Page 1 of 5
1
2
3
... LastLast
  1. #1

    Blizzard on the State of TBC Servers

    Blizzard on the State of TBC Servers
    Originally Posted by Blizzard (Blue Tracker / Official Forums)
    Sixxfury (WoW Community Council): Figured I’d open a discussion here as I see it talked about a lot recently.

    Currently TBC servers are in a somewhat state of disarray. I know balancing PvP servers has and always will be tricky, especially given that most issues are player-driven. Throughout Classic we saw it, one server faction gets bigger than the other, and if it becomes the dominant faction players on the weaker faction decide they can’t take it anymore and want to actually participate in the world. When transfers opened up at first, it basically killed off certain servers that were once thriving at their peaks (Incendius comes to mind) and almost completely killed off after a wave of transfers. Now part of this transfer was due to overpopulation and attempting to recreate the server identity by limiting layers to 1. Though the growing sentiment in this particular case was that the world environment had grown too toxic to warrant wanting to stay with free transfers available (in this case). I was part of this transfer off of Incendius and onto Netherwind (horde and Ally from Incendius fled to Earthfury and Netherwind back around phase 4 of Classic)

    Throughout Classic we saw the ebb and flow of server transfers affect realms to the point of complete lopsided factions even sometimes on non-PvP realms like Pagle.

    Now with TBC, about 6 months after launch we are experiencing a massive wave after wave of transfers fleeing servers that have become undesirable. This has led to a significant amount of once-thriving servers to be completely dead with over 25 servers completely dead in terms of PvP and PvE rankings. - each one with their own main reasoning, but each one has similar traits:

    • Your guild is leaving because of “x” reason, usually faction imbalance related
    • you’re forced to leave with them or play with a whole new group of people OR play with potentially no-one because 90% of the server is leaving.
    • you leave to a server that’s already either close in faction balance (favored towards your faction) or one that’s already lopsided towards 1 faction.
    • add the fact that some people are paying hundreds of $ just to move many characters

    Maybe I’m wrong in this, but it certainly doesn’t feel like these 25 servers died off because the population just isn’t there. WoW Classic has been thriving more and more as new content comes out - evidenced by WCL hitting record highs in TBCC on Phase 2 launch. My understanding is that those servers crumbled due to player driven transfers - sometimes somewhat unwillingly because you don’t really have a choice if you want to keep playing.

    I don’t know what can be done, or what ideas have been discussed, but I know it’s only getting worse to the point that we are all transferring to a handful of “mega” servers.

    So with that in mind - is there a way to move forward and make this better, or is this just how it’s going to be?

    If this is how it’s going to be and mega-servers are the new norm, can we please get some more layers for these big servers… sitting in Org doing my trade business with up to 2-3s input lag with 30 ping is disappointing to say the least. I’m sure I’m not the only one.

    Don’t get me wrong I love seeing a big server because I know I can find people to play with, I know that I can find people to do trades, buy stuff, etc. and it’s a very thriving environment, but whether it’s the new norm or there’s some ideas being worked on, I think it needs to be addressed.




    Aggrend (WoW Classic Game Producer): Hello!

    First off, big thanks to Sixxfury and Basîl for taking the time to write up your thoughts on this. Second, apologies for taking so long to reply. No great reason or excuse other than “I had to think about this post a lot before making it”

    In any case, this is definitely a top issue for both us and for players, and it’s a topic we are basically always talking about as a team internally. I’d like to preface what I’m about to say with this: player distribution across realms is one of the most complex, if not the most complex issue that WoW Classic faces, and I’m not going to provide a silver bullet answer today. There’s no single-right answer for this issue, because different people want different things, and lots of apparently obvious solutions have non-obvious consequences.

    I think to start, it might be appropriate for us to touch on what we’ve done so far and what the actual intent of that is.

    In November, we opened a multitude of Free Character Moves (FCMs) between many realms.
    The intent of this was to respond to the feedback that some players wanted to play on realms with a higher population. We aren’t trying to stop smaller servers from becoming even smaller, and we aren’t trying to prevent so-called “megaservers” from forming. We are simply trying to give players who want to move an easy option to do so. It’s not perfect or complete, but it’s a relief valve.

    I’ll also be the first to acknowledge that we probably should have done this sooner. This isn’t meant to be an excuse, but the main reason we waited as long as we did (and a big driver to being very slow and methodical when making changes that affect server populations in general) is because in our attempts to “fix” things for specific groups, we could unintentionally damage the experience of other groups, and this is something that always gives us pause. Here’s an example:

    Imagine a medium-population PvP realm that is 60% Horde and 40% Alliance, and a majority of people on this realm are happy with the state of the realm. However, half of the current Alliance population (20% of the total server population) is unhappy at the feeling of being disadvantaged in world PvP, having a harder time leveling without getting ganked, and having a perceived weaker factional economy. If we open FCMs off this realm, this unhappy 20% of players might be delighted to be able to easily leave for greener pastures. Let’s assume that they all go from unhappy to happy. But now what’s left is a smaller realm that is 75% Horde and 25% Alliance. It’s not hard to imagine that now Alliance players who were previously content with a 60/40 split now become unhappy at being 3:1 underdogs and at having their own economy and community shrink by 50%, and now they’re unhappy. And on the other hand, some % of Horde players who value world PvP and were happy being on a 60/40 PvP realm are now also unhappy because their faction is now so dominant that the only world PvP available feels lopsided and unsporting.

    In the above example, doing something well-intentioned to benefit the unhappy 20% would have actually hurt more people than it helped. This is part of the dilemma and what causes us to take a lot of time to analyze things before taking actions that affects realm populations and faction balance. Ultimately, we did end up opening FCMs to and from a variety of destinations, and we will continue to monitor and modify the source and destination realms as time passes. We could have done a lot better here however, or at least been more communicative and I do sincerely apologize for that.

    Next I want to drill into a common suggestion we’ve seen that was alluded to in both posts above, as well as talk about how we’ve approached this issue as we’ve debated it internally.

    My server is 90% horde, and this other server is 90% alliance. Merge them and make a perfectly balanced server.
    This idea is, on its face, a great one, and we can see why such a suggestion could be a quick one to make. There are a few things that have given us pause about this in the past, however.
    • “Merging” servers is actually something that WoW has almost never done, and the reason for this is simple; we don’t like the idea of someone losing their unique name on a realm, and this is doubly true for classic where your identity in the community is a major aspect of the game.
    • We’ve somewhat worked around this in modern versions of World of Warcraft with the concept of “connecting” realms. With this process, we do allow you to keep your name (and guild affiliations), it’s not seamless and is an intrusive change to the players’ chosen gameplay environment. When the connection is completed, players on the new connected realms will then have a realm name appended to the end of their nameplate such as “Aggrend-Grobbulus” or “Kaivax-Pagle”.
    • As a result of this being entirely new territory to WoW Classic, this also leads to more Classic-specific questions and conundrums such as:
      • Is this appropriate for WoW Classic? In doing this, we are essentially overriding your realm identity and forcibly causing you to merge with another, wholly unknown (to you) realm and community.
      • What if you don’t want to be on a balanced realm and at some point, specifically elected to move to a realm where your faction is in the majority? We have years of data that suggests that, on a long enough timeline, the population for most PvP realms will tend to skew towards one faction or the other and that this skew often starts as the result of more incoming players joining the majority faction, rather than players leaving the minority faction.
      • What if merging two realms like this forces layers to be enabled at all times, when they were not enabled previously? Layers are a useful tool and something that we feel most players understand they will have to deal with when choosing to move to a “High” or “Full” population realm, but if your realm has existed without layers for months or years and they are suddenly forced upon you, is that okay?
      • What happens in several months when the population of this new more-balanced realm starts to again (and likely inevitably) skew towards one faction or the other? Do we then connect the already connected realms to yet another realm with the inverse population skew? In such a scenario, you could easily see a never-ending cycle of continuously connecting realms to “chase” that balance, and of course, each time we connect a set of realms, it further dilutes the original realms’ ecosystem and communities.
      • Overall, the data we have suggests that, broadly, players don’t seem to want an even playing field and/or they care more about having their faction be heavily populated and lively than they care about their realm being balanced. Our concern is that the more we try to directly intervene, the more likely we may be to destroy the communities or individual play experiences that players have created organically. Does this mean we won’t ever connect realms in WoW Classic? No, and that is an active discussion we’ve been having for quite some time.

    Obviously, there are many, many other proposed solutions that we’ve seen from players as well as from our colleagues, but using just this one example you can likely see how difficult this is to work through, and how even a seemingly simple solution can be fraught with peril if not carefully considered. I mostly provide this to give insight into the types of discussions we have internally and how we arrive at the actions (or inactions) we take.

    So, where do we go from here? Well, I think that’s where you come in. What we’d like to see now is some more suggestions from you with your ideas of how we could improve this situation and ideally, we can have some back and forth here to discuss them. One thing I will ask you to keep in mind however is that we generally prefer to avoid any solution that would force players to do anything they don’t want to do, or directly damages or diminishes their ability to log in and play the game, so please try and keep that in mind when suggesting things in this discussion. Obviously, that places a lot of restrictions on the scope of ideas, but that’s kind of the point, and part of the reason for the dilemma we face right now when thinking of ways to address this issue in a way that fits within the WoW Classic design space.

    Lastly, we also wanted to float the idea and acknowledge that this issue might just be too big for forum discussion. To that end, we are working on plans to host some form of live chat with you soon, to discuss this and other aspects of WoW Classic. This is still in the planning phase and we hope to have more details about this in the coming weeks, but needless to say, I think we all want to get to the point where we have multiple avenues to have meaningful, conversational discussions about this and other topics affecting our community.

    Please stay tuned for details on that. Thank you again for your time, and we hope that you will have a most excellent new year! Thank you!

  2. #2
    They introduced things like layers/sharding/etc. to address problems like this.

    People who want to turn back the clock to before these problems were solved are now surprised that these are problems.

  3. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by Biomega View Post
    They introduced things like layers/sharding/etc. to address problems like this.

    People who want to turn back the clock to before these problems were solved are now surprised that these are problems.
    wrong,they can fix the issues easily,their reasons for not server mergin is bullshit,this isnt the 90's anymore,these naming restrictions are outdated,the reason they dont merge is because of the server transfer money they would lose

  4. #4
    Issue is that Classics are dropping in popularity so they can't make a decent balance across the servers. The few obviously want to go to a crowded place, making most servers obsolete and the few big ones unbalanced.

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by deenman View Post
    wrong,they can fix the issues easily,their reasons for not server mergin is bullshit,this isnt the 90's anymore,these naming restrictions are outdated,the reason they dont merge is because of the server transfer money they would lose
    speak for yourself i don’t want to lose my name

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by deenman View Post
    wrong,they can fix the issues easily,their reasons for not server mergin is bullshit,this isnt the 90's anymore,these naming restrictions are outdated,the reason they dont merge is because of the server transfer money they would lose
    Speak for yourself. I have three 70s called Death, War and Famine, and Pestilence saved for WOTLK. If I lost my names I'd never play WoW again.

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Snufflupagus View Post
    Speak for yourself. I have three 70s called Death, War and Famine, and Pestilence saved for WOTLK. If I lost my names I'd never play WoW again.
    Why do you think you would lose your name?
    It's never really unique anyhow? hundreds, if not thousands already have the same name?
    Doing an internal name conversion that is invisible to the user is easy to achieve.
    What they need to do? Remove factions and allow open play, pvp, raiding, m+, maybe extreme for classic but it definitely needs to happen for retail.

  8. #8
    That sixfury seems more concerned with making money rather than actually playing the game.

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by tomten View Post
    Doing an internal name conversion that is invisible to the user is easy to achieve.
    It really isn't, unless you want everyone who sends an in-game mail to XXXSephirothXXX to end up with 50 different recipients.

    This SOUNDS like something that'd be trivial to solve, but it really isn't.

  10. #10
    Immortal Ealyssa's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Switzerland, Geneva
    Posts
    7,001
    Just one more proof that nowadays the concept of a game being faction-spllited doesn't work anymore.

    People don't want fair PVP and people don't want PVE separation of playerbase. Sure it's problematic for classic, but it really shows that factions as gameplay limitations are a dead end. Leave them for flavor and lore (you still create a character that is horde or alliance), but remove any limitation on gameplay and let cross faction guilds be a thing.
    Warmode can either still be blue VS red (cross faction groups can choose their side) or even better FFA.

  11. #11
    Seems like a reasonable response. The vast majority of players do not give a shit about faction balance or wpvp (especially in tbc where it's dead anyways). Most would rather sit in one faction mega servers for healthier PvE environments.

  12. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by Doffen View Post
    Issue is that Classics are dropping in popularity so they can't make a decent balance across the servers. The few obviously want to go to a crowded place, making most servers obsolete and the few big ones unbalanced.
    I wouldn't say its due to popularity, as the game Classic-wise is at least doing fine based on metrics given that we're this far into a patch cycle.

    It's honestly the fact that nothing's really being (if something possibly can be) done regarding the megaserver issue. They recognize and understand the issue, but considering that this is a player-based problem that currently has a solution that can pretty much be summed up with "pay or deal with it" or "if you can't beat em, join em", they're reluctant on remedying it further without taking a hit on potential profit.

    The reason I'm considering the aforementioned opinion above all else is because we've already deviated from the #nochanges idea that it wouldn't hurt to have, say, cross-realm communication/grouping (there's no Mythic raiding but I'm sure they wouldn't want servers to mean little to nothing in the grand scheme of things). I'm not even sure I'd want this, but I'm also sure that this has came up at least once in their discussions if I, a nobody, could at least spitball that out there.

    And if I remember correctly, we're already using the modern engine of retail WoW for WoW Classic; I'm sure there's something they could develop even as a stopgap. The FCMs only helped near-death servers at the time of the announcement, not accounting for the fact that a lot of other high-pop servers were already dying off to become medium or low-pop ones at the same time. So they'd have to offer that again, but the only thing that'd do would be exacerbating the megaserver issue so maybe they could offer incentives for people to move off of those servers?

    In short, I'm sure they're considering the best options that would either be a net positive for Blizzard or at the very minimum a net neutral position but it doesn't have much to do with popularity that much IMHO.
    Last edited by Ekis; 2022-01-05 at 04:42 AM.

  13. #13
    "You think you do, but you don't" - Famous words from Blizzard.

  14. #14
    The one aspect that I noticed was avoided was that a lot of the cause of shifting server balance (at least at the rate it has changed) is allowing server transfers at all. While the response focused on the Free Server Transfers for select servers, I can't help getting the feeling that this was done for one reason: to deflect from the paid transfers. I'm not saying the blue poster is to be blamed for such things, but I wouldn't be surprised if this response was subject to reviewing/screening... and pointing a finger towards paid services being to blame is something that I don't think the higher up people would want.

    This is a classic case of people taking the path of least resistance. Regardless of what your server goal is, being able to do transfer servers quickly by throwing money trivializes the personal consequences. If there was no server transfers, one would have to think about leveling up one (or multiple) chars with no transfer of their wealth, which is a huge decision to make when there's no way around it. While some people would still do this, it would be a very big deterrent to fast shifts in realm populations and faction balance. Leveling up from scratch and reacquiring all your gear/wealth is a long process.

    In some respects, it's similar to the botting problem with boosted chars. Because paid boosts exist, it's the path of least resistance for botters in terms of time and money is undeniably buying the boosts. Skipping the leveling and gearing part instant has an unintentional side effect that's pretty nasty. What's worse is that Blizz does profit off of such a system that leads to issues with the game, similar to the faction transfers.

    Honestly, I would reverse the premise of the blue poster: Blizz trying to make things "easier" for people (regardless if that's the true intent, or for money, or both) has way more negative consequences than positive, and that is the main source of the issues the council person brings up.
    Last edited by exochaft; 2022-01-05 at 04:53 AM.
    “Society is endangered not by the great profligacy of a few, but by the laxity of morals amongst all.”
    “It's not an endlessly expanding list of rights — the 'right' to education, the 'right' to health care, the 'right' to food and housing. That's not freedom, that's dependency. Those aren't rights, those are the rations of slavery — hay and a barn for human cattle.”
    ― Alexis de Tocqueville

  15. #15
    Spam Assassin! MoanaLisa's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Tralfamadore
    Posts
    32,405
    Quote Originally Posted by deenman View Post
    wrong,they can fix the issues easily,their reasons for not server mergin is bullshit,this isnt the 90's anymore,these naming restrictions are outdated,the reason they dont merge is because of the server transfer money they would lose
    Why would they even offer free transfers if this was true? Or did you miss that part (and all the other times they've done this over the years)?
    "...money's most powerful ability is to allow bad people to continue doing bad things at the expense of those who don't have it."

  16. #16
    Like so many features, faction is a lot more fun if it's fantasy and not mechanics. Covenants are the same thing - I'd love to commit to a cool group with their own style and philosophy, if that didn't mean I'd also compromise my performance or change how my class fights. Same with Horde/Alliance - I'd love to just support the one I like, and have it not matter for who I can group or talk with.

    But no, WoW needs to remain stuck in 2005 because they had one idea then and that must remain completely untouchable or the entire world (of warcraft) will literally collapse.

    It'd be almost as bad as allowing a warrior to xmog cloth or a fish offhand. LITERAL END OF THE UNIVERSE.

  17. #17
    Brewmaster Alkizon's Avatar
    7+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Strasbourg
    Posts
    1,440

    Thumbs down

    This only proves once again that everything they did (distorted base during launch) was absolutely useless (actually, which was indicated even before launch), and even more - harmful. It was worthwhile to engage in automate to distribute in according to good control over population (tight control, balance analysis), after reviewing "characters to account linking" system. They have tried and continue to try to do it after the fact. You can't please everyone, which means that first of all it was necessary to please system requirements. They didn't, rather damaged it... and these your "shards/phasing/cross-realm" are, on contrary, contraindications to system operation, they did(do)n't solve anything, but only aggravate syndrome of social isolation (proclamation of complete individual independence), violate basic conditions of cohabitation and living together.

    Therefore, they didn't announce anything new or unexpected. Rather, they confessed their helplessness, because they have these problems in both versions, and all because their approach from start for both conditionally coincide and consists in treating symptoms, not disease.

    ps. Again, everything has been discussed more than once (even appropriate search) and there is nothing new here.
    Last edited by Alkizon; 2022-01-05 at 05:59 AM.

  18. #18
    I read this as.. money is to good from the transfers now.. once that dies down and the arrow points downward we might consider something. But for now we got breastmilk to drink so leave us alone.

  19. #19
    "Overall, the data we have suggests that, broadly, players don’t seem to want an even playing field and/or they care more about having their faction be heavily populated and lively than they care about their realm being balanced."

    This is the most telling admission from Blizzard on this issue in -years-. Players want to "win" or feel like they are "winning". and having a server with an unbalanced population that flings its epeen around makes it feel like people are "winning" by being of one faction or another. I have never met anyone outside of a limited few who wants to give the (Alliance/Horde) a 'sporting chance', its about how quickly they can fill groups for PvP or PvE and then go smash faces.

    If Blizzard was smart, they would have put caps on the server populations, or incentivized faction changing with buffs to the minority faction much much earlier in game development. Imagine if the minority faction gained +1% extra damage in PvP/PvE for every percentage point difference in the number of active characters per faction? A 60H/40A server would see all alliance toons buffed by 20%. That's a complete madhouse of design. I love it.

  20. #20
    Should've prevented 3rd party sites from getting faction data in the first place so players can't pick their servers based on which faction is bigger. They gotta bite the bullet and do merges. Server communities is one of the main draws of classic and CRZ killed that when it was introduced in MoP.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •