NO CROSS-REALM ANYTHING - None

[xuros]

This, I keep saying this in nearly every thread like this. After the initial rush and people realize they actually have to .... work... for stuff. There may be enough to have 1 good server worth of people.

Yeah we may see a few classic servers to start but the trickle down will kick in after the people who missed vanilla see just how much work was needed to do things they will all run back to current and the classic servers will merge to 1 or 2.

[Powerogue]

Enjoy not being able to find groups, then. Cross-realm was implemented due to pretty much universal player demand. I get the feeling you'd also cry "MICROTRANSACTIONS!" if they added server transfers as a mitigating option.

[Kagthul]

I think that it is amusing that people think they will have lots of servers.

Servers, these days, are an artificial, vestigal illusion. In live WoW, we're all playing on a single service now. We can phase into anyone's "server" (it's not even that - it's literally just a phase/instance of a zone that only people from that "server" group "normally" go to) via cross-realm grouping.

Servers as they used to exist are long gone. The current implementation in Live exists solely so people can keep their names, and to resolve similar issues that condensing everyone into a a single "server" would cause.

Classic will not have this issue. There will be -maybe- 3 servers. PvP, PvE, and RP. MAYBE an RP-PVP. so potentially, at the outside, four servers.

Theyll operate just like the current live game does, except there wont be any need for a vestigal "this guy 'logs in' in the 'Argent Dawn - US' shards". Itll be one, big, giant server of each type, and theyll just spin up more copies of each zone as population demands, shifting people between zone instances based on their party status.

Seriously.

- - - Updated - - -

Uhm...the client is the code. How do you think programming works? There's client code and there's server code, animations are coded on the client side.

Actually, you should read (its probably several pages back now) the blue post they linked on the front page here, where one of the devs working on Classic laid out how WoW runs. A lot of the things you'd think are hard-coded are not, at all, theyre literally just database entries. They had 1.12 up and running within a few days (with lots of bugs, mind you, as the database entries contained references to things that dont exist anymore) because they still had all of those databases (but actually do NOT have snapshots of old server and client code).

A lot of stuff like Mob AI, pathing, quests, etc, are all just data strings from a database running in an almost Add-on like shell on top of the client.

[Echocho]

Actually, you should read (its probably several pages back now) the blue post they linked on the front page here, where one of the devs working on Classic laid out how WoW runs. A lot of the things you'd think are hard-coded are not, at all, theyre literally just database entries. They had 1.12 up and running within a few days (with lots of bugs, mind you, as the database entries contained references to things that dont exist anymore) because they still had all of those databases (but actually do NOT have snapshots of old server and client code).

A lot of stuff like Mob AI, pathing, quests, etc, are all just data strings from a database running in an almost Add-on like shell on top of the client.

Again. Animations are NOT server side code, they are CLIENT SIDE CODE.

[Alkizon]

Again. Animations are NOT server side code, they are CLIENT SIDE CODE.

Again it's not the "code", but data part and it has nothing to do with client type (database organization), only database content.

They also said they are scraping the old database completely and migrating the usable data to the new DB structure that allows for further modification, security and tuning. This is due to 2 things, one using the new client and two that the old DB software is not supported anymore.

and that's why they hiring person whose task is to transfer all original data (content of old databases, and specifically everything that relates to old models (includes animations)) into new <hybrid client>'s databases.

[bloomy]

The people undermining this movement are so adorably terrified of what will happen to retail when players aren't forced to only play the 1 version of the mmo that they enjoy. Private servers with corruption and terrible latency and filled with bugs were able to maintain multiple servers with queues... and some of you think that the official game being released by blizzard will struggle to have more than 1 server? Get mental help if you think that makes any kind of logical sense.

They will have an issue with SOME SERVERS being popular at launch and then effectively dying off after about 6 months to a year, but they can merge or offer free transfers or come up with some kind of other solution, but there will be dozens of servers in each region that all say HIGH or FULL well over a year after launch. If you think that's wrong please save this message and talk to me a year after it comes out, you will be wrong.

Everything I just said though does hinge on what was being talked about in this thread, it will need to be real vanilla which means no phasing or CRZ of any kind. If they can manage to just give us what we asked for with no extra frills that we don't want or need then it will be massively successful.

- - - Updated - - -

Hahahahahhahahahaha, no.

The initial rush will be there because of curiousity, nostalgia, general hype, but after that wears off and people realize Vanilla was absolute trash, there won't be many who still play it. 100k sustained in years? Not even a chance.

You realize that Nostalrius had more than 100k people who actively played it years after it had been out, right? That was an illegal private server with bugs that was hosted in the EU so it had terrible ping for US players... You think the genuine game from Blizzard which will be on their launcher won't have 100k people playing it? Are you high or just stupid?

[Chaelexi]

Actually, you should read (its probably several pages back now) the blue post they linked on the front page here, where one of the devs working on Classic laid out how WoW runs. A lot of the things you'd think are hard-coded are not, at all, theyre literally just database entries. They had 1.12 up and running within a few days (with lots of bugs, mind you, as the database entries contained references to things that dont exist anymore) because they still had all of those databases (but actually do NOT have snapshots of old server and client code).

A lot of stuff like Mob AI, pathing, quests, etc, are all just data strings from a database running in an almost Add-on like shell on top of the client.

They also said they are scraping the old database completely and migrating the usable data to the new DB structure that allows for further modification, security and tuning. This is due to 2 things, one using the new client and two that the old DB software is not supported anymore.

[blooderduki]

Cross Realm BG's was part of Vanilla and was only good Cross realm feature which fixed many mistakes and issues.

I'd love to have that.

[Chaelexi]

The people undermining this movement are so adorably terrified of what will happen to retail when players aren't forced to only play the 1 version of the mmo that they enjoy. Private servers with corruption and terrible latency and filled with bugs were able to maintain multiple servers with queues... and some of you think that the official game being released by blizzard will struggle to have more than 1 server? Get mental help if you think that makes any kind of logical sense.

They will have an issue with SOME SERVERS being popular at launch and then effectively dying off after about 6 months to a year, but they can merge or offer free transfers or come up with some kind of other solution, but there will be dozens of servers in each region that all say HIGH or FULL well over a year after launch. If you think that's wrong please save this message and talk to me a year after it comes out, you will be wrong.

Everything I just said though does hinge on what was being talked about in this thread, it will need to be real vanilla which means no phasing or CRZ of any kind. If they can manage to just give us what we asked for with no extra frills that we don't want or need then it will be massively successful.

- - - Updated - - -



You realize that Nostalrius had more than 100k people who actively played it years after it had been out, right? That was an illegal private server with bugs that was hosted in the EU so it had terrible ping for US players... You think the genuine game from Blizzard which will be on their launcher won't have 100k people playing it? Are you high or just stupid?

The true answer will be large sharded servers that allow for very high populations and high account logons at a time. This will stop the need for merging servers, cross realm, forced xfers, etc after the initial exidus of players(and if you don't think there will be one look at every video game in the history of games it has happened). If you do not do this you are going to be managing a bunch of small servers that take up more hardware, have higher costs and in the end many will end up dead with players that will not want to move or pay for a move, which will drive players away again.

You have 3 true options:
1) Small server sizes with many servers(OG Vanilla style). Which has higher operating costs(more servers running), higher initial costs(more hardware purchased) and will never see a true drop in operating costs because each server will have X dedicated resources. This is not scaleable and in the IT world and Blizzard word this is the biggest key to any operation. Does this layout allow for us to grow or shrink with demand.....and the answer is NO!!!!! This also has the issues of players becoming frustrated initially with high queue times as there will be strict limits on logons, etc.
2) Large server sizes with no Sharding. This has will have the same high operating costs and high initial costs but will have capabilities to allow for a drop in costs but these drops will take maintenance windows to preform as you will be resizing VM's, moving VM's from one cluster to another, etc. This will have a higher management cost and if the they estimate wrong they will be stuck waiting for the next maintenance window to increase server capacity. This solution once again is not overly scaleable as the management overhead is prohibitive. This will also have the issues of launch when you have 1000+ characters fighting over the same mob, leading to decreased retention rates.
3) Huge servers with Zone Sharding active(possibly even 1-2 servers per type: PVP, PVE, RP and RP-PVP). This has lower operating costs because everything is done in the container world of programming and "shards" or containers can be spun up automatically as needed and when they are no longer needed the container is shutdown are removed and these resources are returned to the pool. This makes this solution completely scaleable. As these servers share the database with live they will be able to share hardware with live at the same time, thus splitting hardware costs with live. This also has lower management because most of it is handled through automation. The only draw back is it does not completely appeal to the "no changes" crowd but this can also be mitigated with no sharding zones(major cities, RP favorites on RP servers, etc). This also removes the need for CRZ as there will be only a few realms to begin with.

Lastly the naustralus comparison is only valid if Classic is F2P but I doubt that as there is no money in it for blizzard. But what will really happen is Classic will do well initially and then as the players leave you will be left with a steady decent player base that will slowly dwindle over time as people run out of things to do. And since there will not be a new draw for new players(new content, expansions, etc) there will be no way to truthfully regain this base.

[Deficineiron]

The true answer will be large sharded servers that allow for very high populations and high account logons at a time. This will stop the need for merging servers, cross realm, forced xfers, etc after the initial exidus of players(and if you don't think there will be one look at every video game in the history of games it has happened). If you do not do this you are going to be managing a bunch of small servers that take up more hardware, have higher costs and in the end many will end up dead with players that will not want to move or pay for a move, which will drive players away again.

You have 3 true options:
1) Small server sizes with many servers(OG Vanilla style). Which has higher operating costs(more servers running), higher initial costs(more hardware purchased) and will never see a true drop in operating costs because each server will have X dedicated resources. This is not scaleable and in the IT world and Blizzard word this is the biggest key to any operation. Does this layout allow for us to grow or shrink with demand.....and the answer is NO!!!!! This also has the issues of players becoming frustrated initially with high queue times as there will be strict limits on logons, etc.
2) Large server sizes with no Sharding. This has will have the same high operating costs and high initial costs but will have capabilities to allow for a drop in costs but these drops will take maintenance windows to preform as you will be resizing VM's, moving VM's from one cluster to another, etc. This will have a higher management cost and if the they estimate wrong they will be stuck waiting for the next maintenance window to increase server capacity. This solution once again is not overly scaleable as the management overhead is prohibitive. This will also have the issues of launch when you have 1000+ characters fighting over the same mob, leading to decreased retention rates.
3) Huge servers with Zone Sharding active(possibly even 1-2 servers per type: PVP, PVE, RP and RP-PVP). This has lower operating costs because everything is done in the container world of programming and "shards" or containers can be spun up automatically as needed and when they are no longer needed the container is shutdown are removed and these resources are returned to the pool. This makes this solution completely scaleable. As these servers share the database with live they will be able to share hardware with live at the same time, thus splitting hardware costs with live. This also has lower management because most of it is handled through automation. The only draw back is it does not completely appeal to the "no changes" crowd but this can also be mitigated with no sharding zones(major cities, RP favorites on RP servers, etc). This also removes the need for CRZ as there will be only a few realms to begin with.

Lastly the naustralus comparison is only valid if Classic is F2P but I doubt that as there is no money in it for blizzard. But what will really happen is Classic will do well initially and then as the players leave you will be left with a steady decent player base that will slowly dwindle over time as people run out of things to do. And since there will not be a new draw for new players(new content, expansions, etc) there will be no way to truthfully regain this base.

nice illustration of why sharding is inevitable (imo).

bold - I think you are wrong. Never underestimate blizzard. most obvious path is BCFrankenstein servers down the road if results on classic justify it. if classic initial response is disappointing, expect modifications to classic to MAKE it hit the threshold for the next phase.

I know it is regarded as a conspiracy theory on mmo-c to say blizzard really, really wants classic to be financially a success (and will do what it takes to make it one) but I really do think it is true this time, really.

[Chaelexi]

nice illustration of why sharding is inevitable (imo).

bold - I think you are wrong. Never underestimate blizzard. most obvious path is BCFrankenstein servers down the road if results on classic justify it. if classic initial response is disappointing, expect modifications to classic to MAKE it hit the threshold for the next phase.

I know it is regarded as a conspiracy theory on mmo-c to say blizzard really, really wants classic to be financially a success (and will do what it takes to make it one) but I really do think it is true this time, really.

But that is no longer classic then. But what I am really looking for is the no changes people to actually come up with a reasoning for multiple small servers........

[chronia]

But that is no longer classic then. But what I am really looking for is the no changes people to actually come up with a reasoning for multiple small servers........

I'm probably not the right person to come up with these, but i reckon that economy will play a big part in it. Vanilla's Economy regarding (node) respawn times / droprates and stuff is balanced around the original server caps, not around big servers, so those would then need rebalancing which i guess might be seen as a change? Furthermore community might be a thing, the bigger the server the less good you will know ppl and player reputations might get less important.

[Deficineiron]

But that is no longer classic then. But what I am really looking for is the no changes people to actually come up with a reasoning for multiple small servers........

i think it is mainly word-thinking, so don't expect a coherent argument for choice 1.......

[Chaelexi]

I'm probably not the right person to come up with these, but i reckon that economy will play a big part in it. Vanilla's Economy regarding (node) respawn times / droprates and stuff is balanced around the original server caps, not around big servers, so those would then need rebalancing which i guess might be seen as a change? Furthermore community might be a thing, the bigger the server the less good you will know ppl and player reputations might get less important.

As long as the respawn rates are proportionate to the population then there will not be issues. I still question if the community will really be the same as vanilla anyways as there are multiple factors that will change that. Number one is the availability of voice chat(discord/twitch), the current day gamer vs 15 years ago and the availability of addons in this day and age. In Vanilla you had to dig and search for addons and now you just load twitch(curse) and download what you need.

- - - Updated - - -

i think it is mainly word-thinking, so don't expect a coherent argument for choice 1.......

I still want to see one of them try though.....

[Frolk]

I just hope they implement phasing tech so they can counter server crashes when there are too many people in 1 area at a time(eg. launch week and AQ opening quests).

bUt tHaTs pArT oFf vAnIlLa #nO cHaNgeS


/s



I doubt we will get phasing/sharding for classic, they will prolly just (hopefully) have better tech that can handle the amount of ppl and particle effects.

[Echocho]

I doubt we will get phasing/sharding for classic, they will prolly just (hopefully) have better tech that can handle the amount of ppl and particle effects.

Since Classic will be part of the BfA client that tech is already in place. That coupled with the authentic server caps of around 2500 simultaneous players per server it should be fine without sharding.

[Chaelexi]

Since Classic will be part of the BfA client that tech is already in place. That coupled with the authentic server caps of around 2500 simultaneous players per server it should be fine without sharding.

Please explain how server caps of 2500 are economically sustainable, this directly limits the volume of hardware needed and you end up with servers that have small populations of on them that do not scale......you are right though, Sharding is part of the BFA client.......

[Echocho]

Please explain how server caps of 2500 are economically sustainable, this directly limits the volume of hardware needed and you end up with servers that have small populations of on them that do not scale......you are right though, Sharding is part of the BFA client.......

Servers are virtual nowadays, not physical like they used to be. Spinning up 10 realms with an authentic cap of 2500 costs exactly the same as one realm with a cap of 25000 so they don't need to change vanilla just in order to save money, in fact they don't need to change vanilla at all.

[Chaelexi]

Servers are virtual nowadays, not physical like they used to be. Spinning up 10 realms with an authentic cap of 2500 costs exactly the same as one realm with a cap of 25000 so they don't need to change vanilla just in order to save money, in fact they don't need to change vanilla at all.

Thing is a server with 2500 will have a set hardware scope that is locked as it will not be set in a container. Yes they are virtual they will always have to have the hardware available for each server, thus completely killing any scaling available. This is the opposite of a no limit(extrememly high) logon server that will just spin up containers as they are needed(like it is configured now) and when people log off they can shut down these containers and move those resources back to the pool......do you understand how scaling works? If only 400 people are logged on the 2500 scoped server it will still have the same hardware footprint as when it is 2500. But if the server is sharded and only 400 people log in they will spin up enough hardware to handle these 400 people and no more........AKA SCALEABLE.

[Echocho]

Thing is a server with 2500 will have a set hardware scope that is locked as it will not be set in a container. Yes they are virtual they will always have to have the hardware available for each server, thus completely killing any scaling available. This is the opposite of a no limit(extrememly high) logon server that will just spin up containers as they are needed(like it is configured now) and when people log off they can shut down these containers and move those resources back to the pool......do you understand how scaling works? If only 400 people are logged on the 2500 scoped server it will still have the same hardware footprint as when it is 2500. But if the server is sharded and only 400 people log in they will spin up enough hardware to handle these 400 people and no more........AKA SCALEABLE.

That's why I used the word "cap". No need to allocate all 2500 resources when there are only five people online.