Server size options.....

[Chaelexi]

Here are your options. I know the #nochanges crowd will not like logic but please read through and say which version is most likely

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.

[arkanon]

Without having any indication of numbers playing, its really hard to make any suggestions really. With sharding tech where it is now, i suspect it wont really be an issue at all, and honestly, i personally dont see the numbers being anywhere near as high as some are predicting.

[dacoolist]

The engine back then couldn't handle shit compared to todays engine. And I want classic to be classic so... I voted a large number of small servers (no sharding, no bug fix's, nothing, Vanilla needs to be Vanilla.. including all of the inbalances, and broken shit [looting for days etc])

Can't wait to see people come back for like 2 hours and remember what it was ACTUALLY LIKE

Then quit

[arkanon]

The engine back then couldn't handle shit compared to todays engine. And I want classic to be classic so... I voted a large number of small servers (no sharding, no bug fix's, nothing, Vanilla needs to be Vanilla.. including all of the inbalances, and broken shit [looting for days etc])

Can't wait to see people come back for like 2 hours and remember what it was ACTUALLY LIKE

Then quit

I find it really strange that you would actively want something to fail? I think some people absolutely have rose tinted glasses on and will be shocked when they are hit with the reality of what vanilla was like (assuming an accurate reproduction is delivered) but Jesus man, i dont have any desire for it to fail, and i certainly dont have any desire for people to be horribly let down and disappointed.

[Chaelexi]

Without having any indication of numbers playing, its really hard to make any suggestions really. With sharding tech where it is now, i suspect it wont really be an issue at all, and honestly, i personally dont see the numbers being anywhere near as high as some are predicting.

I am thinking on initial launch the numbers will spike fairly high but after that launch and people realized what the game is and it is not for them there will be a significant drop off followed by a slow decline as people cap out on what they can do.

[callipygoustp]

I know the #nochanges crowd will not like logic

Of course, only the #forchanges crowd likes logic. Starting off a conversation with that kind of bullshit is always a great way promote genuine discourse.

[Chaelexi]

Of course, only the #forchanges crowd likes logic. Starting off a conversation with that kind of bullshit is always a great way promote genuine discourse.

Aww muffin did I get your panties in a knot? How about this NoChanges actually changes everytime the a logical point is brought up.

- - - Updated - - -

Keep sharding the hell away from Classic.

So which option then? Since the other 2 will cost more and lack true scaleability and have pitfalls of customer satisfaction.

[xindralol]

The engine back then couldn't handle shit compared to todays engine. And I want classic to be classic so... I voted a large number of small servers (no sharding, no bug fix's, nothing, Vanilla needs to be Vanilla.. including all of the inbalances, and broken shit [looting for days etc])

Can't wait to see people come back for like 2 hours and remember what it was ACTUALLY LIKE

Then quit

Why does everyone who probably didn't even play vanilla think we have forgotten how it was?

It's almost like blizzard's 'you think you do' they used a while back. Just stop it already.

[Feolthanos]

I highly doubt blizzard would be making any major changes to the main infrastructure of classic, I believe they will have two or three large servers for classic (because realistically a small number of the people that play retail will stick around and play on them), one for normal, one for pvp and (maybe) one for rppvp.

[callipygoustp]

Aww muffin did I get your panties in a knot? How about this NoChanges actually changes everytime the a logical point is brought up.

Yes yes "I'm mad bro." Keep on with the standard disingenuous internet tripe.

[gaymer77]

The only way for Classic to even survive requires a smaller number of servers with no sharding. Not only was sharding not a thing in vanilla but the reality is Classic isn't going to be this mammoth of a success a year after launch some people are thinking it will be.

[Chaelexi]

Yes yes "I'm mad bro." Keep on with the standard disingenuous internet tripe.

how about you read the rest of the OP and actually contribute to the conversation........ I am guessing there is nothing to contribute from you.

[callipygoustp]

how about you read the rest of the OP and actually contribute to the conversation........

When an OP starts with an attack on opinions that may be against their own it lowers my interest in reading the rest of the content.

[Chaelexi]

The only way for Classic to even survive requires a smaller number of servers with no sharding. Not only was sharding not a thing in vanilla but the reality is Classic isn't going to be this mammoth of a success a year after launch some people are thinking it will be.

This is why sharding makes sense. You can enable it at launch when the game is popular. Make the player who are playing experience better than 2000+ people fighting for a kobalt spawn in the starting area for first week or you could have 10 shards of 200 players in that starting zone and still have the competition and vanilla feel but it not be overly frustrating(which will encourage more to quit over stay). Once the server numbers dwindle you turn it off or just have the zone population caps at a high point where they will not be split into shards unless there is an abnormal number of players in a zone.

- - - Updated - - -

When an OP starts with an attack on opinions that may be against their own it lowers my interest in reading the rest of the content.

SO then see your way out of this conversation as you have not provided any true value to this thread........Unless you want to start........

[Willhouse]

One realm contains several servers.On the other hand realm size doesnt really matter since Classic realms are gonna get shut down within 6-12 months.There will be no1 left to play them cuz ppl will get sick and tired of old content.

[callipygoustp]

SO then see your way out of this conversation as you have not provided any true value to this thread........Unless you want to start........

Way out? Sounds a bit like another "Are you mad bro" response to my critique of your OP.

With regards to your OP, its a snore fest. Other than the attack on the #nochanges crowd, nothing worth responding to.

[Deleted]

Vanilla needs sharding to be a success. Extreme influx of players and a large dropoff after that. Sharding will make it feel alive for longer. 1 big pve server and one big pvp server

- - - Updated - - -

Way out? Sounds a bit like another "Are you mad bro" response to my critique of your OP.

With regards to your OP, its a snore fest. Other than the attack on the #nochanges crowd, nothing worth responding to.

Why are you here?

[Chaelexi]

Way out? Sounds a bit like another "Are you mad bro" response to my critique of your OP.

With regards to your OP, its a snore fest. Other than the attack on the #nochanges crowd, nothing worth responding to.

Ahh you do not understand how IT works then....please move over to the uneducated threads then.

- - - Updated - - -

Vanilla needs sharding to be a success. Extreme influx of players and a large dropoff after that. Sharding will make it feel alive for longer. 1 big pve server and one big pvp server

- - - Updated - - -



Why are you here?

As he said, why are you here......I am guessing to inflate your post count........because you have done nothing else.

[callipygoustp]

Ahh you do not understand how IT works then....please move over to the uneducated threads then.

Oh of course I don't understand it. Your discourse is so deep and technical.

Another personal attack merely cause I criticized you for attacking people who might have an opinion different than yours. Not a surprising response.

[Chaelexi]

Oh of course I don't understand it. Your discourse is so deep and technical.

Another personal attack merely cause I criticized you for attacking people who might have an opinion different than yours. Not a surprising response.

Please explain your stance then......If you do not have one, why are you still here? Provide something to the conversation....... I am guessing you are a #NoChanges person that can not find a reason beyond #NoChanges to have a small server population and now is trying to distract from the discussion. If you would like I can explain hyperconverged environment they are likely running and how it applies to VM management through containers and the granular control it gives them through automation......