If this is true, RIP Classic

Classic Discussion
Prev 1 4 5 6 Next
<span class="truncated">...</span>

This explanation seems pretty reasonable, and spooky in implications (fwiw, I'm a backend server developer, and a lot of our customers are transitioning from the monolithic mega-server model to distributed stuff in cloud). This scenario would completely make sense, and would explain their aggressive adoption of sharding (in addition to CRZ and phasing).

Cloud stuff is great for problems that can be broken up into lots of independent little pieces. But the fundamental problem here is classic servers should not be broken up into independent little pieces!


Thanks guys. Interesting stuff. Obviously still worried how this will impact us. If we’re really aggressive with “no sharding “, would they consider the original approach?


Technically, there is a way to reproduce that data center model in the cloud, but based off of everything that Blizzard as told us, their entire infrastructure is anything but that.

As Fed mentioned, Retail most likely runs on a micro service architecture (compared to the monolith that Vanilla was). It's why I've been saying for a while now that Vanilla can't just be stood up again in a vacuum. It needed to be translated into Retail pieces. They didn't want to maintain 2 MMOs.

On a side note, In one of the Blizz videos, they said a couple things - very subtle things that I noticed.

There was a moment where 1.12 data was addressed, and they said that they still need to fit that data into the "puzzle" because many times the data doesn't "fit" right with the current. What this means is that they have may have 1.12 numbers, but they'll need to translate that into Retail damage/combat metrics. What this means is that Classic will have its own numbers. Private Servers will have theirs. And Vanilla will have had its own.

There was also a moment when a person asked about server population caps, and the Blizzard guy said in short, we don't do caps, we just monitor the number of online users. To me, this means that technically behind the scenes, "realms" as we knew them, no longer exist. Instead, I would think of realms as logical groups of people but in a hardware agnostic way - allowing people to be moved from group to group at will. Sharding will never go away. How badly they want to simulate Vanilla with sharding is the bigger question. I can't imagine it will be hard. It's about how much $$$ they want to spend on simulating it.
If you gather a lot of people together this could be taken as attempting to crash the servers. That is against the TOS and could earn you a temp ban.
11/11/2018 07:32 PMPosted by Edorin
If you gather a lot of people together this could be taken as attempting to crash the servers. That is against the TOS and could earn you a temp ban.


> Many players participating in a Massively Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game event? Shocking. How dare they.
> Fun detected
> Ban

Welcome to Activi$ion Blizzard.
11/10/2018 10:55 PMPosted by Mini
...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYFD06UFscw&t=

did you just see what happened? Amazing isn't it?


This is like me saying McDonalds can sell 2 burgers a fry and drink for 2.99 and they just dont want to and then linking a picture of Burger Kings deal doing it.


!@#$ing. Lol. I've never seen so many people in my life get proven wrong over and over and over again and ALWAYS use some bull%^-* "well, well, well it's cuz of this....or this....I think this....*analogy*...*metaphor*"

Please remember that these private servers are in someone's garage in Kazakhstan that is unregulated by temperature and run by unprofessional (as in business setting) people.

Dear God no wonder retail is in the toilet. You people are the issue with what it is now and loot box decisions and the embarrassment that is the video game industry today.

No wonder people want remasters of old great games like Halo 3, Warcraft 3, and others. No one will ever ask for a WoW: BfA Remaster. I wonder why.

I love WoW and have spent a great deal of my life on this game. I used to be Blizzard fanboi bandwagon too. But there's a point where it's not okay and to draw the line.

If Classic dies it's not because of Blizzard, but because the video game community is a shadow of its previous self.
[

This strictly a guess. I don't know how Blizzard does it. But a lot of it is configuration. Vanilla was based off of the data center/single server driven model. Basically, you take a mega machine capable of handling let's say 80% of the load. That's costly as you're over allocating most the time. And upgrading etc is $$$$.

Retail is in the cloud where a big benefit is auto scaling. The means that you can run say X regular non mega servers, at the minimum for a time and as things get busy gradually, you add Y non mega servers into the mix. So you're always running the minimum - all the while saving $$$$. This is great when cpu and memory consumption increases gradually.

But in the case of world PvP all of a sudden it spikes - faster than additional servers an be brought up by the cloud.


An educated guess by the sounds of it. Coming from an IT background there is likely much truth to this. You can still pre tune cloud provisionment and still make a cost saving but it won't be as great - which is probably why they don't do more post event analysis and server tuning.

The cloud has a lot to answer for really. Still a decision driven by the company though, but the cloud is enabling such bad decision making.
...

This is like me saying McDonalds can sell 2 burgers a fry and drink for 2.99 and they just dont want to and then linking a picture of Burger Kings deal doing it.


!@#$ing. Lol. I've never seen so many people in my life get proven wrong over and over and over again and ALWAYS use some bull%^-* "well, well, well it's cuz of this....or this....I think this....*analogy*...*metaphor*"

Please remember that these private servers are in someone's garage in Kazakhstan that is unregulated by temperature and run by unprofessional (as in business setting) people.

Dear God no wonder retail is in the toilet. You people are the issue with what it is now and loot box decisions and the embarrassment that is the video game industry today.

No wonder people want remasters of old great games like Halo 3, Warcraft 3, and others. No one will ever ask for a WoW: BfA Remaster. I wonder why.

I love WoW and have spent a great deal of my life on this game. I used to be Blizzard fanboi bandwagon too. But there's a point where it's not okay and to draw the line.

If Classic dies it's not because of Blizzard, but because the video game community is a shadow of its previous self.


I've been asking for legacy servers ever since Cataclysm, so you can only imagine how many turds I've come across from the post-WOTLK community. I just learned to ignore individuals of that sort.

It doesn't matter if you're being logical or show them proof, they will resort to spewing nonsense in an attempt at making a point for once in their lives in order to feel a little bit better about themselves.

It's forbidden to criticize Blizzard in their books, and so up goes their whiteknight shield and down goes World of Warcraft.
Thank you to the posters who linked the videos in page 1. Watching those BFA PvP and (that one pserver) PvP videos side by side was very eye opening.

Now you can count me worried, too, that sharding might be infecting Classic not because it's a design choice but because their current cloud-based architecture simply can't do it (or perhaps can do it but A-B won't put up the $ for enough persistent resources to smoothly handle the load spikes of large player events like these). Sigh.
11/11/2018 07:22 PMPosted by Xanthak
...

Thanks guys. Interesting stuff. Obviously still worried how this will impact us. If we’re really aggressive with “no sharding “, would they consider the original approach?


Technically, there is a way to reproduce that data center model in the cloud, but based off of everything that Blizzard as told us, their entire infrastructure is anything but that.

As Fed mentioned, Retail most likely runs on a micro service architecture (compared to the monolith that Vanilla was). It's why I've been saying for a while now that Vanilla can't just be stood up again in a vacuum. It needed to be translated into Retail pieces. They didn't want to maintain 2 MMOs.

On a side note, In one of the Blizz videos, they said a couple things - very subtle things that I noticed.

There was a moment where 1.12 data was addressed, and they said that they still need to fit that data into the "puzzle" because many times the data doesn't "fit" right with the current. What this means is that they have may have 1.12 numbers, but they'll need to translate that into Retail damage/combat metrics. What this means is that Classic will have its own numbers. Private Servers will have theirs. And Vanilla will have had its own.

There was also a moment when a person asked about server population caps, and the Blizzard guy said in short, we don't do caps, we just monitor the number of online users. To me, this means that technically behind the scenes, "realms" as we knew them, no longer exist. Instead, I would think of realms as logical groups of people but in a hardware agnostic way - allowing people to be moved from group to group at will. Sharding will never go away. How badly they want to simulate Vanilla with sharding is the bigger question. I can't imagine it will be hard. It's about how much $$$ they want to spend on simulating it.
Ok so I am a little new to this , wanted to reference Xanthak's mention of realms not being realms and how that kind of makes sense since you can go to an realm that is "full " and create a new character .

Sorry bout that .
11/10/2018 10:20 PMPosted by Sabetha
To be fair, a 120 person raid on a city back in Vanilla likely would have crashed the server.

Especially if it was Ironforge.

The whole handling of this attempt at people having some WPvP fun is still stupid, though.


Nah, it sounds like it would but it would only cause minor lag at best.

There's a massive difference between modern WoW and Classic in how many damage calculations are done.

In classic you have both a slower play style due to more limited resources and the majority of abilities in Classic are single target.

Modern WoW is the opposite, it's faster in that you're character is doing more actions per min for less % effect, and most of the abilities in modern WoW have some kind of AE calculation.

That's why modern WoW will causes with over 50 characters doing battle.

Prime example is the TH VS SS PvP event in modern WoW; the server lag is obvious, and that's why it's a nightmare to play melee on that map.

Same with AV when everyone is actually in a single battle, awesome lag.

However, in Classic these situations may have produced client lag; they did not often have server lag issues. There is a difference if you know what you're looking for.
If they are confident about their hack-detecting software, they could move a lot of calculations client-side... and just send the server net numbers... that would screw dps meters and combat logs though.
<span class="truncated">...</span>

Thanks guys. Interesting stuff. Obviously still worried how this will impact us. If we’re really aggressive with “no sharding “, would they consider the original approach?


Technically, there is a way to reproduce that data center model in the cloud, but based off of everything that Blizzard as told us, their entire infrastructure is anything but that.

As Fed mentioned, Retail most likely runs on a micro service architecture (compared to the monolith that Vanilla was). It's why I've been saying for a while now that Vanilla can't just be stood up again in a vacuum. It needed to be translated into Retail pieces. They didn't want to maintain 2 MMOs.

On a side note, In one of the Blizz videos, they said a couple things - very subtle things that I noticed.

There was a moment where 1.12 data was addressed, and they said that they still need to fit that data into the "puzzle" because many times the data doesn't "fit" right with the current. What this means is that they have may have 1.12 numbers, but they'll need to translate that into Retail damage/combat metrics. What this means is that Classic will have its own numbers. Private Servers will have theirs. And Vanilla will have had its own.

There was also a moment when a person asked about server population caps, and the Blizzard guy said in short, we don't do caps, we just monitor the number of online users. To me, this means that technically behind the scenes, "realms" as we knew them, no longer exist. Instead, I would think of realms as logical groups of people but in a hardware agnostic way - allowing people to be moved from group to group at will. Sharding will never go away. How badly they want to simulate Vanilla with sharding is the bigger question. I can't imagine it will be hard. It's about how much $$$ they want to spend on simulating it.


This really makes me wonder to what extent the massive adoption of sharding, CRZ, phasing, etc, into Retail were all driven not by gameplay needs but by infrastructure. Like some higher-ranking people decided that Blizzard games would all be hosted in a cloud infrastructure to save money, so all the different dev teams designed things accordingly.

This makes perfect sense for games like Overwatch, Heroes of the Storm, etc, because your gameplay is always confined to little ephemeral worlds that get spun-up with a few people in them, and after a match concludes it can go away.

You can clearly see how WoW has gone in this direction, with the way your game experience has been sliced up so aggressively into quest phases, shards, instances (your garrison, your order hall, etc), etc. I can understand their desire to use phasing to make a more personal narrative-driven questing experience, but the changes go far beyond that.

Bottom line is we desperately need a beta to see if sharding will truly be disabled in higher level zones, and for significant server events.
11/12/2018 01:33 PMPosted by Fyedora
You can clearly see how WoW has gone in this direction, with the way your game experience has been sliced up so aggressively into quest phases, shards, instances (your garrison, your order hall, etc), etc. I can understand their desire to use phasing to make a more personal narrative-driven questing experience, but the changes go far beyond that.
I believe it is erroneous to believe that a more personal narrative-driven questing experience has driven anything Blizzard has done since Activision took over. WoW was built by creative passion and a dedication to RPG gameplay and it didn't take a talking head from Blizzard to convince anyone of this. Activision, on the other hand, cares only for its shareholders' wallets. That has driven every decision they've made, no matter what the spokespeople they put on stage at Blizzcon say. So the sharding fears are well founded. It is entirely possible that at some future time, we discover that the boardroom decided to do Classic ONLY because it could be fit into Activision's phasing assembly line.

Hoping this is not the case, but it is quite possible.
11/10/2018 10:20 PMPosted by Sabetha
To be fair, a 120 person raid on a city back in Vanilla likely would have crashed the server.


Take a look at this video I made back about a year before WotLK came out. This was a Horde raid into the Keep. There was nowhere near 120 players, and everybody was having issues.

https://youtu.be/GL8of-6EBaw
No wonder they have this 'need' for sharding apparently if current technology cannot hold more than a couple hundred people in a zone on a server at a time without a panic that the server might lag, then how are we going to have 2000 players in Silithus?
Pservers are able to handle large numbers of players. Blizzard, figure it the f*** out.
This is how you do it.
Take your 'my !@#$ does not stink' hats off and open your eyes. Admit the way you do things might not be the best. Find solution, install. its ok to be wrong. it is not ok to be wrong, fail then tell us this is the best you can do with your $$ while basement servers can do better.
I hope you guys realize that you can get banned for "ganking" the same person over and over in live.

They'll do the same thing with classic too. So much for nostalgia!

:^)
11/12/2018 02:35 PMPosted by Rsaetan
Pservers are able to handle large numbers of players. Blizzard, figure it the f*** out.
This is how you do it.
Take your 'my !@#$ does not stink' hats off and open your eyes. Admit the way you do things might not be the best. Find solution, install. its ok to be wrong. it is not ok to be wrong, fail then tell us this is the best you can do with your $$ while basement servers can do better.


Not all in one location... put 100+ players in one spot just sitting there and all is fine... have them all doing stuff, like fighting, and expect a lag fest.
11/12/2018 07:10 PMPosted by Bessie
11/12/2018 02:35 PMPosted by Rsaetan
Pservers are able to handle large numbers of players. Blizzard, figure it the f*** out.
This is how you do it.
Take your 'my !@#$ does not stink' hats off and open your eyes. Admit the way you do things might not be the best. Find solution, install. its ok to be wrong. it is not ok to be wrong, fail then tell us this is the best you can do with your $$ while basement servers can do better.


Not all in one location... put 100+ players in one spot just sitting there and all is fine... have them all doing stuff, like fighting, and expect a lag fest.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYFD06UFscw

Do you even read bro?
11/12/2018 02:47 PMPosted by Goodguygreg
I hope you guys realize that you can get banned for "ganking" the same person over and over in live.

They'll do the same thing with classic too. So much for nostalgia!

:^)


Since when? I have never been "Banned" for that, nor have I ever been banned in game ever for anything.

Not even when my guild was using some questionable in game mechanics in Vanilla raiding; the only thing that ever took place was a patch the next week where that option for killing that boss no longer existed.

I feel they're very lenient.

Join the Conversation

Return to Forum