Server population 2.5k, 5k, 10k?

Classic Discussion
Prev 1 3 4 5
<span class="truncated">...</span>

Where did I say the developers are lying about server caps? We know the servers couldn't handle 4k, because they could barely handle 2k. I'm not sure you're really on the same page in the conversation.

<span class="truncated">...</span>

The old servers couldn't handle it, the new server tech could handle 15k players with better performance than Blizzards 2004 servers. Of course there are gameplay reasons for sharding, they don't want to have to create a bunch of realms and then server merge when the initial rush of players dies off.

That's a different topic to what your single server cap is though, 2500 players seems to be the agreed upon number for original Vanilla, though it might have varied during the lifespan of the game and it definitely increased marginally over time and with each expansion before Sharding tech was implemented.
The Internet doesn’t work because there was one day where I had an outage. The other 99% of the time where I could use the Internet fine doesn’t count.


This is the second time you've quoted me without any connection to the context of anything I've said, I get English may not be your first language but please try to follow what is being discussed rather than projecting your own ideas onto it, because If I reply to you it's as if you're trying to make me argue words, thoughts and opinions that aren't my own.
Since I clearly prefer as few servers as possible, I am in favour of significantly larger server populations than it was back in 2005 and 2006.

Because nothing is worse than looking for people again on an extinct ghost server one day and still not having found anyone after several hours of searching!

Blizzard please don't listen to these nostalgic people! Because all the big successful private servers invariably make it happen that much larger servers are not a problem!
<span class="truncated">...</span>The Internet doesn’t work because there was one day where I had an outage. The other 99% of the time where I could use the Internet fine doesn’t count.


This is the second time you've quoted me without any connection to the context of anything I've said, I get English may not be your first language but please try to follow what is being discussed rather than projecting your own ideas onto it, because If I reply to you it's as if you're trying to make me argue words, thoughts and opinions that aren't my own.
You are either one very confused individual or several steps behind on the conversation. You are the one quoting me and making incorrect statements. When challenged and provided evidence that counters your statements, you fail to back up your own and resort to personal attacks. I can’t be bothered to answer a person whose debate method consists of making stuff up and making personal attacks. You simply add no value to the debate. Good day to you.
12/11/2018 08:25Posted by Alagner
...

This is the second time you've quoted me without any connection to the context of anything I've said, I get English may not be your first language but please try to follow what is being discussed rather than projecting your own ideas onto it, because If I reply to you it's as if you're trying to make me argue words, thoughts and opinions that aren't my own.
You are either one very confused individual or several steps behind on the conversation. You are the one quoting me and making incorrect statements. When challenged and provided evidence that counters your statements, you fail to back up your own and resort to personal attacks. I can’t be bothered to answer a person whose debate method consists of making stuff up and making personal attacks. You simply add no value to the debate. Good day to you.


Just to be clear you realise you've asked me to provide proof for something I never claimed or even alluded to, something that had nothing to do with my post. Then instead of clarifying why you did that you made another post that had nothing at all to do with my post.

Are you even discussing the topic with the same person? Honestly, don't be offended and get defensive, but dont try to make me argue opinions and views that have nothing to do with my posts, you might as well be arguing with yourself.
Anything below 10k is ded
12/11/2018 01:47Posted by Bearly
Since I clearly prefer as few servers as possible, I am in favour of significantly larger server populations than it was back in 2005 and 2006.

Because nothing is worse than looking for people again on an extinct ghost server one day and still not having found anyone after several hours of searching!

Blizzard please don't listen to these nostalgic people! Because all the big successful private servers invariably make it happen that much larger servers are not a problem!


Finding other people to group with wasn't a big issue on a mid/high-pop servers in Vanilla, no matter how much time elapsed there were still people out leveling in the world. You're thinking of leveling 1-60 in retail WoW.

And yes, having 10k+ population like private servers will make you find groups even easier, but it will make the world feel smaller due to being too crowded and kill the community and having character reputation due to the pop being too large. Not to mention trying to level on a PvP server and spending half your time corpserunning in contested zones, it kinda trivializes world PvP and downgrades in from a cool, special occurrence to a constant annoyance.

Retail WoW is !@#$ to level in with hardly anyone out in the old world, while private servers are WAY too crowded with all the demerits that comes along with it. I feel that original Vanilla struck the best balance so I'll say once again, no changes!
This is a quote of someone else:
A higher population doesn't equal to more social interaction. You have tons of players around in todays retail WoW, still everyone is playing for themselves. Because they're not depended on each other. Same principle applies to the world of vanilla. The fewer players are around, the harder do quests get. And the harsher and unforgiving does traversing hostile locations become. Because of this, you really start to appreciate the company of other players.

I've played plenty of pre-Cata retail and p-servers with blizzlike caps. Of course it is harder to build a group for specific quests if players aren't just presented to you due to overcrowding. Just waiting for another player close to an elite creature could be very well pointless for hours. But it was this exact reason why my friend list was full of people of my level. So we could contact each other in case of group quests. I was changing zones to help them and they did to help me. Somtimes we even re-did pre-quests together which one side has already completed, so that we both could profit from the task. And it was this adventures and challenges that lead to getting to know each other and to forming friendships.

In contrast to this, having too many players around is - for a start - diminishing roleplaying aspects like world building and immersion. I.e. locations loosing their dangerous atmosphere and meaning, due to always having players around steamrolling enemy ranks. So places with a story and certain peculiarities, that you might have struggled with and created memories from, simply turn into just another grinding spot. Plastered with NPC corpses and people farming. More alive, sure. But no longer as authentic, vast and scary.

Every zone in the game is more challenging and dangerous if you're approaching it alone. Not pulling too many mobs in buildings/caves, fighting your way in and back out alive from enemy territory, keeping an eye on your cooldowns and HP/mana, not letting them run off into another group when they're low on health. What made vanilla great for many people is trying to survive in this world on their own. Attempting every quest alone, and either improving and succeeding. Or realizing that some task are too much for a sole adventurer. That you're not supposed to do this alone. All of this gets negated and obsolete if you have so many players around that you can just make your way through a cleared path right to the quest target. And if there's no incentive to group up with other people other than being able to tag the mob.

Having too many players also can lead to competition, where you start to disparage the presence of other players. Because they're killing your quest mobs and looting your quest items. Just going to the spawn of an elite mob and joining random players by typing "Inv" to quickly kill it doesn't lead to forming bonds. No, this can entirely happen without anyone exchanging a word or emote. But having to actively build that group in town, traveling to your target location together, fighting your way to the elite, maybe even wiping in the process, and finally killing him, did. This is where my most memorable pre-Cata moments come from. Failing a quest over and over, therefore seeking someone who could help me. Finding that person, doing the quest, maybe even fail together. Become friends in the process.

Retail Pre-Cata: Me and a friend slowly fighting our way into a scourge base, having to fight our way past zombies and monsters. It did feel like an adventure, because the scourge hordes were dense and one mistake could mean the end of us. No one was hustling or competing with us. It was up to us to infiltrate the base and make it to our target. When we finally arrived at the elite creature, we attempted to kill that thing 5 times. We died, but we tried again. We improved our gameplay. We read into the quest text more and spotted something helpful that we missed. And then we finally did it. It felt epic. It was rewarding.

P-Server with non-blizzlike population: Me and a friend go into a scourge base. It's already full of players farming and there are hardly any mobs around. Getting to the elite mob is no problem at all. The elite is dead, there are 3 people waiting for the respawn. We type "Inv" into /say, get invited. We wait until the mob spawns. We kill him in no time. One guy says thanks, everyone immediately leaves the group and we head to our next quest. Not epic. Not rewarding.

I've played plenty on Elysium PvP with their concurrent player count being exactly at 5k. And sure, there are tons of players around and you're joining groups frequently. But it is a lot less personal than it used to be in vanilla retail. And not as rewarding if you don't actively build the groups yourself. The world most certainly feels more alive, but it also feels a lot smaller and cramped. Also non-existent world PvE challenge, broken roleplaying immersion, competing and rushing with other players for quest mobs/targets, joining and leaving groups becomes an unpersonal routine. It's almost like people are just playing for the population hype and not for the game itself.

(From here: http://forums.crestfall-gaming.com/index.php?/topic/2150-population-cap/)

Server caps should be like they were in Vanilla. Maybe Blizzard could introduce "megaservers" for those who want it but Vanilla caps should be the default (and if there are higher than original caps on some servers, they should be indicated clearly).
12/11/2018 17:47Posted by Dalcymon
Server caps should be like they were in Vanilla. Maybe Blizzard could introduce "megaservers" for those who want it but Vanilla caps should be the default (and if there are higher than original caps on some servers, they should be indicated clearly).


I wouldn't see a problem with Blizzard including a few megaservers to the realmlist. The people who wanna play on huge servers like the private ones can go there and the rest of us can just play on normal servers, everyone gets what they want.

Only thing is that bigger servers is kinda more easymode than regular ones, so competitive guilds might wanna end up going there instead.
It's over 9000! :D

Jokes aside, 2500 players per server is way low, 7000 would be nice to have.
A megaserver wouldn't work with the way Blizzard currently uses their tech, it would be a megaserver with sharding like the big retail servers because Blizzard isn't currently willing to revert to the old methods of running servers (in the way that private servers do).

I'm also skeptical they will ever cap 2500 players per server given that they will be using their modern tech, they are using sharding specifically because they expect a high amount of traffic and they neither want people stuck in queues for hours nor fighting over spawns for hours. Sharding or not if you player cap to 2500 you will see long queues.

That's why they are using sharding, I very much doubt they will actually cap it at 2500 players or why bother with sharding? Maybe they don't introduce the player cap until servers have settled (say 1-2 months in).. In a perfect world though a "megaserver" with some dynamic spawn rate like private servers do is a very attractive option, with more like 4000-6000 players.

Join the Conversation

Return to Forum