In kTOS currently matchmaking is enabled cross server. That can help reduce the ‘dead’ problem?
They could do something like prioritise the same server in the queue first and then only start filling it with cross-server players if there are insufficient numbers etc
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
You just gave me a idea instead of guild vs guild how about realm guild vs realm guild think about it adding a state of compition who’s server is better then the other server using guilds as a format. 
Actually it’s around
24% are NA
21% are EU
Rest is Brazil and rest of the world.
As i said, you cant play classes that are AA base or 0cd if you have a high ping if you really want to be aware that you will be less effiecient. The only people that should be really sad about server on NA are the ones with 200ms thats a huge ■■■■, i played all my life with high pings and i know the difference from 180 to 200.
I think the best solution would be 1 server with regional channels, but i don’t know if it’s possible. Like Channel 1-5 NA east, 6-8 EU, 9-11 NA west, something along those lines.
Thats not a solution. While it allows for NA players to play with EU players, it brings the very same problems you are trying to solve. When you join an inter-server matchmaking for dungeon or PvP that instance of dungeon or PvP arena have to be on one server somewhere in the world. If its in NA then EU players will have higher latency than NA players and vice versa.
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
Its more like this exsample
Client > Server cluster > Server hub EU >< Server hub NA < Sever cluster < Client
Instead of it going Client > Server cluster > Server NA
It lowers the rate of data from both servers via distance and traffic because what is happening is the main server hubs are taking there data from there respected areas and then the server hubs trade data to each other reducing the load and as i said distance and traffic of all the data problem with this method is can cost a bit and needs a lot of coding for the data transfer to behave itself.
I’m surely dont…
NA players < 20 ms delay> NA servers < 150 ms delay > EU servers < 20 ms delay > EU players
There is no way EU players can physically play with NA players without some sort of delay. Any proxies or “hubs” as you call them only add complexity and additional delay.
If you imply that for each regional player there is an instance of dungeon/PvP arena on their regional servers and then servers interchange data then it doesnt change anything - there is still delay between inter-sever communication because of distance. What would it look like for players? EU players will see NA players’ actions with a sizeable delay and vice versa.
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
but the delay would be much less then having everyone go to the same server hub.
it wont be less. It will be “equalized”. But for that you have to physically put “server hub” equally distanced from either region. For example in the middle of Atlantic Ocean. In that case both NA and EU players will have average latency of 95 (using my example above) to said server.
You are confusing server response delay because of load and network delay because of distance. You cannot get rid of the latter one and it is usually network delay that players refer to as “latency” or “ping”.
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
@PrinceMark
You are repeating yourself. I’m not denying that server load can and will add to overall delay, but server load isnt the only factor of delay. You are talking about apples while im talking about oranges and you are trying to prove me wrong…
“Both ends” have a distance between them that produces additional 150ms latency that is detrimental to gameplay irrelevant of server load. Checkmate.
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.