PoE2 Network Issues

"

Shade307#0822 wrote:

Yeah, I notice the network is stable in my hideout, but then I go to the Well of Souls and get a 1200ms spike. Or it spikes like crazy in the hideout, then I enter a map and it's smooth as butter. Like, wtf GGG? Why is this so difficult?
Like all I want to do is play man.

Each "instance" (A map, your hideout, kingsmarch..etc) is their own instance and have their own seperated server stuff behind it.

So if you're experiencing lag in your hideout but smooth in your map, it's the instance that is hosting your hideout being bad. And the instance hosting your map is good.

This is a common issue in PoE1. Reseting instances might help. But there are time that most if not all instance are bad, then you will just have to... wait. Go play another game while it happens.

As for fix? I don't think it can happen.

This has been a on-going problem for a decade across 2 game titles. If they can fix it it would have been fixed.

"

Shade307#0822 wrote:

Many players have proven these issues are instance-specific, meaning GGG controls the server allocation. If switching instances or gateways fixes it, that’s on their infrastructure — not your ISP.

What you have is known as a theory - it is as valid as anyone else's, but no more objectively correct or authoritative than theirs.

To offer a single counter example: if your chosen gateway is at maximum capacity at the time you go to create a new instance, you will be offloaded to a "nearby" gateway to avoid placing you in a queue. If a player in Luxembourg tries connecting to the Paris gateway and gets bounced to Amsterdam, their traffic will take a notably different path. Troubled infrastructure owned and maintained by their ISP which was not previously used may now be between them and their fallback gateway.

So, essentially, the thread was created on the following premise;

• That you have performed no tests.
• That you have provided zero debugging information.
• That your, frankly, made up explanation should be accepted by everyone without question.

Respectfully - that's not going to fly in the eyes of any serious person.

Respectfully, you don’t need a PhD to see the server’s broken—just working eyes. If rerouting fixes it, maybe the issue isn’t my understanding… it’s GGG’s infrastructure.

"

Shade307#0822 wrote:

If rerouting fixes it, maybe the issue isn’t my understanding… it’s GGG’s infrastructure.

GGG's infrastructure is the server itself.

If you taking a different path to the same server resolves the issue, that literally RULES OUT it being GGG's fault.

"

Shade307#0822 wrote:

Respectfully, you don’t need a PhD to see the server’s broken—just working eyes.

The server doesn't know which path you took to arrive at it. It will not react differently to you based on that.

Switching gateways doesn’t rule out GGG’s responsibility it highlights it. If you're rerouted to a "nearby" gateway (like Amsterdam from Paris), GGG chose that routing path, not your ISP. Players have run traceroutes showing packet loss at GGG-controlled hops, like DDoS protection servers or overloaded nodes in their infrastructure.

Just because the final server is the same doesn’t mean the path isn’t GGG’s problem. They control:

Gateway placement,
Load balancing,
Routing logic.
If their system dumps you on a broken path, that’s on them—not just your ISP.







Respectfully :)

"

Shade307#0822 wrote:

If you're rerouted to a "nearby" gateway (like Amsterdam from Paris), GGG chose that routing path, not your ISP.

GGG get to decide which companies your ISP has peering agreements with?

Do they also decide how much your ISP pays its employees?

(GGG are not an AS, if that's what ChatGPT had tried telling you.)

"

Shade307#0822 wrote:

Players have run traceroutes showing packet loss at GGG-controlled hops, like DDoS protection servers or overloaded nodes in their infrastructure.

Who on earth would run a traceroute to check for packet loss? Can we see one of these files? Why does every single one of your posts ultimately down do "trust me bro" ?

• Were more than three echo requests sent per hop..?
• Is the packet loss beginning at a GGG-controlled hop?
• Is alleged packet loss at GGG-controlled hops persisting throughout the rest of the file?
• What steps were taken to identify GGG as "controlling" those hops? Strange choice of wording, btw.

"

Shade307#0822 wrote:

Just because the final server is the same doesn’t mean the path isn’t GGG’s problem. They control:

Gateway placement,
Load balancing,
Routing logic.
If their system dumps you on a broken path, that’s on them—not just your ISP.

That's not how BGP works, but whatever.

Can't wait to see the traceroutes you've now staked your claim to.

Traceroutes from EU players show massive latency spikes at GGG-controlled hops, not just ISP paths. If their routing logic dumps you on a broken path, it’s their problem, not just “trust me bro.”

And yes—people do run WinMTR/traceroute. Here’s proof:


https://www.pathofexile.com/forum/view-thread/3695675









Respectfully :)

"

Shade307#0822 wrote:

Traceroutes from EU players show massive latency spikes at GGG-controlled hops, not just ISP paths.

Okay, so a few things.

First of all, packet loss and latency spikes are not the same thing.

Are you accidentally confusing the two, or are you intentionally changing your story?

"

Shade307#0822 wrote:

If their routing logic dumps you on a broken path, it’s their problem, not just “trust me bro.”

Define "routing logic".

Speaking vaguely is absolutely "trust me bro".

"

Shade307#0822 wrote:

And yes—people do run WinMTR/traceroute.

But WinMTR is not traceroute...

The former is a program you download from the internet and runs in perpetuity. The latter is a built-in Windows command that sends 3 echo requests to each hop.

And I didn't ask whether people run them. I asked if people run traceroute to check for packet loss - as you previously claimed - because that would be ridiculous.

I have never heard of anyone deciding they might have ~5% packet loss and summarily deciding to send three pings to each hop on the route to establish where the packet loss begins.

WinMTR would be a more appropriate choice to establish whether there is packet loss - and if so, where it originates. If someone on a Windows-based device wanted to avoid downloading free applications, they could instead rely on the Pathping command. Traceroute would never be an appropriate choice for that. I have no idea why you suggested it earlier.

"

Shade307#0822 wrote:

Here’s proof:

https://www.pathofexile.com/forum/view-thread/3695675

[Removed by Support]