Another issue with Sharding

[May-stormscale (May)]

This is not the typical sharding discussion thread.

Its about why they want to use it, and how that can be a problem.

Blizzard stated that, as they do not expect classic to have a rising population, they cant address the game as a usual new game release.

By that logic, it seems that they intend to increase the number of people one server can handle at once and shard it, so that after a few weeks/months after launch, the server will drop down to a more normal size and sharding becomes unnecessary while at the same time, they do not have dead servers they need to merge. Also, as many people in favor of sharding have argued, it would remove the need for que times as the servers can handle an seemingly infinite number of players due to sharding.

While that sounds quite logic and nice on paper, it also inherits possible problems that are worse than dead servers, merges and que times – besides all the orther issues that come with sharding that have been discussed over and over in the past.

• If servers do not have a cap due to sharding, in order to not have log in que times, servers can get ridiculously huge, which would in turn make sharding mandatory. And if they’d remove it still after a few weeks/months, the server would be overcrowded and in desperate need of adaptive re spawn rates. Either that or they do need hard server caps, which would invalidate the argument of pro sharders, that this removes the need for que times.

• If the game becomes a huge success and the numbers do not dwindle as blizzard suspects them to, they will have to either split up servers in order to remove sharding, use adaptive re spawn rates and/or have to keep sharding all the way. With the first and last of those options being way worse than a few merges and/or dead servers (in my opinion).

My last point is a bit more guessing but I feel that its worth stating anyway.

In a recent Q&A with Ion he stated that they moved away from their previous server based design to the shard/phasing design of today, as servers are highly imbalanced faction wise (and i suspect population wise also) and they need it in order to make open pvp and other features of the game playable/fun for the faction that is outnumbered by a huge amount. This system in use has shown multiple times in the past that its NOT good at handling many players at one spot without sharding them, causing huge lag spikes and even crashes, going as far as to make GM’s plead to players to stop those kind of undertakings.

In direct comparison the cloud based server architecture seems to handle massive amounts of players at the same place and time poorly and/or even worse than the server based architecture they did use 14 years back. As a comparison: Server based architecture used by private servers today, which works with less than optimal scripting and emulations, does handle this specific case better.

Conclusion:
Beside all the other effects sharding does have on the experience and community of Classic as a whole (as discussed in many other threads), it also has (as stated above) other significant problems that make it a very risky system to use at all.

Id rather see them set for a specific server size with a server based system in place that uses modern hardware to increase the stability and performance of the game as a whole. With Blizzards polish in software and huge funds to buy/rent modern servers of that kind, big battles and/or events like the AQ gate opening shouldn’t be a problem. While the launch will be less streamlined as to overcrowded starting zones and que times (and the need to develop some form of adaptive re spawn rates – at least for the starting zones), it would remove all the other risks that come from and with the sharding system.

Whereas one would have a worst case of long log in que’s, overcrowded starting zones, maybe some crashes in between and possible server merges, the other (sharding) option has worst case scenarios that would utterly destroy the whole idea of classic and with it… the game.

TL&DR: Scroll up.

[Blaîr-sargeras]

This is actually one of the more logical posts I’ve seen about the topic, bravo. I am really curious to what blizzard actually decides to do, only time will tell.

-Sinclaire -Torch-

[Igotsoul-deathwing (Igotsoul)]

Server populations are one of the largest and most impactful issues we still face. If we do end up with mega-server level populations that is not at all an “authentic experience” that the devs have referenced so many times. I hope they understand how important it is to keep the original amount of players per server.

[Khutulun-destromath (Khutulun)]

If anyone doesn’t already know the answer…

It’s more sharding.

[Wariya-stormrage (Wariya)]

According to his reply sharding will only be there during launch to prevent a bottle neck of players and then removed

I am not very confident they will remove it

[Peonmusk-frostmourne]

Your whole point crumbles due the fact they’ve stated it is going to be a temporary fixture, meaning they’ve planned for the case in which a populated server becomes too big.

Secondly, servers already have caps to them - you can still be in a Queue even with sharding due to an overload of players. (I recall Frostmourne on Legion and BFA launch)
I highly doubt blizzard has overlooked this issue, and WILL implement a cap on servers.
I assume this is an easy thing to do.

Their current servers are fine - they don’t need new ones.
If they optimised Sharding, and made it completely seamless - I’d be okay with it.
My issue with sharding on retail is that you experience that classic ‘fade out’ and ‘fade in’ effect, which decimates immersion.

A more predictive and dynamic sharding is another route they could go.
Say i’m walking out the gates of SW - it should shard me into Elwynn + Westfall as I pass the first statue leaving SW.
Meaning I will hear, and see players fighting outside before I get close.

Sharding gets a really bad rap - and I believe it is because of poor implementation and function.
It COULD be an amazing addition to classic - if it worked.

The only information we have is that Sharding will be used to off-load pressure (Which is completely reasonable) at Launch.
And that Sharding will only be used for a relatively short period of time.

I personally prefer no-sharding - but it isn’t sharding that is the cause of its terrible title of ‘bad system’ - it is Blizzard not making dramatic improvements to it.
Sharding would dramatically improve your Classic Experience if it wasn’t so poorly designed and didn’t break immersion 500 times a day.

[Falnear-wyrmrest-accord (Falnear)]

Sharding gets a really bad rap - and I believe it is because of poor implementation and function.
It COULD be an amazing addition to classic - if it worked.

Splitting the world in whatever many mirrors because someone thinks it inconvenient to have too many people around in an MMO, defeats the point of the said MMO.

[Peonmusk-frostmourne]

This is a dramatic misunderstanding of my argument - and a very clear strawman.
Please read the ENITRE text to understand my point.

I agree, Sharding is a massive failure of a system - but that is because of its design.
The true philosophy of sharding wouldn’t be to limit the amount of players in an area, but prevent lower-end computers from struggling to process the information.

WoW has always catered to the lower-end market since its haydays - a computer from 2007 can play 2018 retail on the lowest settings.
One of the many reasons for the, somewhat, continued success of WoW as the MMO king.

You can’t improve the graphics dramatically in an MMORPG AND not include sharding.
This is evident in ALL current MMORPGs.

I’m saying that the theoretical approach for Classic WoW in Modern day - is that you could have even More people in a zone WITH the use of Sharding, and still maintain a functioning computer.

A no changes individual would rather have 2000 players at the opening of AQ - with severely limited performance.
Whilst Sharding could allow 2000 players, in groups of 500 or less, for a low-to-moderate system performance in a given zone.

You could still have those massive battles - and it’ll feel like a battle - but it won’t have a massive toll on your computer, along with a more balanced PvP experience with 50-50 factions.

Again, i’m not in support of sharding in its current state.
However, if they dramatically improved its function and performance - it COULD have a very pleasant impact on Classic WoW - considering it’ll have low-end graphics in contrast with current high-performance PCs.

[Falnear-wyrmrest-accord (Falnear)]

You can’t improve the graphics dramatically in an MMORPG AND not include sharding.
This is evident in ALL current MMORPGs

Has nothing to do with graphics but with the way these MMORPGs are designed around so called “mega servers”. Modern PCs, even low-ends are more than capable anything WoW can possibly throw at them.

I’m saying that the theoretical approach for Classic WoW in Modern day - is that you could have even More people in a zone WITH the use of Sharding, and still maintain a functioning computer.

It’s nonsense. You don’t have “more people” in the zone with sharding, you have several mirrors of the zone, basically different zones where people can’t see or interact with each other.

Whilst Sharding could allow 2000 players, in groups of 500 or less, for a low-to-moderate system performance in a given zone.

What?

You could still have those massive battles - and it’ll feel like a battle - but it won’t have a massive toll on your computer, along with a more balanced PvP experience with 50-50 factions.

No because then it’s just another BG where several different groups are doing whatever in their instance of a zone.

Sharding means splitting the world into instances.

However, if they dramatically improved its function and performance - it COULD have a very pleasant impact on Classic WoW - considering it’ll have low-end graphics in contrast with current high-performance PCs.

It’s an absurd argument, yet you accuse me of making a strawman. Vanilla wow was designed for low-end PCs. I’ve been running it on a toaster with 512mb RAM and MX440 GPU. Even the cheapest PC or a Laptop nowadays can handle WoW (even considering “improved” graphics) just fine with whatever amount of players.

The limitation factor here is the WoW engine itself and the server capacity.

[Peonmusk-frostmourne]

Laptop nowadays can handle WoW (even considering “improved” graphics) just fine with whatever amount of players

Absolutely, emphatically False.

No because then it’s just another BG where several different groups are doing whatever in their instance of a zone.

You haven’t disputed my point, at all.
Just reaffirmed it.

What?

Sharding improves performs by putting less stress on your system.
This is a known fact.
Having 200 people on your screen will cause more performance issues than having 50.

It’s nonsense. You don’t have “more people” in the zone with sharding, you have several mirrors of the zone, basically different zones where people can’t see or interact with each other.

This is why I accused you of using a strawman.
My argument is that Sharding can be very useful in large combat events to reduce system strain.
Your argument is that Sharding creates mirrors, and that you can’t interact with players in said mirrors.

The basis of your whole argument is to attack Sharding the concept of sharding, whereas my argument is that it can be useful in many ‘population dense’ areas.
You’ve completely missed my point because it is easier to attack a concept, than my argument.
I never “accused” you of using a strawman - I convicted you of using one.
It is a fact.

low-ends are more than capable anything WoW can possibly throw at them.

No, this is false.
WoW is an inherently CPU intensive game - the more information on the screen, the more powerful CPU you’ll need.

I have an FX-6300 - Even though it is considered ‘low-end’ - It is impossible to play the Tarren mill vs Southshore BG - or a large scale battles with the current base-level graphics.
Most of the graphical settings in WoW are based around reducing stress on the CPU (Grass density, distance, Mist, Particles etc…)

So…

Has nothing to do with graphics

… Is inherently false.

[Falnear-wyrmrest-accord (Falnear)]

You haven’t disputed my point, at all.
Just reaffirmed it.

So you literally advocate for the instanced world because you have a messed up computer, hence completely ruining the MMO aspect. There is nothing more to discuss here except asking if the word “selfish” means anything to you? Or why do you even want to play an MMO if you don’t want\can play and MMO? Ruining a game, because every sane person can agree that sharding is bad, just because you can’t afford a better PC is absurd.

WoW is an inherently CPU intensive game

I have an FX-6300

It’s as much GPU dependent as CPU. In fact GPU gives you more performance boost than a CPU because the thesis about WoW being a CPU intense game was true about 15 years ago nowadays it’s peanuts. If WoW is maxing out a 3.50GHz CPU in your system I’d start to check what else is running in the system and what kind of add-ons you’re using because what you’re saying is absurd. I’d even say that it’s overkill of WoW in every capacity.

However, if you play on something with a ridiculously low amount of VRAM then this is your issue and not a CPU.

It’s rather ironic to even discuss that FX-6300 is not enough for WoW while system requirements for the game are as follows:

• CPU: Intel Core 2 Duo E8500 or AMD Phenom II X3 720.
• GPU: Nvidia GeForce GT 440 or AMD Radeon HD 5670 or Intel HD Graphics 5000.

And that is modern WoW graphics, so for Classic it’s even lower considering that models in the original world are simpler.

… Is inherently false.

You use the word inherently so often I don’t think you understand its meaning.

[Galdor-maelstrom (Galdor)]

@Falnear-wyrmrest-accord

Modern PCs, even low-ends are more than capable anything WoW can possibly throw at them.

Hooo boy, this is the post of someone who doesn’t understand the single threaded nature of draw calls in a secure server-client MMORPG, unless “more than capable” means 10 FPS to you.

@Falnear-wyrmrest-accord

It’s rather ironic to even discuss that FX-6300 is not enough for WoW while system requirements for the game are as follows:

• CPU: Intel Core 2 Duo E8500 or AMD Phenom II X3 720.
• GPU: Nvidia GeForce GT 440 or AMD Radeon HD 5670 or Intel HD Graphics 5000.

Firstly; I don’t even know where you pulled those system requirements from. Here’s the current “requirements”: https://us.battle.net/support/en/article/76459

Look at the recommended specs: Intel® Core™ i7-4770 or
AMD FX™-8310 or better

The i7-4770 is going to give you 50%+ more FPS than the FX-8310, yet those are what they “recommend.” It’s a farce.

[Peonmusk-frostmourne]

So you literally advocate for the instanced world because you have a messed up computer, hence completely ruining the MMO aspect. There is nothing more to discuss here except asking if the word “selfish” means anything to you? Or why do you even want to play an MMO if you don’t want\can play and MMO? Ruining a game, because every sane person can agree that sharding is bad, just because you can’t afford a better PC is absurd.

Again, you miss my point ENTIRELY.
All i have raised is that sharding is often labeled badly - and as i said before; “I don’t want Sharding in Vanilla, it’d be a massive improvement if it actually did what it should theoretically should be doing”

If WoW is maxing out a 3.50GHz CPU in your system I’d start to check what else is running in the system and what kind of add-ons you’re using because what you’re saying is absurd. I’d even say that it’s overkill of WoW in every capacity.

I’ve checked all my systems, and addons.
They are all fine - I can play settings on moderate at around 90-100 fps with no issues.
Once you add more than 40 people, it’ll be below 30 fps on lowest settings.
Playable - but not conducive to PvP.

And that is modern WoW graphics, so for Classic it’s even lower considering that models in the original world are simpler.

This is what i’m saying…
They will modern systems will function better, regardless.
So you can shard 200 people into one zone and have them run into eachother and brawl it out.
You still can’t have 1000 people brawling it out - either way, it’ll feel like a massive battle.

However, if you play on something with a ridiculously low amount of VRAM then this is your issue and not a CPU.

WoW surprisingly only has a moderate impact on a GPU - How do I know this?
Just look at your system performance when playing WoW…

It is far more CPU intensive - this isn’t a debate HAHAHA

You use the word inherently so often I don’t think you understand its meaning.

I’ve used it twice, and both times appropriately.
Sorry if that is too hard to follow!

It’s rather ironic to even discuss that FX-6300 is not enough for WoW while system requirements for the game are as follows

^?
I play at setting 5 for 90-100 fps.
Same settings in a raid = 30-40 fps
Same settings in AV brawl = 10-25 fps
The more information you add, the more powerful CPU you’ll need.
It is relative to what you’re doing.

No surprise you don’t understand that.
And the Fx-8310 (Minimum according to the real Requirements) and FX-6300 aren’t even worth an upgrade - if you know anything about AMD cpus you’d know an overclocked fx-6300 is the equivalent of an FX-8000 series cpu.

Please do your research.

I’m gonna end the discussion here.
I simply made a polite post about how sharding isn’t the issue, it is the way it is designed - and through many failed attempts to attack strawmen, you have still YET to refute my points.

Sharding in its current state should NOT be implemented.
But your base argument that a minimum requirement computer grants you the ability to call me cheap for saying a system that takes stress off said computer is good, is just ridiculous and speaks volumes about who you are in real life.

[Falnear-wyrmrest-accord (Falnear)]

@Galdor-maelstrom

Hooo boy, this is the post of someone who doesn’t understand the single threaded nature of draw calls in a secure server-client MMORPG, unless “more than capable” means 10 FPS to you.

Talking about cluelesness, everything in this sentence has no bearing on local game perfomance. We don’t discuss network connection issues. FPS has nothing to do with server calls. What you’ve written is gibberish.

@Galdor-maelstrom

Firstly; I don’t even know where you pulled those system requirements from. Here’s the current “requirements”: https://us.battle.net/support/en/article/76459

These are BfA requirements. The ones I provided are written on the back of WoW: Legion box. You know, the version of the game Classic is based on.

@Peonmusk-frostmourne

And the Fx-8310 (Minimum according to the real Requirements) and FX-6300 aren’t even worth an upgrade - if you know anything about AMD cpus you’d know an overclocked fx-6300 is the equivalent of an FX-8000 series cpu.

Please do your research.

Do research of your own. BfA requirements are irrelevant to Legion\Classic requirements.

@Peonmusk-frostmourne

I simply made a polite post about how sharding isn’t the issue, it is the way it is designed - and through many failed attempts to attack strawmen, you have still YET to refute my points.

What you’ve proposed is sharding spanning not one zone but series of zones. That doesn’t change the fundamental issue with this approach for an MMORPG, which again is splitting the world in mirrors, you’ve simply proposed larger mirrors.

@Peonmusk-frostmourne

Sharding in its current state should NOT be implemented.

And it shouldn’t be implemented in the state proposed by you either as it’s even worse because you want more sharding and ok with turning world into a series of instances because your PC can’t handle it.

[Galdor-maelstrom (Galdor)]

Talking about cluelesness, everything in this sentence has no bearing on local game perfomance. We don’t discuss network connection issues. FPS has nothing to do with server calls. What you’ve written is gibberish.

LOL.

The server sends information and your CPU has to process that information before it can be displayed by the GPU. Secure MMO’s can’t use predictive algorithms; the data MUST be processed serially.

Do what most people can’t do around here, admit you were wrong. Your CPU has more to do with your FPS than the GPU in WoW; a GTX 1060 is enough to max every GPU related setting in WoW at 1080p.

[Falnear-wyrmrest-accord (Falnear)]

The server sends information and your CPU has to process that information before it can be displayed by the GPU. Secure MMO’s can’t use predictive algorithms; the data MUST be processed serially.

Uhuh. And that’s really cheap operation in comparison with the graphics load. You have no clue how WoW processes network calls and you have no idea what percentage of the total CPU load it is from the overall WoW causes, neither do I. However, graphic processing is a much more expensive operation than network calls in general.

Do what most people can’t do around here, admit you were wrong.

Yes, you do that.

Your CPU has more to do with your FPS than the GPU in WoW

15 years ago it was true. Jesus Christ, open the bloody task manager and look at the performance metrics.

a GTX 1060 is enough to max every GPU related setting in WoW at 1080p.

GTX 1060 is more than enough for WoW, it’s overkill.

[Galdor-maelstrom (Galdor)]

GTX 1060 is more than enough for WoW, it’s overkill.

Then why does every single person playing this game get FPS drops when doing the Southshore VS Tarren Mill battleground brawl?

Hint: I’ve already explained it to you and you gave me a snarky, uneducated reply.

[Peonmusk-frostmourne]

Give him some time to fabricate a new answer.

[Falnear-wyrmrest-accord (Falnear)]

Then why does every single person playing this game get FPS drops when doing the Southshore VS Tarren Mill battleground brawl?

I dunno. I have no such issues even with GTX 970 and a 7 years old i5 CPU. I honestly have no clue what you’re talking about.
I also like “every single person”. How do you know that exactly?

Hint: I’ve already explained it to you and you gave me a snarky, uneducated reply.

I’ve explained to you why your reply is gibberish.

[Galdor-maelstrom (Galdor)]

Why does someone with a better PC than you get 30 FPS in Boralus? Please, with your extensive knowledge of “network calls (lol)”, explain to me why this player has 30 FPS with a GPU that’s overkill for WoW? Oh wait, you already answered this:

I dunno.

Oh, here’s a really good one. An i5-8400 with a GTX 1080: