You see no benefit from the client point of view? I see it as a much better choice than the one previously deployed. I live in Brazil where almost 100% of the ip address space is like 200. or 201. and now, when I refresh the list, the first servers I get, are the ones closer to me, and not some random foreign server that is not good at all for me with theys 300+ ping. But it can easily be troublesome for you on the us. What happens when your server is hosted witha 207. (first quad from MS) ip and your clients are in the 67. (random datacenter in the us) range?
It is either this one (wich is fine for me, from a client point of view), or random, wich tends to be more fair (it will suck (or not) for everyone, by the same ammount). On Fri, 2004-09-10 at 07:07, m0gely wrote: > spartibus wrote: > > ... because it isn't. > > Because it didn't affect you? It's safe to say this is a bit of a big > deal as it's generating alot of noise. Some servers may benefit from > the changes while others seem to notice no change at all. Then there > are the several like myself who noticed the change right away (and not > from this list). I knew something was up when my Iceworld server had a > dead spot one night. The first in over a year, and my main server which > had been gaining more traffic lately suddenly plummet. > > From the client I notice no benefit at all. It appears Valve more or > less shuffled things around rather than improved the search. At least > thats one conclusion just based on the results read about here. > > -- > - m0gely > http://quake2.telestream.com/ > Q2 | Q3A | Counter-strike > > _______________________________________________ > To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: > http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds _______________________________________________ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds
