Kenu

Result with parental control turned off (and device rebooted): traceroute to 159.153.95.65 (159.153.95.65), 64 hops max, 52 byte packets 1 192.168.0.1 (192.168.0.1) 0.454 ms 0.289 ms 0.188 ms 2 0.0.0.0 (0.0.0.0) 7.876 ms 8.016 ms 7.795 ms 3 hel5-sr4.dnaip.fi (62.78.106.176) 16.639 ms 7.161 ms 7.294 ms 4 esp2-tr2.dnaip.fi (62.78.107.114) 8.791 ms 7.483 ms 7.748 ms 5 hel5-tr3.dnaip.fi (62.78.107.40) 16.398 ms hel5-tr3.dnaip.fi (62.78.107.113) 16.015 ms 16.417 ms 6 rai1-tr1.dnaip.fi (62.78.107.13) 15.642 ms rai1-tr1.dnaip.fi (62.78.107.42) 17.954 ms 16.022 ms 7 tuk2-sr1.dnaip.fi (62.78.107.174) 16.178 ms 14.656 ms 17.132 ms 8 te0-7-0-2.ccr21.sto01.atlas.cogentco.com (149.6.168.129) 15.358 ms 16.458 ms te0-0-0-7.ccr21.sto01.atlas.cogentco.com (149.6.168.13) 16.536 ms 9 be2397.ccr22.sto03.atlas.cogentco.com (130.117.50.129) 17.058 ms 16.533 ms be2396.ccr21.sto03.atlas.cogentco.com (130.117.50.121) 16.122 ms 10 be2282.ccr42.ham01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.72.105) 37.881 ms be2281.ccr41.ham01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.63.1) 32.566 ms be2282.ccr42.ham01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.72.105) 38.926 ms 11 be2257.ccr41.fra03.atlas.cogentco.com (130.117.49.29) 41.592 ms be2268.ccr42.fra03.atlas.cogentco.com (130.117.50.181) 47.346 ms be2257.ccr41.fra03.atlas.cogentco.com (130.117.49.29) 44.486 ms 12 be2184.agr21.fra03.atlas.cogentco.com (130.117.48.69) 54.459 ms be2188.agr21.fra03.atlas.cogentco.com (130.117.48.113) 522.978 ms be2184.agr21.fra03.atlas.cogentco.com (130.117.48.69) 549.065 ms 13 telia.fra03.atlas.cogentco.com (130.117.14.214) 39.355 ms 39.708 ms 43.958 ms 14 ae8.mpr1.fra3.de.zip.zayo.com (64.125.26.233) 43.593 ms 50.673 ms 47.145 ms 15 ae4.cr1.ams5.nl.zip.zayo.com (64.125.32.106) 45.058 ms 41.427 ms 45.458 ms 16 ae0.cr1.ams10.nl.zip.zayo.com (64.125.27.62) 40.980 ms 45.576 ms 44.343 ms 17 ae7.cr2.dca2.us.zip.zayo.com (64.125.27.33) 134.550 ms 130.464 ms 134.098 ms 18 ae1.er2.iad10.us.zip.zayo.com (64.125.20.122) 129.619 ms 134.271 ms 133.524 ms 19 64.125.199.190.t00673-02.above.net (64.125.199.190) 130.649 ms 134.134 ms 130.189 ms 20 * * * 21 * * * 22 * * I don't know if it's random or not, but the two bolded lines have a much higher value than with parental control. I have run it again and the one that ends with .113 is significantly lower now, but the .69 is between 333-550ms. I will try to reapply the parental control and see how that impacts the result. EDIT: Never over 100ms on the bolded ip's with the parental control on. I'm no expert, but it would seem to be helping.

I guess it doesn't? traceroute to 159.153.95.65 (159.153.95.65), 64 hops max, 52 byte packets 1 192.168.0.1 (192.168.0.1) 0.500 ms 0.228 ms 0.184 ms 2 0.0.0.0 (0.0.0.0) 6.357 ms 7.756 ms 6.280 ms 3 hel5-sr4.dnaip.fi (62.78.106.176) 7.880 ms 7.780 ms 7.994 ms 4 esp2-tr2.dnaip.fi (62.78.107.114) 8.059 ms 7.830 ms 7.906 ms 5 hel5-tr3.dnaip.fi (62.78.107.113) 16.969 ms hel5-tr3.dnaip.fi (62.78.107.40) 16.402 ms rai1-tr2.dnaip.fi (62.78.107.4) 15.412 ms 6 rai1-tr1.dnaip.fi (62.78.107.13) 16.139 ms 16.196 ms rai1-tr1.dnaip.fi (62.78.107.68) 16.006 ms 7 tuk2-sr1.dnaip.fi (62.78.107.174) 15.520 ms 16.039 ms 15.769 ms 8 te0-7-0-2.ccr21.sto01.atlas.cogentco.com (149.6.168.129) 16.822 ms te0-0-0-7.ccr21.sto01.atlas.cogentco.com (149.6.168.13) 15.608 ms te0-7-0-2.ccr21.sto01.atlas.cogentco.com (149.6.168.129) 17.203 ms 9 be2397.ccr22.sto03.atlas.cogentco.com (130.117.50.129) 16.648 ms 17.175 ms be2396.ccr21.sto03.atlas.cogentco.com (130.117.50.121) 17.554 ms 10 be2282.ccr42.ham01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.72.105) 37.045 ms be2281.ccr41.ham01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.63.1) 35.047 ms be2282.ccr42.ham01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.72.105) 35.967 ms 11 be2257.ccr41.fra03.atlas.cogentco.com (130.117.49.29) 43.703 ms be2268.ccr42.fra03.atlas.cogentco.com (130.117.50.181) 43.708 ms be2257.ccr41.fra03.atlas.cogentco.com (130.117.49.29) 46.776 ms 12 be2184.agr21.fra03.atlas.cogentco.com (130.117.48.69) 44.264 ms be2188.agr21.fra03.atlas.cogentco.com (130.117.48.113) 48.415 ms be2184.agr21.fra03.atlas.cogentco.com (130.117.48.69) 44.355 ms 13 telia.fra03.atlas.cogentco.com (130.117.14.214) 43.119 ms 45.300 ms 41.536 ms 14 ae8.mpr1.fra3.de.zip.zayo.com (64.125.26.233) 47.167 ms 44.624 ms 47.949 ms 15 ae4.cr1.ams5.nl.zip.zayo.com (64.125.32.106) 41.965 ms 46.196 ms 42.361 ms 16 ae0.cr1.ams10.nl.zip.zayo.com (64.125.27.62) 46.790 ms 42.363 ms 46.722 ms 17 ae7.cr2.dca2.us.zip.zayo.com (64.125.27.33) 131.163 ms 134.062 ms 135.085 ms 18 ae1.er2.iad10.us.zip.zayo.com (64.125.20.122) 129.565 ms 131.294 ms 134.133 ms 19 64.125.199.190.t00673-02.above.net (64.125.199.190) 133.241 ms 130.559 ms 135.846 ms 20 * * * 21 * * * 22 * * * 23 * * *

Thanks. I did that, but I am still able to ping both the IP and the url. Aren't you?

I moved this topic to the NHL 16-section, as I see that is more fitting. Has anyone blocked the IP using a Cisco router? I'm using the Cisco EPC3825 router (provided by DNA) and I can't seem to get it working. I tried using the IP-filtering page for this in the router settings, but adding that IP gives me an "Invalid IP address" error. Is it better to connect to the router some other way than through the browser interface? I don't see any command options on my router, similar to what @XelsFIN mentioned about his Buffalo.

Thanks for the feedback - I noticed this too! We'll fix that for sure. :)

Very cool to get to know a little about you @Asche! Welcome to the community! :)

Hi Everyone, I have updated the community software during the night. If you run into any problems, please try logging out and in and doing a hard refresh (http://wiki.scratch.mit.edu/wiki/Hard_Refresh) If that doesn't help, please let us know your issue in this thread.

I agree the US fix shouldn't work for the EU-players. On the contrary, I think we need to rout through Ireland.

Don't worry OODAP, we are simply testing every angle we can think of, @Jiihooo86: Please try the different things I listed above, such as exiting the session after inviting everyone else and being re-invited.

Happy to have you as a member of the community @MovaaN! A great example of a good presentation of oneself - just what this New Arrivals category is for.

Would two teams or 12 people be kind enough to test this for a few games? As they are unranked, you can quit games and start new ones to see if you have different results regarding lag in the different games. Things to test: When playing in a private lobby, is it laggy for 1 player or for more players?If only one, is it the one creating the room?If yes, try creating the room and inviting everyone, then dropping out yourself and ask to be invited back.Is it still lagging? Who is having the most issues?Please have all 12 players write down (even just one word from the scale: GREAT, GOOD, ACCEPTABLE, BAD, TERRIBLE) and it would be good to start (and play long enough so everyone has an opinion) at least 10 games, so we can get an ok sample-size.(Please feel free to come up with things to add to the list of things to try) Who's in? Either let everyone know that you have a full team that would like to participate or let us know that you want to join as one person. Thanks!

But what if - and I don't mean to trash talk your design, because I'm very impressed with the amount of work you've put into it - but what if the best players from 8 teams in the 2nd division put together a team? 2nd division I guess, no matter what their skill? I don't actually question that now that I wrote it down, but I'll put this up for debate anyways. The hypothesis I had in mind was that most teams - even lower ranked teams - often have that one good player. I guess they should still earn their spot before they could all get to the first division no matter how many points they accumulated during the previous season. I guess the only major worry would be that a team can't pick up good players from the "minors" because their grade from the last season might way down their overall team grade. Then again it might help keep teams together, as the temptation for roster changes might be slightly reduced. Sorry, I'm rambling on, sort of answering my own questions. I hope they stir up some discussion nevertheless.

Hi Robsom, Thank you for joining the site! Please feel free to create a team thread with this information, as that will also help generate interest towards your team!

I'm very much interested in this division idea, but if we say division 1 only has 8 teams - that means 7 opponents. 16 games and then the best 4 go to the playoffs? That's semi-finals already. I'm not saying it's wrong, but it's very different from what the community is used to. I agree it's not optimal for teams to take breaks, but in some cases small teams might have 2-3 people that can't play for a specific amount of time and I think that's understandable. I'm not saying there needs to be a rule to allow that, but if divisions is the way we'd be heading, this is absolutely a thing that should've been discussed and agreed on up front. Are you guys saying that the bottom 3 teams should automatically be moved one division down and the top 3 moved up, or did you mean they'd match-up (#1 vs last spot, #2 vs second to last and #3 vs 3rd to last) in a best out of seven to compete for the spot? My personal opinion is that it should be determined through these teams facing each other. An alternative to what I described above, it could be a group of 6 teams where all meet each other and you see how they rank up after that. The downside is that it would theoretically allow teams to help other teams by losing on purpose towards certain opponents, once they've secured their own spot. Overall, I think this division thing is one that you either love or hate. It might be a bit complicated for some teams to digest. I think that it would definitely bring a lot of depth into the hockey simulation experience that we're trying to build. Please note that no concrete decisions have been made regarding the format of future leagues and we're just as excited as you to see where these brainstorms take us. I don't think it would be fair to start the ECL by placing teams in different divisions without giving everyone the chance to show us what they've got. Thus I think we should be using a more traditional approach for the first league and perhaps using the data we can collect from there to place teams into divisions for the next leagues (if that's what we agree is the best thing to do).

Hey guys, please note the great MultiQuote feature that we have here at the forums. You can click the +-icon next to the Quote button to pick a post to be multi-quoted: When you do, a message will appear in the lower right corner, and you can click it when you have selected the posts that you want to multi-quote. It's better to do that than replying to each quote separately.

Hey @gendlik, nice to see you here! It has been briefly discussed. So far we have no solution, other than: Investigate the issue further throughout the community and share best-practice to minimise the lag for everyone.Hope EA fixes the issue.Hope the invite version of drop-in somehow works better.Have every team play an equal amount of home and away games and randomise which teams plays the first game at home.Any other ideas are welcome.

Wow, I'm blown away by the quality of the discussion we are having here! Well done guys! @Billy44205: We will not call anyone TGMA at NHL Gamer and that was decided before your outburst. I will have to return to discuss this more once I can find the time, but here's the real question regarding the divisional system we are discussing here - What will happen if a Division 1 team (or whichever level really) wants to take a break and not play for one season? Can skip one season? Will be dropped one division? Have to start over from the lowest division?

Hey @xMrazek, happy to have you as a part of our community!

Hey guys - sorry I didn't have time to release the news yesterday, but here is our official news about the case: http://www.nhlgamer.com/news/50

What other stats do you need from Console Hockey? We will of course have our own system for the new stats.

I really tip my hat to @Klaus for the positive attitude he has had towards our website. I guess the cat is out of the bag, but we have been offered to import the stats from Console Hockey, so no history will be lost! We are really grateful for this! It probably won't be implemented by the time the first league starts, but we will work the old stats in there in the future. We should also have the old Finnish Cup stats secure for Finnish players who played in those old leagues.

Very well said @gzell60. I agree we have all the time in the world. As long as our design is smart, we can manipulate data even after leagues have been finished. That being said, I appreciate your thoughts @Billy44205. You are right that we have thought about most, if not all of the things that have been mentioned so far. The thing is though, that our opinions are not the absolute truth, so we want to hear what the community wants and how they respond to these ideas.

Hey @gzell60, We will make our own announcement later today. We did talk to each other and I'm happy to say that the discussion was very positive. No drama. Kind regards, Kenneth

Thanks everyone for your great thoughts and ideas! The first league will not have a higher and lower division. We might end up having to go to groups of some kind, but the first league will (in my opinion) be a fair starting point for all teams and then we can (hypothetically) divide teams into higher and lower divisions.

Hey @milesizdead! Cool to see you here! Thanks for sharing your story!