Proof why sharding will ruin the game

Classic Discussion
11/13/2018 05:28 PMPosted by Vøøðøø
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.

# of transistors is not 1:1 with speed. To even suggest such a thing shows you know just enough about computers to get the wrong answer from google. I work with hundreds of servers every day from current ones just setup this week to ones that are still running server 2003 on origional hardware. There is nowhere near a 250x difference in speed.

Now if you want to put together a 10 million dollar cluster with a dedicated san with software that scaled perfectly...then maybe it can do what 250 old servers did assuming the software scales perfectly with more cpus and cores and more nodes in cluster and has no ram limitations. Too bad there is no such piece of software. Even SQL doesn't scale perfectly.
To support 5 million MMO users you are looking at rack after rack full of blade chassis and sans.
PS> Sharding is 1 way to get much better scaling and the whole reason they need it at launch.
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.


This^

Sharding in starter zones isn't that much of an issue in isolation but agreeing to this is one step in the wrong direction and it makes the next step a little bit closer. That is why the #nochanges thing exists; because Blizzard unfortunately can not be trusted (yet) to put a hard limit on QoL changes.
11/13/2018 05:39 PMPosted by Minotron
<span class="truncated">...</span>

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.


This^

Sharding in starter zones isn't that much of an issue in isolation but agreeing to this is one step in the wrong direction and it makes the next step a little bit closer. That is why the #nochanges thing exists; because Blizzard unfortunately can not be trusted (yet) to put a hard limit on QoL changes.

If you don't want the starter zone to be playable go play BfA.
11/13/2018 05:28 PMPosted by Vøøðøø
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.

# of transistors is not 1:1 with speed. To even suggest such a thing shows you know just enough about computers to get the wrong answer from google. I work with hundreds of servers every day from current ones just setup this week to ones that are still running server 2003 on origional hardware. There is nowhere near a 250x difference in speed.

Now if you want to put together a 10 million dollar cluster with a dedicated san with software that scaled perfectly...then sure it can do what 250 old servers did assuming the software scales perfectly with more cpus and cores and more nodes in cluster and has no ram limitations. Too bad there is no such piece of software. Even SQL doesn't scale perfectly.
To support 5 million MMO users you are looking at rack after rack full of blade chassis and sans.


It doesn't technically need to be "faster" when it is multitasking more processes at the same rate, it is still faster. Even with a conservative estimate of 200x faster, that is only 10% the amount of servers.

Look-up moores law:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore%27s_law

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!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vl4ufIrMtXg
11/13/2018 03:16 PMPosted by Lhyme
11/13/2018 03:11 PMPosted by Priapis
Now jump to today where wow currently has 5 million subscribers.
No.

LOL


They will definitely have 5 million subscribers when classic launches.
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.

Wrong the most important parts of classic is for it to be fun to enough people for it to actually survive.
If you don't want that then go play the live version yourself.
<span class="truncated">...</span>
# of transistors is not 1:1 with speed. To even suggest such a thing shows you know just enough about computers to get the wrong answer from google. I work with hundreds of servers every day from current ones just setup this week to ones that are still running server 2003 on origional hardware. There is nowhere near a 250x difference in speed.

Now if you want to put together a 10 million dollar cluster with a dedicated san with software that scaled perfectly...then sure it can do what 250 old servers did assuming the software scales perfectly with more cpus and cores and more nodes in cluster and has no ram limitations. Too bad there is no such piece of software. Even SQL doesn't scale perfectly.
To support 5 million MMO users you are looking at rack after rack full of blade chassis and sans.


It doesn't technically need to be "faster" when it is multitasking more processes at the same rate, it is still faster. Even with a conservative estimate of 200x faster, that is only 10% the amount of servers.

Look-up moores law:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore%27s_law

Find me 1 MMO that is running 5 mil users on 1 rack of servers...note I am helping you as you can get about 30 servers in 1 rack. You are NOT running 5 mil users on 1 rack of hardware no matter what you google.
Now with sharding you could use a mega server to use a 1000 servers to split the load....and have everyone on what seems to be 1 server. But no there in no way you are getting 5 mil users on 8 actual servers.
11/13/2018 04:28 PMPosted by Lorissa

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"


I used the numbers in my first post for a very specific reason.

Classic wow is built using modern wow infrastructure.

There are plenty of videos recorded from BFA where you can clearly see the servers struggling with far fewer than 100 players in an area. There's a really good video of a 40v40 where the game nearly ceases to function.

If you force large numbers of people into an area, without allowing it to shard, the modern infrastructure gets overburdened. So much so that GMs even manually ended a raid on an area because of server problems.

This is why I used such low numbers, you don't even need to go over 100 players for the game to break.

If BFA has issues with 80 players in an area without sharding, why would Classic be any different?
<span class="truncated">...</span>

It doesn't technically need to be "faster" when it is multitasking more processes at the same rate, it is still faster. Even with a conservative estimate of 200x faster, that is only 10% the amount of servers.

Look-up moores law:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore%27s_law

Find me 1 MMO that is running 5 mil users on 1 rack of servers...note I am helping you as you can get about 30 servers in 1 rack. You are NOT running 5 mil users on 1 rack of hardware no matter what you google.
Now with sharding you could use a mega server to use a 1000 servers to split the load....and have everyone on what seems to be 1 server. But no there in no way you are getting 5 mil users on 8 actual servers.


I know you fail to understand the if/then statement. let's say they had 500 servers in 2004, today they would only need 50, to put it conservatively. I already said I don't know how many servers they had to accommodate that amount of people they did in 2004, but the math would still apply to whatever that number was.

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!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vl4ufIrMtXg
<span class="truncated">...</span>
Find me 1 MMO that is running 5 mil users on 1 rack of servers...note I am helping you as you can get about 30 servers in 1 rack. You are NOT running 5 mil users on 1 rack of hardware no matter what you google.
Now with sharding you could use a mega server to use a 1000 servers to split the load....and have everyone on what seems to be 1 server. But no there in no way you are getting 5 mil users on 8 actual servers.


I know you fail to understand the if/then statement. let's say they had 500 servers in 2004, today they would only need 50, to put it conservatively. I already said I don't know how many servers they had to accommodate that amount of people they did in 2004, but the math would still apply to whatever that number was.

Lets look at the #s released by blizzard...

Blizzard uses 20,000 systems and 1.3 petabytes of storage to power its gaming operations. WoW's infrastructure includes 13,250 server blades, 75,000 CPU cores, and 112.5 terabytes of blade RAM. The Blizzard network is managed by a staff of 68 people.

8 servers for 5 mil users my !@# not 50 either.
So if they had 1300 servers in 2004 to they would only need 130 today (with current technology) to accommodate the influx of people, are you arguing against moore's law? Yes, you are, maybe you should write a research paper and prove how wrong he is and has been, you would be famous.
So if they had 1300 servers in 2004 to they would only need 130 today to do the same amount of work, are you arguing against moore's law?

What makes you think with updated graphics, new direct x, new resolutions, better AA, better shadowing that the amount of load will not increase just as fast putting it right back using your #s at 1300 servers?
Sounds like a personal problem for changing it in the first place. Buy more servers?
2004..single servers for each realm
2018..cloud services
11/13/2018 05:39 PMPosted by Minotron
11/13/2018 05:01 PMPosted by Sarevök
...

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.


This^

Sharding in starter zones isn't that much of an issue in isolation but agreeing to this is one step in the wrong direction and it makes the next step a little bit closer. That is why the #nochanges thing exists; because Blizzard unfortunately can not be trusted (yet) to put a hard limit on QoL changes.


So Blizzard can't be trusted not to put in QoL changes, but if they don't do this one thing, suddenly they can be trusted not to do something else you won't like?
Imagine sitting in queue for 6 hours to login because people do not understand how things worked in 2004. 50 people in a starting zone would suck. Imagine fighting over the same 6 cactus apples or standing there waiting on a peon to go to sleep for 10 minutes so you can smack him in the head 6 different times (1 hour for that one quest).

Yea no thanks. I'd take sharding for the first three weeks.
11/14/2018 05:36 AMPosted by Jdpp
Imagine sitting in queue for 6 hours to login because people do not understand how things worked in 2004. 50 people in a starting zone would suck. Imagine fighting over the same 6 cactus apples or standing there waiting on a peon to go to sleep for 10 minutes so you can smack him in the head 6 different times (1 hour for that one quest).

Yea no thanks. I'd take sharding for the first three weeks.


...and they’ll use sharding anytime they can justify it.

It is a far greater potential detriment to community in the long term than compared to a week of quest competition.

In short, it is better to not have it all rather than run the risk of it impacting player-driven events.
11/13/2018 06:10 PMPosted by Vøøðøø
So if they had 1300 servers in 2004 to they would only need 130 today (with current technology) to accommodate the influx of people, are you arguing against moore's law? Yes, you are, maybe you should write a research paper and prove how wrong he is and has been, you would be famous.


you're still missing a digit... >13,000 not 1300
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.


BC launch.......... Yeah you couldn't even enter the portal without the server crashing half dozen times cuz you needed that quest outside of it lol

So sharding is okay for situations like that, which would be only the launch, not anywhere else really but can we trust blizzard to keep it off all the time afterwards? doubt it
11/14/2018 05:36 AMPosted by Jdpp
Imagine sitting in queue for 6 hours to login because people do not understand how things worked in 2004. 50 people in a starting zone would suck. Imagine fighting over the same 6 cactus apples or standing there waiting on a peon to go to sleep for 10 minutes so you can smack him in the head 6 different times (1 hour for that one quest).

Yea no thanks. I'd take sharding for the first three weeks.

This. Way better than login queues or dynamic respawns.

Join the Conversation

Return to Forum