Proof why sharding will ruin the game

Classic Discussion
A picture is worth a thousand words

https://ibb.co/kkqMFL
But.. I mean notice there's nothing to do
Sharding will also ruin a fresh pair of underwear.
11/13/2018 01:43 PMPosted by Meemuu
Sharding will also ruin a fresh pair of underwear


wait, isn't that shatting?
11/13/2018 01:48 PMPosted by Starmage
11/13/2018 01:43 PMPosted by Meemuu
Sharding will also ruin a fresh pair of underwear


wait, isn't that shatting?

sharting
I am siding HEAVILY with blizzard on this, sharding is desirable for launch and should be disabled once server populations stabilise.

The sheer amount of influx of players will break the game at early levels (much like any expansion launch without sharding).
11/13/2018 02:47 PMPosted by Blackstannis
I am siding HEAVILY with blizzard on this, sharding is desirable for launch and should be disabled once server populations stabilise.

The sheer amount of influx of players will break the game at early levels (much like any expansion launch without sharding).


Vanilla was fine without sharding, Classic will be fine without it too.

#NoChanges.
11/13/2018 02:49 PMPosted by Sarevök
11/13/2018 02:47 PMPosted by Blackstannis
I am siding HEAVILY with blizzard on this, sharding is desirable for launch and should be disabled once server populations stabilise.

The sheer amount of influx of players will break the game at early levels (much like any expansion launch without sharding).


Vanilla was fine without sharding, Classic will be fine without it too.

#NoChanges.

Actually vanilla is proof you do need sharting for the 1st couple days. vanilla was crashing every 3 min for 2 days straight.
Are we just going with sharting now?
11/13/2018 02:49 PMPosted by Sarevök
Vanilla was fine without sharding, Classic will be fine without it too.

#NoChanges.

Vanilla sold 240,000 copies when it was first released and the servers were maxed and still crashed. Now jump to today where wow currently has 5 million subscribers.
IF you assume some will resub for vanilla and some from retail just won't play, you can assume that classic will see an influx higher than vanilla ever saw.

I would like to actually be able to play. I know a lot of people want no changes but not being able to even log onto a server is something I want to change from vanilla.
11/13/2018 03:11 PMPosted by Priapis
Now jump to today where wow currently has 5 million subscribers.
No.

LOL
11/13/2018 02:55 PMPosted by Lorissa
<span class="truncated">...</span>

Vanilla was fine without sharding, Classic will be fine without it too.

#NoChanges.

Actually vanilla is proof you do need sharting for the 1st couple days. vanilla was crashing every 3 min for 2 days straight.


We're not using pentium 4 servers like 14 years ago dude. If one russian nerd living in a basement is able to bring up a fully functional and stable vanilla server, i think a small indie company can as well.
Sharding is a band-aid solution for a problem we will almost certainly encounter down the road.

That's the big issue here, down the road. There will almost certainly be moments of extreme player concentrations well beyond the starter zones.

How do you think the servers will fair without sharding if multiple raids show up for a world boss?

How do you think servers will fair if 20+ alliance invade the crossroads, while even more horde swarm the area to defend?
11/13/2018 03:32 PMPosted by Suzìe
Sharding is a band-aid solution for a problem we will almost certainly encounter down the road.

That's the big issue here, down the road. There will almost certainly be moments of extreme player concentrations well beyond the starter zones.

How do you think the servers will fair without sharding if multiple raids show up for a world boss?

How do you think servers will fair if 20+ alliance invade the crossroads, while even more horde swarm the area to defend?


There is a big difference between 20K players in a starting zone at once and having even 400 in iron forge. Also I expect 90% of players will never get past level 20. The whole point of sharting the 1st couple days is that you want 10x what the server could handle without it to be on the 1st couple days so when 90% are gone the server is not completely empty. Honestly they only need to shart the level 1-10 zones and maybe the 10-20 zones.
I mean all any of you all are saying is "I am so worried about level 1-10 being sharted that I want to have to merge 10 servers together 2 weeks after launch"
11/13/2018 02:49 PMPosted by Sarevök
11/13/2018 02:47 PMPosted by Blackstannis
I am siding HEAVILY with blizzard on this, sharding is desirable for launch and should be disabled once server populations stabilise.

The sheer amount of influx of players will break the game at early levels (much like any expansion launch without sharding).


Vanilla was fine without sharding, Classic will be fine without it too.

#NoChanges.


Not sure if you played vanilla or not... can you tell me when the last time blizzard reimbursed you for game time due to being unable to play for an extended duration?

The spirit of and emphasis of classic should be to recapture the essence of what it was like to play vanilla. An important component of that is having a server community and collaborative gameplay but a smooth launch is better than a 20,000 log in queue.
11/13/2018 03:11 PMPosted by Priapis
11/13/2018 02:49 PMPosted by Sarevök
Vanilla was fine without sharding, Classic will be fine without it too.

#NoChanges.

Vanilla sold 240,000 copies when it was first released and the servers were maxed and still crashed. Now jump to today where wow currently has 5 million subscribers.
IF you assume some will resub for vanilla and some from retail just won't play, you can assume that classic will see an influx higher than vanilla ever saw.

I would like to actually be able to play. I know a lot of people want no changes but not being able to even log onto a server is something I want to change from vanilla.


This is why your math doesn't work. Servers today are 250x more powerful than they were in 2004, so 240k x 250 = 60 million people. So it would take 60 million people to have results they had back then today with current technology and the same amount of updated servers.

You are talking about a 1/12th of that population, so we only really need 8% of the amount of servers we had back then, with today's technology, to accommodate 5 million people.

So say they had 100 servers in 2004, we only need 8 today.

(yeah surprising, I know, but that's how greedy this billion dollar corporation is being)

P.S. I got banned from posting on this forums shortly after providing this sort of proof, even though none of my posts break any rules. I guess having a dissenting opinion about blizzard and voicing it is not allowed here. I wonder how many others have been silenced from voicing their opinions that blizzard doesn't like. No wonder there isn't so many no-sharding advocates here anymore! Help Help! I'm being repressed!
11/13/2018 04:43 PMPosted by Blackstannis
11/13/2018 02:49 PMPosted by Sarevök
...

Vanilla was fine without sharding, Classic will be fine without it too.

#NoChanges.


Not sure if you played vanilla or not... can you tell me when the last time blizzard reimbursed you for game time due to being unable to play for an extended duration?

The spirit of and emphasis of classic should be to recapture the essence of what it was like to play vanilla. An important component of that is having a server community and collaborative gameplay but a smooth launch is better than a 20,000 log in queue.


The most important component of Classic is to not give in to people who want Retail changes.

#NoChanges. At all. Ever. Don't like it? Play Retail.
<span class="truncated">...</span>
Vanilla sold 240,000 copies when it was first released and the servers were maxed and still crashed. Now jump to today where wow currently has 5 million subscribers.
IF you assume some will resub for vanilla and some from retail just won't play, you can assume that classic will see an influx higher than vanilla ever saw.

I would like to actually be able to play. I know a lot of people want no changes but not being able to even log onto a server is something I want to change from vanilla.


This is why your math doesn't work. Servers today are 250x more powerful than they were in 2004, so 240k x 250 = 60 million people. So it would take 60 million people to have results they had back then today with current technology and the same amount of updated servers.

You are talking about a 1/12th of that population, so we only really need 8% of the amount of servers we had back then, with today's technology, to accommodate 5 million people.

So say they had 100 servers in 2004, we only need 8 today.

(yeah surprising, I know, but that's how greedy this billion dollar corporation is being)

Where are you getting that each component in a server is 250 times faster than it was in 2006?

November, 2006 this was released
Quad-Core Intel® Xeon™ X5355
2.66 GHz

Now servers have things like
Intel Xeon E7-8890 v4
24 core
3.4 GHZ

6x the cores and about 40% more speed per core is not anywhere near the 250 times as fast as you claim. Nor is ram, nor are harddrives.

8 current citrix servers can't even run a basic non moving non graphical program for 5 million users... not even close.
11/13/2018 05:01 PMPosted by Sarevök
11/13/2018 04:43 PMPosted by Blackstannis
...

Not sure if you played vanilla or not... can you tell me when the last time blizzard reimbursed you for game time due to being unable to play for an extended duration?

The spirit of and emphasis of classic should be to recapture the essence of what it was like to play vanilla. An important component of that is having a server community and collaborative gameplay but a smooth launch is better than a 20,000 log in queue.


The most important component of Classic is to not give in to people who want Retail changes.

#NoChanges. At all. Ever. Don't like it? Play Retail.


#Sharding. At launch. For a limited time. Don't like it? Don't play.
<span class="truncated">...</span>

This is why your math doesn't work. Servers today are 250x more powerful than they were in 2004, so 240k x 250 = 60 million people. So it would take 60 million people to have results they had back then today with current technology and the same amount of updated servers.

You are talking about a 1/12th of that population, so we only really need 8% of the amount of servers we had back then, with today's technology, to accommodate 5 million people.

So say they had 100 servers in 2004, we only need 8 today.

(yeah surprising, I know, but that's how greedy this billion dollar corporation is being)

Where are you getting that each component in a server is 250 times faster than it was in 2006?

November, 2006 this was released
Quad-Core Intel® Xeon™ X5355
2.66 GHz

Now servers have things like
Intel Xeon E7-8890 v4
24 core
3.4 GHZ

6x the cores and about 40% more speed per core is not anywhere near the 250 times as fast as you claim. Nor is ram, nor are harddrives.

8 current citrix servers can't even run a basic non moving non graphical program for 5 million users... not even close.


2004 Pentium 4 Prescott transistors 112,000,000 Intel 90 nm 110 mm²

2018 GC2 IPU transistors 23,600,000,000 Graphcore 16 nm 825 mm2

23,600,000,000/112,000,000 = 210.714285714

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transistor_count

Which isn't including network advancements in the handling of packets over networks.

Don't be pedantic, it was an example if/then, if 100 servers (then) then 8 today. I don't know how many servers they required in 2004.

Even if we are being conservative and say 200x faster we can then say we only need a 10% of the servers we did in 2004, to achieve better results today.

Join the Conversation

Return to Forum