Why are Blizzard's servers so BAD? "Cost cutting"?

So earlier this year Activision-Blizzard announced they were gonna do “Cost-Cutting”, now the question of course is, did they mean “Cutting corners”?

Are they using cheap low-grade servers, where we have this awkward situation where Official Blizzard Classic servers can’t even handle WPVP, World Bosses, or even just a large number of people?

I think baking the Legion client into Classic was a complete waste of time.
It hasn’t made the game more stable (actually the opposite).
Botting, cheating, etc are running rampant.

So what was the point?

Why not just release the original client of the game?

Surely it can’t be any worse than it is now.

11 Likes

The same reason why the maximum server cap is so high compared to the original Vanilla, i would imagine.

2 Likes

The game servers are much more stable than they were in vanilla. Haven’t been perfect to be sure but the servers have been nearly as good as retail.

2 Likes

Answering your own question arent we here

That’s not saying much…

1 Like

GUYS STOP! The CEO needs a new yacht, one that is bigger and better than his neighbour! Don’t you feel bad for him? cmon now… he needs it. It just a server… seriously. Think of the CEO, he will have to go one more year with a slightly smaller yacht than his neighbour if he gives us a proper server for the game we are paying for… cmon you are SO entitled.

4 Likes

No. They are trying to do something nobody on Earth has ever done. No other company has millions of players (tens of thousands of clients connected to each server) playing a very-high-speed interactive MMO.

Failure to be “perfect” is not “bad”. If you are expecting “perfect” you must be a religious fanatic. That does not exist here in the real world.

Why do you blame Blizzard servers for the speed imperfections? Why not the internet? Why not your own PC? Why is it the servers?

1 Like

The servers aren’t bad at all. I haven’t seen a complaint thread in weeks until the DDoS today. They are miles better than the original vanilla servers.

And you cant compare them to private servers, they altered the way the game worked to give the illusion of smooth movement while everything else was lagging.

Server uptime for retail for any given week I would guess is 99.9%. Pretty damn good.

My primary comparison to pservers is communication. Every one that I played on communicated why the server suddenly went down, or that it was going to go down, etc. Blizz can’t do that? Really really?

Well most of the DDoS attacks recently have been attacking the ISP and not blizzard itself. So I would imagine they would need information from the ISP before they make any announcement. Which they did do last time this happened about 3-4 weeks after the original release.

Sure, but in the meantime, “we know they’re down, we don’t know why yet, hang tight?” There’s levels to communication, it’s not all black and white, and Blizz-tivision is a professional company. I feel like they used to, back in the day, but I could be wrong.

there was a blue post, today.
think most people ignored it entirely

Servers got better tbh

8.2.2.1
Priority between players

On Nostalrius, all of the players and all of the maps were not updated with the same priority. The battleground and then raid maps were on the top priority causing players to not experience any significant delay there. Inside a single map, actions of fighting players were handled on a priority over actions from non-fighting players, or even idle players.

8.2.2.2
Priority between actions

A priority has also been established between player actions, in the following order:

  • Top priority: Movements and spells.
  • Map related actions (pet command, loot, etc.).
  • Mail, auction house, etc.

This was achieved by handling packets a different number of times depending on their category.

8.2.2.3
Visibility distance reduction

The last option to increase performance was ultimately to reduce the visibility distance. This is something that has a really high impact on the gameplay, and should be avoided if possible.

The visibility distance reduction for NPCs, game objects and players was reduced on Nostalrius when a single map update would take more than 400ms (meaning more than 200 ms of delay for spells, as they are updated twice per map update).

In practice, this would only happen on continents with a really high number of online players. With the continent instantiation system, only specific overcrowded continent areas would be affected by this reduction.

However, Nostalrius limited the visibility distance reduction to 60 yards, as the game would no longer be playable at all below this limit.

8.2.3
Players in the same area

In some very special situations, the previous optimizations are no longer sufficient to reduce the delay. For example, when thousands of players meet in the same area.

“It might not have been the right idea to have everyone on our realms at the exact same place at the same time.” - Rob Pardo on Blizzcon 2013.

In these situations, every single player’s public action (movement, mana / health modification, spell casted, etc.) has to be broadcasted to every other player in the area. For 100 players in the same area, it means 10,000 packets per second if every player is doing one action per second in average.

As this situation was anticipated for either capital raids, or special world events (world bosses release), a benchmark was created to figure out how our emulator could handle these situations.

When we saw the results, we decided to work to allow these very special Vanilla events to happen on our realm without crashing the server. We identified the main bottlenecks in these situations:

  • SMSG_(COMPRESSED_)OBJECT_UPDATE: This packet is prepared and sent (com-pressed) for every player in the area individually, whenever one value of a player changes (health/mana regeneration for example).
  • When a player moves, the server has to send them all of the objects now visible from his new position.

The map update workflow was also changed to parallelize these computations when-ever a specific area is overloaded, using a “Map-Reduce” paradigm. With this novel algorithm, Nostalrius is able to use all of the computational power available to deal with insanely populated areas.

TLDR:

Private servers were not server/client secure and compromised on many things in order to deliver a playable experience.

2 Likes

You might think so, but because these “Servers” are virtual machines on a big server platform they’re not actual individual bespoke “Servers” as you may think of them.

As a result opening new “servers” is as simple as just loading a new VM and giving it a name.

That was a very over simplified description, but should explain things in terms that everyone should understand.

classic servers are far more stable though. It’s hard to say what performance penalty the classic team faced using a more modern client/server.

It was way easier to use hacks on private servers. It’s easy to run a server with no input checks or any validation server side of everything that happens.

It adds a lot of burden when you have 5000 players and have to make sure every button they press is a valid input and not something they could have hacked in.

Could servers be more stable ? Probably, and I agree they’re terrible.

But comparing Blizzard servers to private servers doesn’t make any sense.