your opinion is based on old technology.
3 Likes
They both cause the same damage, so can very easily go hand in hand. In fact until they specifically state that there will be no CRBGs, I am going to assume the worst.
1 Like
CRBG’s were in vanilla, no reason to think they won’t be in classic.
1 Like
Falling through the world was in vanilla, no reason to think it won’t be in classic.
Good luck on your ongoing quest to encourage classic to suck. God speed, brave interweb troll.
2 Likes
I didn’t realize wanting reasonable queue times for BG’s was the same as wanting classic to suck.
I didn’t realize that you couldn’t get reasonable queue times in your chosen game of BFA.
The game is World of Warcraft, not Battleground in a box of Warcraft. As much as I love me some old version AV, I treat it as a fraction of the overall game, not the end all be all, so am quite patient doing things outside the BGs while I wait to be called to battle. Perhaps Halo or UT is more your speed?
3 Likes
How else would you describe wanting cross realm BG’s, dual spec, sharding, class balance changes, and any number of other non vanilla QOL convenience changes?
3 Likes
Yeah. Bad things are going on in Activision land. I’m 100% sure Ion knows what Vanilla is all about. But, he’s a corporate man now.
Like someone said, Blizzard is in catch up mode now. Only this time, they aren’t able to make it happen. They are too far down the rabbit hole. In the past, they’ve always been able to take an existing idea and make it “better” for the masses. You can’t compete when LoL and Dota and Fornite have already taken over the world.
Which is why the “Million Player bum rush” is a very real possibility they have to have plans for.
If they provision for 3 million players w/out sharding, and only 30,000 players turn up at a time, that’s a LOT of “sunk cost” they’re not getting back. Heads would probably roll over that no doubt. The “safer” option is to shard, so if projections prove to be overly conservative, they both have somewhere for those “excess” players to go(existing realm assets), and a better chance to “capture” them going forward. Just leaving them in a queue means it takes that much longer to sift out “the tourist” while also potentially deterring more casual, but non-tourist, players from even bothering if they have to spend 2+ hours just waiting to log in.
Financial side says sharding at launch will happen. Financial side suggests it could continue after that, but they have a LOT more room to work with once they have solid population numbers to work with. Particularly given THIS population both views sharding poorly, and has a valid gameplay reason for objecting to its presence on a “Classic” platform title.
More likely they’re going to ultimately bill “unused capacity” on the Classic Realms as overflow for Retail once all is said and done. It just happens that Classic is the one likely to encounter a “overflow” event at the start.
We need to make this event possible in the game. Blizzard should not have problems when an event like this is going to happen.
But it still seems to be that the server lags when more than 80 players are all casting spells at the same time.
if you watch the video, the event crashes the server, as a result the guy recording it says the server won the fight. lol
If you implement sharding at the start it will cause a bottleneck later down the road either way. Then they will be forced to use it at that bottleneck and the next bottle neck and so on and so on. If you think it is a good idea for the start then I’m sorry to say you are an idiot. They need to come up with a different solution
3 Likes
The other solution, possibly, is open a massive amount of server. Set the server cap low. Then merge them all when the pop gets low.
Nope, not going to happen.
I think they are hoping that after the starter areas, those who are going to run back to BFA will have already done so. If they misjudge and more remain than they forecast, then the handful of endgame zones are going to be in the same position the starter zones were.
Actually people will naturally spread out once they get past the initial leveling zone due to differences in leveling speed or going to different areas of the world, and some people just giving up.
Not that I think that sharding is a good idea mind you, but the bottleneck wont entirely just be kicked down the line either.
Though any solution is going to have some kind of a negative to it.
make a temp server with same name, such as stormrage 1, stormrage 2, etc, then when first two starting areas are mostly clear, merge stormrage 2 with stormrage 1. etc
on alliance first 2 starting areas are elwynn and westfall. once people starting filtering into duskwood and redridge and stranglethorn on stormrage 1, can merge stormrage 2 into it cause the population will be more spread out, over 5 potential zones
This isn’t a solution imo either… I want to see and build relationships with the people I’m going to be playing with from day one.
3 Likes
There are more than two possible options, despite your claims to the contrary.
I’l repeat a suggestion made by another poster that could very well accommodate the initial rush without many of the negatives of sharding, and would still allow for more painless mergers, should mergers become necessary.
Instead of having “fluid shards”, what if Blizzard could create “stable, semi permanent, shards” by dividing the larger servers into smaller “subservers” until the initial rush is over.
As an example, the server Elwynn with a total population cap of 10K is “divided” into “subservers” Elwynn 1, Elwynn 2, Elwynn 3 and Elwynn 4, each of which have a population cap of 2500. When a player chooses the Elwynn server, a list of available “subservers” is presented to the player and they choose a “subserver”. These “subservers” would not be subject to further sharding and would remain separate from each other, as if they were completely different servers.
Every player who chooses, for example, Elwynn 1 is always on that “subserver” in the same “shard” and never has to deal with seeing players, mobs, quest objectives, resources, etc. disappearing or reappearing. This should address the issues of server stability and competition for mobs, quest objectives, resources, etc. while also promoting community and player interaction.
If the population drops precipitously on any of the “subservers”, for an extended period of time, they can be merged with another “subserver”. For example, if Elwynn 1 drops from 2500 to 1200 players and Elwynn 3 drops from 2500 to 1100, Elwynn 3 can be “merged” with Elwynn 1 and Elwynn 1 would have a population of 2300.
The naming rules could be set to apply at the larger server level, rather than at the “subserver” level, such that there can only be one BillyBob, for example, between the subservers. This would prevent naming conflicts should one or more “subservers” need to be “merged”.
How difficult would it be for Blizzard to work something like this out? I don’t know, but I believe that Blizzard could do far worse than looking into whether such an idea is feasible.
How is sharding going to enable you to see those people if you are not all in the same shard?
Sharding isn’t a solution… neither is a lot of server that get merged down the road… the only solution imo is to let the servers do what they do and deal with crashes and ques… which I’m ok with
2 Likes