@Anyone that says Sharding is not noticeable

WoW Classic WoW Classic General Discussion
61

This here could be the clue.

What if, and that’s all we can do in this case -theorize, Blizzard isn’t willing to guess either.

Keeping the number of servers low and the caps high accomplishes a few things. High enough population cap and the claim that “vanilla was fine” doesn’t fit.

If Blizzard really doesn’t know how many players will show on launch day. Wouldn’t a scaling system be more efficient than add more and more servers? Assuming the expectation is that populations will shrink relatively quickly.

1 Like
62

Perhaps you should watch the WoW Classic panel again. Ion spelled it out clear as day.

63

That they were considering it? Sure. Confirmed its inclusion in Classic™? Nope.

:cocktail:

1 Like
64

Did you take that considering comment as, Will be using vs Will Not be using? That’s not how I took it. I took it as, Sharding is in and now that people have complained we are considering how much and when.

65

Ion later said that sharding is “We understand, and I understand completely , that sharding is antithetical to the concept of a cohesive Classic community.”

But so is standing in line to kill the Defias Messenger for 5 hours. That is the balance that they will have to strike. They have already said that they were unprepared for the amount of players that started to play back in vanilla launch. This will be even more than that guarantied.

66

REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE. REE Body seems unclear, is it a complete sentence?

67

Sharing is not noticeable.

68

Sharing is bad mmkay

1 Like
69

Not sure where you are going with this. Guessing populations? That’s cool but not something I’ll be doing.

What we do know is Blizzard needs to be able to scale things. 2 options come to mind. Scale population caps or scale the number of servers.

With that they also need to be able to descale. Population caps are easy to descale. Number of servers don’t scale down all that pleasantly.

The expectation here is that some time down the road the populations will drop. Probably sooner than later. How will they handle that drop? Sharding.

70

No it absolutely isn’t okay at all. There is no situation this horrific feature should be used. Blizzard is just too cheap to use anything other than trash tier cloud servers.

1 Like
71

not historically impossible to compare. when BC went live we had 8 million people playing teh game. all 8 million going from ONE zone, to ONE other zone.

I doubt classic is going to hit 8 million people.

72

no you aren’t.

in Burning Crusade launch we literally had 8 million people traveling from one zone to another zone.

can you tell me that Vanilla wow will have 8 Million people at launch? and actually even that’s a bad example. vanilla wow would have to have roughly…48 million people to compare since vanilla has 6 starting zones.

73

so what happens when you launch say…
30 servers, on the assumption post close that each server will have a pop cap of 3k people.
then after things die down you have a couple servers with 6k people on each.

what do you do?

74

the defias messenger is in westfall, a zone that wouldn’t be sharded…

2 Likes
75

Factually incorrect.

There were not 8 million people at level cap when BC hit.

Also BC launch was a horrific mess, way more people than HFP could handle, crashing servers, waiting forever for mobs to respawn only to have someone run by and tag them before you and that was AFTER a 30-60 min wait to log in…

76

as someone who played BC at launch, i can tell you the zone was flooded with people and a mess, but it was PLAYABLE, and as a matter of fact, my server was engaged in an hours long pvp match before we even began leveling.

the fact that you trust Blizzard to keep their word about sharding just shows how little you actually pay attention to Blizzard and using sharding.

2 Likes
77

sigh… this comment shows the narrow mindedness of the #nochanges mentality.

They will definatly shard Westfall if there is a need to do so because of large population numbers. Sharding “starting zones” is not singularly tied to zones, it is tied to the START of the game. If the pushing 60 zerg can be maintained at large enough numbers; the more zones will be sharded for a quality play experience.

78

Leave it as is.

Which is better than merging servers over and over. Is it not?

79

they didn’t list westfall as one of the zones they were thinking of sharding, they listed literally just 1-5 and 1-10 zones. that’s it.

and for the majority of us who are anti sharding, most of us at least accept that 1-10 is probably going to be sharded, but we’re utterly against sharding anything beyond that.

you guys keep trying to move the goal posts and we don’t want them moved any further then they already have been moved.

REMEMBER THAT BLIZZARD ORIGINALLY SAID NO SHARDING IN CLASSIC.
then they moved the goal posts to possibly sharding at launch in 1-10 zones.

now you guys want to move the goal posts further.
no. no. no. no.

i don’t trust blizzard with sharding and neither should you.

3 Likes
80

so that entire server is just fragged and has to deal with having roughly half the resources per player. good job.