CaptainMac
IMMORTALS
0
   |
Posted - 2013.04.20 06:00:00 -
[1] - Quote
This particular thread was commenced in May 2012......and clearly is continuing. In speaking to many of my Eve friends, they are experiencing "closed socket" problems......to varying degrees of experience.
My experience is that I could no longer play either of my two main characters (each just under 100m SP) on my two accounts, as one cannot play in null sec when continually being disconnected. However, Eve has been part of my life for so long now, I started playing an alt on each account......totally juniors.......just to get my 'Eve fix'.
Now I can no longer even play those characters, as I am getting disconnected every 2 mins on either account. Like most of the people who have taken the time to add something to this thread, I played around to the extent of my knowledge, in order to try and over come this problem. I found that this is the only game that behaves this way........ I also found that I have a reasonable ping to the server (87.237.38.200)................
Microsoft Windows [Version 6.1.7601]
Copyright (c) 2009 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
C:\Windows\system32>ping 87.237.38.200
Pinging 87.237.38.200 with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 87.237.38.200: bytes=32 time=323ms TTL=234
Reply from 87.237.38.200: bytes=32 time=347ms TTL=234
Reply from 87.237.38.200: bytes=32 time=348ms TTL=234
Reply from 87.237.38.200: bytes=32 time=344ms TTL=234
Ping statistics for 87.237.38.200:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 323ms, Maximum = 348ms, Average = 340ms
C:\Windows\system32>
..............especially considering I am playing the game from Australia. Nor is a trace a great deal of help, as it seems to me that testing in a very small section of time, fails to pick up the source of this problem:-
Microsoft Windows [Version 6.1.7601]
Copyright (c) 2009 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
C:\Windows\system32>tracert 87.237.38.200
Tracing route to srv200-g.ccp.cc [87.237.38.200]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms (null).iiNet [10.1.1.1]
2 97 ms 29 ms 72 ms nexthop.vic.iinet.net.au [203.215.7.251]
3 100 ms 63 ms 68 ms te7-2.mel-pipe-bdr1.iinet.net.au [203.215.6.10]
4 168 ms 41 ms 97 ms xe-7-1-11-0.syd-ult-core1.on.ii.net [203.215.20.
102]
5 39 ms 42 ms 40 ms unknown.telstraglobal.net [134.159.126.189]
6 131 ms 154 ms 168 ms i-0-7-1-0.sydo-core02.bi.telstraglobal.net [202.
84.223.1]
7 189 ms 274 ms 178 ms i-0-2-0-2.1wlt-core01.bx.telstraglobal.net [202.
84.140.21]
8 282 ms 337 ms 268 ms i-0-4-0-0.eqla01.bi.telstraglobal.net [202.84.25
1.174]
9 222 ms 433 ms 369 ms gblx-peer.eqla01.pr.telstraglobal.net [134.159.6
3.202]
10 450 ms 374 ms 466 ms 204.245.39.42
11 331 ms 327 ms 323 ms srv246-f.ccp.cc [87.237.37.246]
12 372 ms 322 ms 322 ms srv200-g.ccp.cc [87.237.38.200]
Trace complete.
C:\Windows\system32>
I read a thread in the Whirlpool forum ( http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/archive/1593590 ) in which a comment from a CCP representative was quoted:-
"It is more than a tad annoying on our side as well. There is an important principle of network theory called the End to End Principle GÇô which essentially states that it is the endpoints that make protocol decisions, and only the endpoints. However, as so often happens, the nice tidy world of network theory meets real life, and it doesn't all quite work out as the designers intended. The ISP's doing this kind of filtering is a violation of that principle, a somewhat necessary one from their perspective, but still.
As CCP Sreegs has explained, we changed our protocol exchange to improve it a little, and discovered it was being used as an identifier for EVE traffic. It was never intended for that purpose, and nobody asked us if it would be a good idea to use it for that.
If you contact your ISP, this should be an easy issue for them to fix on their side. Ask them to contact us, at [email protected] and we will provide any assistance they need. This sort of thing happens fairly frequently unfortunately. There's a lot of sorting out behind the scenes that goes on between ISP's and network providers that isn't usually exposed to public view."
Clearly a change was made on the CCP end to "improve it a little" in that well quoted patch, but as a result of the unseen or inexperience as to the consequences.....it failed to "improve it a little".......rather it has worsened it for many many Eve lovers.
I also contacted my ISP..........and managed to find an interested tech.........and gave him all that I knew about this problem...including the CCP email contact; [email protected].
Meanwhile.....I appear to be paying for two accounts.......for a service, if you will...........but am failing to receive the service at a level that would generally be held by the community as fair and appropriate. My feeling is, that should this problem not be fixed shortly (this thread gives an indication as to how long it's been a problem), then I would be justified in asking for a return of the cost of this failed service.
For interest..I am running a gaming machine , the build of which, was completed a few months back. It is watercooled and sits in a Silverstone TJ11 case. It includes an Asus 1155 Extreme MB....an Intel 3770K.....16 gigs of Corsair platinum......two EVGA 690 hydrocopper video cars. My delta temp is between 1.5C and 4.5C. I am connected via ADSL and my speed varies between 3400 and 4000,
Cheers..................
|