Proof why sharding will ruin the game

Classic Discussion
11/13/2018 04:54 PMPosted by Vøøðøø
11/13/2018 03:11 PMPosted by Priapis
...
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)


I always love this argument because all it takes to crush it is simply get a bunch of people to go raid a city and see how it ends up working out for that shard.

It doesnt matter how much more powerful the servers get if the ENGINE cant support it.
Sharding the level 1-10~ starting area I think is OK at launch, but it sounded like they are planning to shard areas up to the 20s in those first few weeks, and that will ruin the experience for a lot of us who enjoyed Barrens and other zones as they were in vanilla (with no sharding). So I hope they only decide to shard the very first areas (Durotar, Elwynn, etc.). Surely that would be enough? And feels like a fair compromise.
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).

Except that was what some players truely enjoyed about launch nights. Others didnt and waited a few days.

Honestly even without sharding if you figure classic has more "starting" zones as the biggest expansions did.

Bc had 1 "starting" zone

Wotlk/Cata had 2

Warlords had 1 iirc

Pandaria had 1 or 2 (honestly i only group findered through after the fact so idk)

Legion had 5

Bfa had 2.

Classic has 6. You figure nearly even distribution of a 5k pop server then thats only 800 per zone. Humans/orcs zones will likely be higher but 800 players will take very little time to spread out.
11/14/2018 11:11 AMPosted by Valhalian
Honestly even without sharding if you figure classic has more "starting" zones as the biggest expansions did.

Bc had 1 "starting" zone

Wotlk/Cata had 2

Warlords had 1 iirc


BC launch was awful on super large servers according to people. It was the reason why in WOTLK blizzard spread the launch to 2 zones.

After that i think the sharding and phasing really started to take over before they just turned the world into a scaling fun house
Sharding the level 1-10~ starting area I think is OK at launch, but it sounded like they are planning to shard areas up to the 20s in those first few weeks, and that will ruin the experience for a lot of us who enjoyed Barrens and other zones as they were in vanilla (with no sharding). So I hope they only decide to shard the very first areas (Durotar, Elwynn, etc.). Surely that would be enough? And feels like a fair compromise.


Could be. Depends on how the crowd moves and how quickly they disperse to other zones.

Lots of horde will go to Org so they can dungeon run and get some gear.
Lots of alliance will go to Westfall so they can dungeon run and get some gear.
Vanilla was fine without sharding,


No it wasn't and no matter how many times you tell a lie, it will never become the truth....Unless you're a Donald Trump voter.

"At launch, things took a turn for the bizarre. Blizzard’s forecasts for the game were dead wrong, the swell of players flooding servers was too much for them to handle. Stores were selling out of the game fast and online vendors were taking orders left and right. When they flipped the servers on, the little light flicked from “on” to “burning on fire please help” as server queues reached the 1000s. The servers were crashing harder than burning ship trying to walk into Mordor.

If you got past the queues, you were greeted with latency issues, including the infamous “kneel and loot stuff for half an hour” and the even more infamous “disconnect because Internet was really sketchy back then compared to now” and be greeted by the 1,000 person queue. Blizzard issued game time credits for lost playtime and the rocky ride lasted over a month. Afterward, the servers were plagued with dilapidated hardware that wasn’t optimized to run the game and the entire issue wasn’t “perfected” until all the servers were upgraded.

That wasn’t the first time Blizzard underestimated their fanbase. WarCraft III suffered from about a month of launch hiccups too, with their Battle.net service having intermediate availability as box copies of the game, which at the time were not available online, were selling out faster than they expected in certain markets."

http://www.tentonhammer.com/articles/remembering-the-launch-of-world-of-warcraft
11/13/2018 05:39 PMPosted by Minotron
but agreeing to this is one step in the wrong direction and it makes the next step a little bit closer


Thank god classic doesn't require your (or any individual in the communities) agreement.

#entitlement
<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.


Except you're ignoring the architecture updates, and the fact that citrix has nothing to do with anything even remotely close to WoW. Next thing you'll tell me that we need sharding because RDP can't handle flash very well.

I mean seriously? You're going to put a top of the line SAN from 2005 against an all flash array from 2018 and tell me iops aren't that much better...? Cripes.

Good one noobler.

Join the Conversation

Return to Forum