Internet speed?
02-09-08 | 09:45 PM
#2
DVD Talk Special Edition
Joined: Apr 1999
Posts: 1,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Atlanta, GA
Not at all.
Online gaming is more about the ping times. Anything more than 100ms = bad gaming experience. YMMV, depending on the type of game you're playing, among other factors.
DSL or cable should give you acceptable ping times.
I played on Xbox Live (in the beta days) with an ISDN connection. 128k down and 128k up.
Online gaming is more about the ping times. Anything more than 100ms = bad gaming experience. YMMV, depending on the type of game you're playing, among other factors.
DSL or cable should give you acceptable ping times.
I played on Xbox Live (in the beta days) with an ISDN connection. 128k down and 128k up.
02-10-08 | 03:06 AM
#3
DVD Talk Hero
Originally Posted by Gromit
Not at all.
Online gaming is more about the ping times. Anything more than 100ms = bad gaming experience. YMMV, depending on the type of game you're playing, among other factors.
DSL or cable should give you acceptable ping times.
I played on Xbox Live (in the beta days) with an ISDN connection. 128k down and 128k up.
Online gaming is more about the ping times. Anything more than 100ms = bad gaming experience. YMMV, depending on the type of game you're playing, among other factors.
DSL or cable should give you acceptable ping times.
I played on Xbox Live (in the beta days) with an ISDN connection. 128k down and 128k up.
02-10-08 | 08:11 AM
#5
DVD Talk Special Edition
Joined: Apr 1999
Posts: 1,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Atlanta, GA
Originally Posted by nickdawgy
That's not true at all. I play WoW and anything under 300ms is good. I usually run at 80ish-130ish and it's fine.
A person with a 300ms ping in a FPS is going to have somewhat of a disadvantage going up against someone with a 60ms ping.
But I realize now that I should not have said "anything more than 100ms = bad gaming experience". That's too much of a generalization. I guess I was thinking that most broadband connections (DSL/Cable) offer sub-100ms pings.
Satellite broadband sucks for gaming because the ping times are pretty bad. At least they were a few years ago, I assume that's still an issue.
02-10-08 | 10:10 AM
#6
Thread Starter
DVD Talk Limited Edition
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,272
Likes: 0
Received 15 Likes
on
14 Posts
From: Seattle and sometimes hell
I was planning to do mostly TF2, counter strike, and whatever online games I happen to get for the PS3. Oh I guess I do play a few DS games online but haven't seen that much lag in any game I play.
I currently have 256/256 which seems to be fine for TF2 but horrible for CS. I ordered the 1.5m/1m yesterday but it wont be active until the 14th.
I currently have 256/256 which seems to be fine for TF2 but horrible for CS. I ordered the 1.5m/1m yesterday but it wont be active until the 14th.
02-10-08 | 10:31 AM
#7
DVD Talk Legend
In my experience (I've played ET, MOHAA, and COD/2 online on PC for more than 5 years), I have noticed that 1.5 MBp is great for nearby server - through many server providers are usually in Texas/Chicago/St. Louis.
With 3.5 MBp speed and me living in southern CA, I usually get about 80-90 pings on New York server and about 120-130 on London/Netherland server. On Texas server, I always get 50 ping - 50 ping is great for FPS. The lowest ping I ever experienced was 19-20 ping on Los Angeles server.
When I played on London/Netherland server (clan related and we had many European members), it wasn't that bad - just very small lagged but very playable.
With 3.5 MBp speed and me living in southern CA, I usually get about 80-90 pings on New York server and about 120-130 on London/Netherland server. On Texas server, I always get 50 ping - 50 ping is great for FPS. The lowest ping I ever experienced was 19-20 ping on Los Angeles server.
When I played on London/Netherland server (clan related and we had many European members), it wasn't that bad - just very small lagged but very playable.
02-11-08 | 09:25 AM
#8
DVD Talk Limited Edition
You could have a 256k DSL connection, but if the ping response was good, you'd be good to go.
Doable ping for FPS games is really under 100 these days. I used to play Quake 2 on 56k. Anything over 150 is pushing it, and over 200 = bad. 300 is only doable for strategy games and stuff.
Doable ping for FPS games is really under 100 these days. I used to play Quake 2 on 56k. Anything over 150 is pushing it, and over 200 = bad. 300 is only doable for strategy games and stuff.
02-12-08 | 07:54 AM
#9
DVD Talk Legend
Originally Posted by Gromit
Satellite broadband sucks for gaming because the ping times are pretty bad. At least they were a few years ago, I assume that's still an issue.
Yep, it's the distance the signal has to travel that kills the latency.
Originally Posted by found on the web
Every time a satellite broadband subscriber sends a command to fetch a Web page, the request must travel 22,300 miles (35,888 km) to a satellite in geostationary orbit. From there, the signal travels another 22,300 miles back to earth, to the satellite service provider, where it is routed to the internet, data is exchanged, and is then sent 22,300 miles back to the satellite. Once the satellite receives the information, the page data must travel the final 22,300 miles back to the user. The subscriber pays for that 89,200 mile (143,553 km) round trip for each request in delayed milliseconds. Some sources indicate the average latency is 500-700 ms. This unavoidable 'delay' makes satellite broadband a poor choice for activities like multiplayer online gaming.
