[M. Bison]

I think the population of the servers needs to be addressed. Obviously moving a server would abandon population right off the back.

There has been effort to address the relatively small server population. It will probably take some time to do given all the factors working against us.

However, hosting a pub in a Central location is a sure way to not get any type of population. It's pretty simple. If a player pulls up their player list, they are going to go to the server with most people and lowest ping.

I think server population and where your friends are playing hold far more sway than latency. This assumes latency isn't excessively high and instead remains within acceptable limits (<100ms). The preferred latency would probably be <60ms though.

If you went to GameTracker, you will see that the most popular servers are on the coast. Not one of them is Central.

Some of what you stated is true but this is not

http://www.gametracker.com/search/css/US...&order=ASC

US #1 (#1 World) - Chicago, IL
US #2 (#7 World) - Dallas, TX
US #3 (#13 World) - Chicago, IL
US #4 (#14 World) - Dallas, TX
US #5 (#18 World) - Dallas, TX

If a server is to be Central and survive, it would need to be hosted in Chicago and have people idle 24/7. Dallas servers will NEVER populate.

That is an odd assertion to make for two reasons:

1. For you, in terms of latency, Dallas would be preferred over Chicago.
   
2. Three of the top five servers are in Dallas.
   

There's nothing wrong with Dallas in terms of location. I'll concede there are problems with the current Dallas provider though. It doesn't look like any of their transit providers' networks go directly to the Pacific Northwest. That translates into higher than usual latency to players in Seattle and Vancouver. The players on Shaw Cable are particularly affected.