Lets look at all the other options and why blizzard should not do them over sharding.
1) Vanilla cap servers (2500) on launch.
PROBLEMS : blizzard would have to create a crap ton of these servers OR have massive login ques the likes no one has ever seen. These servers would also die very quickly once 80% of the tourists quit. so they would have to be merged. This option is EXPENSIVE for blizzard so they will not do it. they have cheaper options.
2) Dynamic spawns on massive server on launch.
PROBLEMS: it can be massively abused for speed leveling while its available, its so far from vanilla-like im shocked to see NOCHANGERS suggest it.
3)Vanilla cap servers that share names.
PROBLEMS : same exact problems as the other vanilla cap servers its just a little less expensive because they wont get as many GM tickets during the merges. but it still requires more servers and thus is more expensive, so again they wont do it.
4) Sharding on vanilla cap server.
(THIS IS A MYTH AND WOULD NEVER ACTUALLY HAPPEN SO STOP THINKING IT WILL IF YOU ARE)
5) Sharding on massive servers on launch.
PROBLEMS: Potentially seeing your fellow players phase in or out can be weird to see and not feel immersive while this is implemented on launch.
1 / 3 are gone because they are the most expensive options
4 literally wont happen
2 is the least vanilla option here
5 is the least crappy of all these options. so they are currently going with 5
if you actually think you have a legitimate better option.. feel free to post it.
the classic team has said they DONT WANT TO DO SHARDING.. BUT.. it is currently their best option. every other option is either really bad or expensive.
they want a better option. but again, sharding is currently the best one they have as a company.
Sharding is OK for starting zones and maybe AQ event, but thats about it. Rest of classic azzeroth should be a persistent world like it was without constantly zoning in-out.
blizzard has no intention of allowing sharding during the AQ event..
by the time AQ releases the servers will all most likely be down to normal server populations. So they wont need it.
by the time AQ releases the servers will all most likely be down to normal server populations. So they wont need it.
I feel like there is a need to point this out.
“Servers” are virtual. Hardware does not need to be purchased for each server Blizzard hosts
“Servers” are virtual. Hardware does not need to be purchased for each server Blizzard hosts
11/08/2018 04:10 AMPosted by Hatchmarkblizzard has no intention of allowing sharding during the AQ event..
Your optimism is laudable.
11/08/2018 04:14 AMPosted by RistraI feel like there is a need to point this out.
“Servers” are virtual. Hardware does not need to be purchased for each server Blizzard hosts
can you point me to a citation that supports this?
11/08/2018 04:17 AMPosted by Fateweaver11/08/2018 04:10 AMPosted by Hatchmarkblizzard has no intention of allowing sharding during the AQ event..
Your optimism is laudable.
your doubt is inadmissible in arguments.
if, for the sake of argument, I said I was going to burn your house down tomorrow. and so you called the police and told them i was going to do it and that they should find me and arrest me.
how would you feel if they said "yaaa but what if he doesnt man? like, he said he would.. but he might not? so why should we spend time helping you?"
this is exactly what every single argument against sharding is.. you are all making claims on COULDs, MAYBEs and IFs.
the answer is money. blizzard could set up a bunch of servers and then close them later, but sharding is more cost effective especially with the new infrastructure
No. The best option is none of the above. Launch should feel crammed with people. If you don't like it....wait for it.....the answer is...... WAIT A WEEK TO START! OMGOMGOMG such a crazy idea!!!
11/08/2018 04:23 AMPosted by Hatchmark11/08/2018 04:17 AMPosted by Fateweaver...
Your optimism is laudable.
your doubt is inadmissible in arguments.
if, for the sake of argument, I said I was going to burn your house down tomorrow. and so you called the police and told them i was going to do it and that they should find me and arrest me.
how would you feel if they said "yaaa but what if he doesnt man? like, he said he would.. but he might not? so why should we spend time helping you?"
this is exactly what every single argument against sharding is.. you are all making claims on COULDs, MAYBEs and IFs.
Because sharding is not COULDs, MAYBEs and IFs at all?
"IF we do not implement sharding MAYBE people will get angry and COULD potentially not play?"
11/08/2018 04:38 AMPosted by Bigsly1DD123No. The best option is none of the above. Launch should feel crammed with people. If you don't like it....wait for it.....the answer is...... WAIT A WEEK TO START! OMGOMGOMG such a crazy idea!!!
this is more expensive than sharding as well..
putting unnecessary stress on servers can cause damage to them. if a server is damaged it costs money to repair them. it also costs money to pay the guy to repair them. Even if its unlikely to happen its still possible so blizzard will avoid this option as well...
also.. its VERY UN-VANILLA.... sharding is more vanilla-esk than 10k without sharding.. again another insane thing for NOCHANGERS to be positive about..
11/08/2018 04:39 AMPosted by Seijuron11/08/2018 04:23 AMPosted by Hatchmark...
your doubt is inadmissible in arguments.
if, for the sake of argument, I said I was going to burn your house down tomorrow. and so you called the police and told them i was going to do it and that they should find me and arrest me.
how would you feel if they said "yaaa but what if he doesnt man? like, he said he would.. but he might not? so why should we spend time helping you?"
this is exactly what every single argument against sharding is.. you are all making claims on COULDs, MAYBEs and IFs.
Because sharding is not COULDs, MAYBEs and IFs at all?
"IF we do not implement sharding MAYBE people will get angry and COULD potentially not play?"
the amount of people who are actually legitimately angry with sharding is extremely small.. and even so. this fraction of players will STILL probably play because warcraft is your drug and you will play it anyway.
these players with do 1 of of these things
A) cry but still play
B) cry but wait 1 week till sharding goes away then play
C) be angry but still play
D) be angry but wait 1 week till sharding goes away then play
E) refuse to play but keep hearing how awesome it is and how vanilla it feels then play anyway
F) be true to their word and actually never play
blizzard knows that F is the least likely option. sooo they dont care about your "I wont play" threats because you are more likely to do options A-E than option F
11/08/2018 04:41 AMPosted by Hatchmarkputting unnecessary stress on servers can cause damage to them. if a server is damaged it costs money to repair them.
can you point me to a citation that supports this?
11/08/2018 04:41 AMPosted by Hatchmarkalso.. its VERY UN-VANILLA.... sharding is more vanilla-esk than 10k without sharding..
can you point me to a citation that supports this?
11/08/2018 04:44 AMPosted by Hatchmarkthe amount of people who are actually legitimately angry with sharding is extremely small.
can you point me to a citation that supports this?
11/08/2018 04:44 AMPosted by Hatchmarkthis fraction of players will STILL probably play because warcraft is your drug and you will play it anyway.
can you point me to a citation that supports this?
11/08/2018 04:44 AMPosted by Hatchmarkblizzard knows that F is the least likely option. sooo they dont care about your "I wont play" threats because you are more likely to do options A-E than option F
can you point me to a citation that supports this?
11/08/2018 05:11 AMPosted by Falnear11/08/2018 04:41 AMPosted by Hatchmarkputting unnecessary stress on servers can cause damage to them. if a server is damaged it costs money to repair them.
can you point me to a citation that supports this?11/08/2018 04:41 AMPosted by Hatchmarkalso.. its VERY UN-VANILLA.... sharding is more vanilla-esk than 10k without sharding..
can you point me to a citation that supports this?11/08/2018 04:44 AMPosted by Hatchmarkthe amount of people who are actually legitimately angry with sharding is extremely small.
can you point me to a citation that supports this?11/08/2018 04:44 AMPosted by Hatchmarkthis fraction of players will STILL probably play because warcraft is your drug and you will play it anyway.
can you point me to a citation that supports this?11/08/2018 04:44 AMPosted by Hatchmarkblizzard knows that F is the least likely option. sooo they dont care about your "I wont play" threats because you are more likely to do options A-E than option F
can you point me to a citation that supports this?
no one can prove either way. blizzard is going this route becasue they have deemed it to be the most cost effective way to move forward
some will probably quit over this, but many wont. cant please them all, but one group that must be on board 100% is blizzards accountants
11/08/2018 05:33 AMPosted by Zionfist
no one can prove either way. blizzard is going this route becasue they have deemed it to be the most cost effective way to move forward
some will probably quit over this, but many wont. cant please them all, but one group that must be on board 100% is blizzards accountants
That's no doubt but I was referring to this particular poster tendency of asking for citations when it suits him while in the same breath spewing unsupported assumptions.
11/08/2018 04:20 AMPosted by Hatchmark
can you point me to a citation that supports this?
Everyone thinking sharding is coming back for events specifically because you think "Blizz lies" is so hysterically paranoid I can't help but laugh at you
11/08/2018 04:23 AMPosted by Hatchmarkyour doubt is inadmissible in arguments.
Funny, because reasonable doubt is absolutely admissible with regard to law. But I digress...
11/08/2018 05:38 AMPosted by Fateweaver11/08/2018 04:23 AMPosted by Hatchmarkyour doubt is inadmissible in arguments.
Funny, because reasonable doubt is absolutely admissible with regard to law. But I digress...
You are one odd duck.
11/08/2018 05:38 AMPosted by Fateweaver11/08/2018 04:23 AMPosted by Hatchmarkyour doubt is inadmissible in arguments.
Funny, because reasonable doubt is absolutely admissible with regard to law. But I digress...
key word "reasonable".
11/08/2018 05:36 AMPosted by Falnear11/08/2018 05:33 AMPosted by Zionfist
no one can prove either way. blizzard is going this route becasue they have deemed it to be the most cost effective way to move forward
some will probably quit over this, but many wont. cant please them all, but one group that must be on board 100% is blizzards accountants
That's no doubt but I was referring to this particular poster tendency of asking for citations when it suits him while in the same breath spewing unsupported assumptions.11/08/2018 04:20 AMPosted by Hatchmark
can you point me to a citation that supports this?
English is not your first language because you used the word "tendency". this means ive done it more than once. which I clearly haven't.
And I was also being serious.. I want a citation so i can actually educate myself and be better informed..
11/08/2018 05:44 AMPosted by HatchmarkEnglish is not your first language because you used the word "tendency". this means ive done it more than once. which I clearly haven't.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tendency
Go on, argue about the meaning of word "trend", make my day.
11/08/2018 05:44 AMPosted by HatchmarkAnd I was also being serious.. I want a citation so i can actually educate myself and be better informed..
https://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2018-08-13-after-fourteen-years-of-world-of-warcraft-infrastructure-isnt-a-limitation