Sharding is about trust

Classic Discussion
Blizzard has already had years to display to their players that they know how to handle sharding/phasing/crz in a reasonable manner. Instead of showing restraint however, they went completely wild with it and reduced retail WoW into a virtually unplayable state for many of us in the Classic community. No small number of us want Classic explicitly because of how Blizzard treated this (and similar) issues in retail. The specter of sharding rising over Classic is a deal breaker for us, in all forms, because we already have years of proof to show us exactly what Blizzard would like to do with sharding if they felt they could get away with it.
They want sharding because they are too lazy to put actual powerful servers for Classic. They want to use their 'Blizzard Cloud' which is a potato farm for microservices or something like that, potato farm is the key. Potato can't run 10k server by itself, it needs help so there comes sharding.
SAY IT WITH ME PPL #NOSHARDING
They want sharding in the starter zones so it does not crash the server
where NO ONE gets to play (i.e the big group of level ones protesting a ban, as
well as too many people in any zone in any game).
They have already said sharding everywhere will not work due to some events
and situations that would be ruined.
11/03/2018 05:40 PMPosted by Mursh
They want sharding in the starter zones so it does not crash the server
where NO ONE gets to play. They have already said sharding everywhere
will not work due to some events and situations that would be ruined.

if even a private server is capable of a 15k pop launch, how can a billion dollar company like blizzard not be?
https://youtu.be/yPrVem9_Swk?t=18

This is what they think is good. They unironically think that seperating the community purposefully - despite the community being vanilla's core experience - is a good thing. They actually think that a game that was designed from the ground up to funnel people together in order to facilitate play and build relationships should be hindered by a system that counter-acts that. Experiences are built on bad and good, a complete utopia with no meaningful interaction is utter garbage.

They seem to have forgotten about, server merges, free server transfers, server caps at 2.5k and every other SANE option available to them.


Remember that adding sharding sets the precedent for a system that will be used when ever there is server stress. So that's anything from WPVP to AQ opening, or other server events Blizzard or community created. Vanilla's largest asset is it's community if they take that away it is doomed to fail. Sharding does just that.

I think sacraficing a server community that will be atomized in favour of short term gains is very silly. Growing pains are far preferable to it's destruction. If private servers can manage stability out of the backdoor of europe then so can blizzard, a multi-billion dollar company.
11/03/2018 05:40 PMPosted by Mursh
They want sharding in the starter zones so it does not crash the server
where NO ONE gets to play (i.e the big group of level ones protesting a ban, as
well as too many people in any zone in any game).
They have already said sharding everywhere will not work due to some events
and situations that would be ruined.


If it is only for a "limited time in the starting zones" as Blizzard "claims", then any "big group of level ones protesting a ban" would most likely never be affected by sharding, since most "big group of level ones protesting a ban" will be "protesting that ban" LONG AFTER that "limited time" and sharding was "turned off".

Similarly, the opening of the AQ gates or Tarren Mills/ Southshore battles should never be sharded as they do not happen in a starting zone (you know, the zones to which Blizzard is "claiming" that sharding will be limited)

The same goes for any other zone with a "high population".

Are you saying that Blizzard is not being honest with us when they claim that sharding will be limited to the starting zones and only for the first <insert number here> of weeks?
11/03/2018 05:32 PMPosted by Crucialsad
They want sharding because they are too lazy to put actual powerful servers for Classic. They want to use their 'Blizzard Cloud' which is a potato farm for microservices or something like that, potato farm is the key. Potato can't run 10k server by itself, it needs help so there comes sharding.


It's about $$$$.

Big powerful servers and upgraded is vastly more expensive as you scale up.

And microservices is exactly what I was talking about when i said Vanilla was being broken up into Retail sized pieces.

Microservices are easier to maintain - again reducing man power and cost.
11/03/2018 05:55 PMPosted by Ratsmats
11/03/2018 05:40 PMPosted by Mursh
They want sharding in the starter zones so it does not crash the server
where NO ONE gets to play (i.e the big group of level ones protesting a ban, as
well as too many people in any zone in any game).
They have already said sharding everywhere will not work due to some events
and situations that would be ruined.


If it is only for a "limited time in the starting zones" as Blizzard "claims", then any "big group of level ones protesting a ban" would most likely never be affected by sharding, since most "big group of level ones protesting a ban" will be "protesting that ban" LONG AFTER that "limited time" and sharding was "turned off".

Similarly, the opening of the AQ gates or Tarren Mills/ Southshore battles should never be sharded as they do not happen in a starting zone (you know, the zones to which Blizzard is "claiming" that sharding will be limited)

The same goes for any other zone with a "high population".

Are you saying that Blizzard is not being honest with us when they claim that sharding will be limited to the starting zones and only for the first <insert number here> of weeks?


No, I was saying it will be limited to starting zones simply because
sharding in other places would screw things up, and they said it
would. Such as events, world elites, and so on.
11/03/2018 06:02 PMPosted by Mursh
11/03/2018 05:55 PMPosted by Ratsmats
...

If it is only for a "limited time in the starting zones" as Blizzard "claims", then any "big group of level ones protesting a ban" would most likely never be affected by sharding, since most "big group of level ones protesting a ban" will be "protesting that ban" LONG AFTER that "limited time" and sharding was "turned off".

Similarly, the opening of the AQ gates or Tarren Mills/ Southshore battles should never be sharded as they do not happen in a starting zone (you know, the zones to which Blizzard is "claiming" that sharding will be limited)

The same goes for any other zone with a "high population".

Are you saying that Blizzard is not being honest with us when they claim that sharding will be limited to the starting zones and only for the first <insert number here> of weeks?


No, I was saying it will be limited to starting zones simply because
sharding in other places would screw things up, and they said it
would. Such as events, world elites, and so on.


Allow me to quote you:

They want sharding in the starter zones so it does not crash the server
where NO ONE gets to play (i.e the big group of level ones protesting a ban, as
well as too many people in any zone in any game)
.
They have already said sharding everywhere will not work due to some events
and situations that would be ruined.


YOU were the one who brought up the "the big group of level ones protesting a ban" and "too many people in any zone in any game", not me. Why bring up those situations if you truly believe that sharding will be limited to the starting zones and only used for a brief time period?
I played one of the highest population servers, an unofficial Oceanic server, having both US players and Australian/New Zealand players online at the same time was a nightmare! We destroyed Silithus (before the giant sword), we nearly drowned Sunwell opening the door ahead of the other server, and we all called Lagforge home (and thats when it was not be killed by a Troll God virus)... if anything back in the day, I found the lack of Sharding on WoW to be an anomaly as other MMOs at the time had it when zone population generated latency issues.

The thing with sharding is people may be confusing it with cross-server sharding we have today, or phasing like when it was introduced in WotLK (where Icecrown seemed so empty)

As a server stability issue, I can see sharding is a Need to keep the game stable but at the same time I don't think it will be as prolific as it is today. I hope it only spawns when the servers are stressed and not as some made up arbitrary integer Blizzard says is the zone capacity.

I do hope the game informs you if zone sharding is present, and how many shards your experiencing. (at the least allow you to jump shards, or keep Blizzard honest when it occurs).
No sharding, immersion is essential and this sets a terrible precedent. I can't play BFA anymore and sharding is one of the biggest reasons why
So what is the safe word?
11/03/2018 06:14 PMPosted by Falathar
No sharding, immersion is essential and this sets a terrible precedent. I can't play BFA anymore and sharding is one of the biggest reasons why
How is sitting in Que more immersive?
<span class="truncated">...</span>

No, I was saying it will be limited to starting zones simply because
sharding in other places would screw things up, and they said it
would. Such as events, world elites, and so on.


Allow me to quote you:

They want sharding in the starter zones so it does not crash the server
where NO ONE gets to play (i.e the big group of level ones protesting a ban, as
well as too many people in any zone in any game)
.
They have already said sharding everywhere will not work due to some events
and situations that would be ruined.


YOU were the one who brought up the "the big group of level ones protesting a ban" and "too many people in any zone in any game", not me. Why bring up those situations if you truly believe that sharding will be limited to the starting zones and only used for a brief time period?


Giving examples of what will happen if there are too many people
in the starting zones at once. Unless its intentional, as things like
the protest, there will not be as many people in every zone as there
is going to be in the starting zones on the first day. They are going
to be packed. Once everyone spreads out, it shouldnt be a issue.
11/03/2018 06:26 PMPosted by Rathir
How is sitting in Que more immersive?
Queues happen outside the game and have zero impact upon what takes place once you log in. Sharding breaks immersion during gameplay in one of the most jarring ways possible.
11/03/2018 05:11 PMPosted by Aranhod
Blizzard has already had years to display to their players that they know how to handle sharding/phasing/crz in a reasonable manner. Instead of showing restraint however, they went completely wild with it and reduced retail WoW into a virtually unplayable state for many of us in the Classic community. No small number of us want Classic explicitly because of how Blizzard treated this (and similar) issues in retail. The specter of sharding rising over Classic is a deal breaker for us, in all forms, because we already have years of proof to show us exactly what Blizzard would like to do with sharding if they felt they could get away with it.


Do you remember the original launch? I didn't play for a while because it was unplayable for everyone.
11/03/2018 05:55 PMPosted by Ratsmats
11/03/2018 05:40 PMPosted by Mursh
They want sharding in the starter zones so it does not crash the server
where NO ONE gets to play (i.e the big group of level ones protesting a ban, as
well as too many people in any zone in any game).
They have already said sharding everywhere will not work due to some events
and situations that would be ruined.


If it is only for a "limited time in the starting zones" as Blizzard "claims", then any "big group of level ones protesting a ban" would most likely never be affected by sharding, since most "big group of level ones protesting a ban" will be "protesting that ban" LONG AFTER that "limited time" and sharding was "turned off".

Similarly, the opening of the AQ gates or Tarren Mills/ Southshore battles should never be sharded as they do not happen in a starting zone (you know, the zones to which Blizzard is "claiming" that sharding will be limited)

The same goes for any other zone with a "high population".

Are you saying that Blizzard is not being honest with us when they claim that sharding will be limited to the starting zones and only for the first <insert number here> of weeks?


The main issue is you're saying "Will" when they said "considering"
you guys are acting like the sky is falling, the are going to have sharding in the starter zones for 2-3 weeks. once you hit barrens or westfall there should be no sharding so really your making a massive fuss over a feature that is in the game for less than 5 hours of play time and only for 2-3 weeks.

sharding is a deal breaker if it world wide but if it's just in the start zones for the first 2-3 weeks i don't see the big issue i get it it was not in vanilla but stop acting like spoiled brats its not going to ruin the game and if you want to never see sharding wait 4 weeks when its turned off.
Personally I don't want sharding at all, but if it's only in as a very limited capacity, then I can live with that. If it does need to go in, then enabling it just in the starter zone (levels 1-5 area) would be my preference rather than all Elwynn Forest as an example.

Join the Conversation

Return to Forum