Server population !!!!!!

Classic Discussion
For everyone on this post talking about server "caps". You should know that back in Vanilla there were no caps, they were hardware limitations. This has been explained by the devs, since we have much better technology today we will see more people on a server that back in the day and not because they raised the "cap" but simply because we can handle more people on a server without having it crash.
11/14/2018 05:01 AMPosted by Faceroll
11/14/2018 12:45 AMPosted by Kherusaan
We don't want server caps of 2500, we want server caps of whatever they were in Vanilla... and nobody except Blizzard knows exactly how it worked back then.

There were more than a million players back then, and we had enough servers to play.
Blizzard have already confirmed those were more or less the accurate concurrent player caps (they were able to adjust them), so these are simply well-known facts rather than hidden secrets.


I feel like, with newer server code and updated hardware, Blizzard could push the number of concurrent players up a bunch. I have faith that Blizzard, if they wanted to, could invent the code/technology to make it happen.

I don't understand how this relationship with Blizzard became so adversarial as opposed to both of us being excited about new technology and making the MMO an amazing and huge place to be.
<span class="truncated">...</span>

You realize vanilla was balanced around this server cap right?

There are 6 world bosses, many of which drop much needed resistance gear. If you double the server cap to 5k you will also double the number of guilds competing over this. You are also increasing the number of people farming ore/herbs, most of which have 45m respawn times. Increasing the server cap is no little thing.


You do realize this was not a SERVER CAP? Blizzard devs said multiple times that this was a hardware limitation not a CAP like you call it. They basically said that with today's technology they will be able to have a lot more people on one server.
The Vanilla devs have stated multiple times it was a design decision and not a tech limitation. The servers could handle 4k, but they chose a significantly lower cap.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rd-Zt8bueFk&feature=youtu.be&t=6422

Marked Kern stated the same in a different interview. The cap was dynamic and would range from 2-3k usually.
You realize vanilla was balanced around this server cap right?

There are 6 world bosses, many of which drop much needed resistance gear. If you double the server cap to 5k you will also double the number of guilds competing over this. You are also increasing the number of people farming ore/herbs, most of which have 45m respawn times. Increasing the server cap is no little thing.[/quote]

You do realize this was not a SERVER CAP? Blizzard devs said multiple times that this was a hardware limitation not a CAP like you call it. They basically said that with today's technology they will be able to have a lot more people on one server.[/quote]

I'm pretty sure he is saying is that the gameplay itself, the environment, mob numbers, herb nodes, etc. were planned around a limited population number, and that even though obviously the technology now would allow for way more people on a server congruently, that overpopulation would negatively impact game play. This is a really important point. If bliz creates jumbo servers with much higher capacity for congruent play, it will almost necessitate using sharding down the road; just because the tech can handle it doesnt mean the game itself will be better because of it.
11/14/2018 07:12 AMPosted by Quetazal
11/13/2018 11:48 PMPosted by Skjaldbjorn
...

You realize vanilla was balanced around this server cap right?

There are 6 world bosses, many of which drop much needed resistance gear. If you double the server cap to 5k you will also double the number of guilds competing over this. You are also increasing the number of people farming ore/herbs, most of which have 45m respawn times. Increasing the server cap is no little thing.


You do realize this was not a SERVER CAP? Blizzard devs said multiple times that this was a hardware limitation not a CAP like you call it. They basically said that with today's technology they will be able to have a lot more people on one server.


Even if you go with the player cap being a hardware limitation you still don't have a good point. The debuff limitation was a hardware limitation. We're not getting unlimited debuff slots like it basically is in Modern WoW, we're getting a 16 debuff limit. So why would they recreate 1 hardware limitation for the authentic experience and not another? Especially when the game was balanced around only being able to have so many players logged on per server at a time.
11/13/2018 10:57 PMPosted by Plewtoe
People really want 2500 server sizes? You know blizzard would need 400 servers per million people right? With no shards.. I'd hate to be blizzard because they CAN'T do both.


I actually recommend 5000 for max server population, the original server size was estimated at around 3000 (nobody knows the exact number unlike old EQ where the servers listed the number of players on them). You gotta remember the overworld can only sustain so many players without massive changes (rapid respawns, sharding, etc.)

The game world design will not sustain 10000 simultaneous players. The fact that blizz considers sharding a good idea tells us they really dislike overcrowding a lot and consider it a "inconvenience" that must be avoided. I disagree with them on that, but I realize if you cram too many players into each server the problem becomes magnified to a level we never saw in vanilla WoW.

Having huge pop caps on the servers would make sharding absolutely necessary. It would become a non vanilla experience.
11/13/2018 10:57 PMPosted by Plewtoe
People really want 2500 server sizes? You know blizzard would need 400 servers per million people right? With no shards.. I'd hate to be blizzard because they CAN'T do both.


Do you realize there were millions of toons/accounts back in the peak of Vanilla? I believe I heard/saw a figure of 10 mil. So Blizz has already done this and with advancements in hardware and optimizations , it wont be a problem.
11/14/2018 10:25 AMPosted by Lashly
11/13/2018 10:57 PMPosted by Plewtoe
People really want 2500 server sizes? You know blizzard would need 400 servers per million people right? With no shards.. I'd hate to be blizzard because they CAN'T do both.


Do you realize there were millions of toons/accounts back in the peak of Vanilla? I believe I heard/saw a figure of 10 mil. So Blizz has already done this and with advancements in hardware and optimizations , it wont be a problem.


Long before crz, xrealm, or sharding also.
11/13/2018 10:57 PMPosted by Plewtoe
People really want 2500 server sizes? You know blizzard would need 400 servers per million people right? With no shards.. I'd hate to be blizzard because they CAN'T do both.


Total =/= concurrent
With today's technology its not like each server is a physical machine itself. They are all virtual segments of a larger overall system. The cap I think will probable be around 5k. My only concern is how stable these populations will be across the board without an initial fee, I don't have an issue with anyone who wants to play classic doing so, but I don't like the idea of the populations being skewed early on by those who just want a taste of what vanilla wow was like. I think the larger server caps will help negate that and keep a large static population, with room for those coming back during content droughts from retail.
5-6k is best... they were at that value in vanilla.

I do hope they implement SOME server queue limit...
Alright so time yo debunk the op statement.
1 million players are not playing 24h a day. Lets say an average of 3 hours a day. So that is 1/8th of a day. You now have roughly 125k active user average if you figure cap of 2500 (id think closer to 3500-4k personally) youd need 50 servers. Lets say population doubles(seems high to me) from "average" during peek. They still only need 100 servers without them all being "full". Even 200 servers wont be unmanageable with servers being in the "cloud" and readily available to open up new ones.
Server caps should be around 5k to allow for the early rush and settle into a constant 2-3k server pops. Maybe even over cap some in order to save some space to keep the populated feeling of servers.

I also think you merge dead servers into lower pop servers to balance that out. While the game was growing i think you dont want to merge but its classic server and X-Realm was the beginning of the end.

Join the Conversation

Return to Forum