservers removed the worst laggs and hickups, but also removed any chance of those really smooth games I would have if I played someone really close. Right now I have som lagg, no matter who I play, but never as bad as I would sometimes have before the battleservers.

Yep that's teh exact same impression I have.

While I have no data to back it up, I too have the feeling that battleservers removed the worst laggs and hickups, but also removed any chance of those really smooth games I would have if I played someone really close. Right now I have som lagg, no matter who I play, but never as bad as I would sometimes have before the battleservers.

The data is quite easy to get, though. If you ping Relic's battle server, you get this:

TCP connect statistics for 54.209.64.161:27020:
Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Minimum = 137.16ms, Maximum = 139.02ms, Average = 137.81ms

In my opinion 140 ms is too much. And it's easily noticeable if you compare offline play with online. There is a constant delay on every unit response.

I just feel like it's too bad when Relic finally introduced battle servers they didn't go all the way...

With the new factions they are basically marketing it as a multiplayer game, so they should definitely do something about this. Europeans pay the same if not more for the game, we should get the same experience...

The data is quite easy to get, though. If you ping Relic's battle server, you get this:

TCP connect statistics for 54.209.64.161:27020:
Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Minimum = 137.16ms, Maximum = 139.02ms, Average = 137.81ms

In my opinion 140 ms is too much. And it's easily noticeable if you compare offline play with online. There is a constant delay on every unit response.

I just feel like it's too bad when Relic finally introduced battle servers they didn't go all the way...

With the new factions they are basically marketing it as a multiplayer game, so they should definitely do something about this. Europeans pay the same if not more for the game, we should get the same experience...

Does that mean that a US player will have an edge when playing against a european player or does the servers somehow iron the difference out? I mean, does the input lag scale with your ping to the server, so the US player will have more time to react?

Does that mean that a US player will have an edge when playing against a european player or does the servers somehow iron the difference out? I mean, does the input lag scale with your ping to the server, so the US player will have more time to react?

The battle servers do not host the game I think, they just relay the traffic.

If an US player is matched with an EU player, both will have high command latency. Pretty annoying for the US player I guess, if he's used to having low latency games.

But in that sense, the distance to the battle servers do not give an unfair advantage, it just increases the command latency of both players.

However, I do find the latency in COH2 to be pretty annoying, it's especially jarring when you try to throw or dodge grenades, reposition weapon crews and AT guns. The latency also makes vehicle movement feel really clunky too...

Battle servers exist to STOP the latency of one player carrying to the others. In this case US players might get a tiny edge over European / other region players.

Can't say I've noticed any command lag since battle servers a European player although if I played more single player I suppose I might.

The servers have vastly reduced drops /lag and broken games and were essential for the future of the game. A solution such as having a European server would split the small player base are and cut me off from all my US buddies.

Battle servers exist to STOP the latency of one player carrying to the others. In this case US players might get a tiny edge over European / other region players.

Can't say I've noticed any command lag since battle servers a European player although if I played more single player I suppose I might.

The servers have vastly reduced drops /lag and broken games and were essential for the future of the game. A solution such as having a European server would split the small player base are and cut me off from all my US buddies.

For anyone who's played a lot of COH1, SC2 or any other game where you can get low latency, COH2 online play feels sluggish.

This could easily be done without splitting the player base. Simply route traffic trough the EU battle server if two europeans are playing against each other.

For anyone who's played a lot of COH1, SC2 or any other game where you can get low latency, COH2 online play feels sluggish.

This could easily be done without splitting the player base. Simply route traffic trough the EU battle server if two europeans are playing against each other.

And if there are 3 Europeans, 3 US a Canadian and an Aussie? Hardly worth a European server for the small number of European only matches that must take place.

I believe you about the slight lag but typically before battle servers it was almost always worse than it is now. The beta was like playing through treacle.

And if there are 3 Europeans, 3 US a Canadian and an Aussie? Hardly worth a European server for the small number of European only matches that must take place.

I believe you about the slight lag but typically before battle servers it was almost always worse than it is now. The beta was like playing through treacle.

The population of Europe is around the double of the US+Canadian population.

Battle servers are definitely a step in the right direction, especially for team games.

But as an European player who mainly plays 1v1, it's just not quite there yet.

Look, I give this suggestion because I want this game to better. I want it to succeed, and have a good competitive community. But the latency is driving me insane, and makes me miss how responsive COH1 games were.

I can't imagine it would be very difficult or expensive for Relic to add an european battle server, they are basically just renting space from Amazon.

I have raised my voice in the official forum about this as well. We need a Battle Server/s in the Europe as well. Simple as that.

I have raised my voice in the official forum about this as well. We need a Battle Server/s in the Europe as well. Simple as that.

With the coming expansion/DLC essentially being multiplayer only, I think this is something european players should care about...

I have raised my voice in the official forum about this as well. We need a Battle Server/s in the Europe as well. Simple as that.

Well, I'm the eu player and I don't have any issue dodging anything/microing.
Perfect responsiveness can be achieved only if you play sp or sit on the servers.

There isn't really any issues anymore since battleservers for vast majority of players and only a handful still complain.

Try playing in Australia with 200 ping for everywhere else as standard...

Try playing in Australia with 200 ping for everywhere else as standard...

While its not really your fault for living in mexico of earth, there are australian players, like Stephen who do not have such problems, so its also a case of your own localization.

Of course you will have higher ping if you decide to live in the middle of nowhere.

Living in a metropolitan area here... so hardly middle of no where... but then connections around here aren't too good at the best of times... I'll work on it...

Well, I'm the eu player and I don't have any issue dodging anything/microing.
Perfect responsiveness can be achieved only if you play sp or sit on the servers.

There isn't really any issues anymore since battleservers for vast majority of players and only a handful still complain.

Look, I get it, battle servers is an improvement, and I think it is good step too.

However, playing with a ping of 140 is just not good. Play any other game COH1, SC2, DOTA2, whatever, and you have perfect response due to low latency.

I also get it that for some people, who casually play a few games of 3v3 or 4v4, they might not care or might not notice. I mean, I hate playing at less than 60 fps, but for some 20 fps is fine.

But for this game to be playable at a competitive level, command latency needs to go away.

Ask any SC2 or DOTA2 player if they could have proper control at 140 ms and they would clearly answer no.

Of course you will have higher ping if you decide to live in the middle of nowhere.

My point is, Europe is not in the middle of nowhere.

I just want the same level of control I had in COH1 when I got matched with other europeans in 1v1's. The latency at the moment is just too high...