Vanilla wow had sharding

Classic Discussion
03/11/2018 14:36Posted by Shaoilin

Yes 4 shards per Realm, 2 shards for each one of the Continents (game must load to get you from one to the other) and the other 2 for the instances and battlegrounds (both of which have to load to get you there)

Otherwise the game has NO LOADING whatsoever. It was still a living World realm) with all the same people who play on that Realm with those 4 shards. It did not shard it in a way to split the population of the servers, it was just to sepparate the big game world into 4 loadable zones.

You obviously do not understand what the concern of the Vanilla community is. The modern sharding technology kills the Realm identity and my monthly subscription to Blizzard.

I do understand your concerns and I share them.

That's why I made this thread. Maybe I should have picked a better title but there is a character limit.

How would you design a modern sharding tech for WoW classic? What do you think about using more aggressive sharding the first week during release to make the game playable and then turn it off/go vanilla style once the player characters have spread out more evenly across the world, or would you prefer vanilla version shards from the get go but perhaps not be able to play for the first few weeks? I'm not pulling your leg, I'm trying to have a constructive discussion.
You know exactly the type of sharding that players are talking about. It's not relevant to bring up the server structure of Vanilla and how the term "shard" was used there. It has nothing to do with the sharding that people are worried about. Do you want people to unnecessarily specify the type of sharding each and every time?

This op is the same as pointing out that humans are animals every single time someone mentions animals when talking about non-human animals.
This topic is so heated atm so I'm not sure we can discuss it yet, people are blowing off steam in flock...

But as I see it we have 3 choices at launch:

1. Accept sharding

2. Accept an excess of servers

3. Accept a few servers and a failed launch.

If we have 1 it's being phased out as players leave, because they will.

If we have 2 lot of dead servers.

If we have 3 it's going to rend Vanilla as unplayable.

What's best in the long run? I have no problems with nr 1 in the initial phase.
I played back then and believe me, this never - ever - happened:
https://clips.twitch.tv/UnusualComfortableStrawberryKappa

Sharding / phasing will RUIN classic.
The meaning of a term often depends on the context.

In the context of WoW, sharding does not refer to a server architecture concept.
In the context of WoW, sharding refers to "seamless outdoor instancing" .

Everyone is on board with this. Except you.
You think you seem like an intellectual for bringing us this revelation, but in fact you just come across as an !@#$%^.
03/11/2018 14:15Posted by Meibhín
Goodness god. This comes across as a desperate attempt to shill. This is either the troll post of the century or you're purposefully conflating systems to make a dishonest argument about sharding.

Sorry, no, players were never instanced within subzones. If I went to the barrens everyone was there, no one was invisible. You are just as painfully out of touch and tone deaf as modern Blizzard.


+1
Everyone know that EK, Kalimdor and instances were on different shards in vanilla. That's why you'd get "world server down" a few times during your entire vanilla experience way back when.

Gotta love someone who dilutes a hot topic based on some semantic technicality. Really charitable position, gotta say.
03/11/2018 14:54Posted by Eulalia
But as I see it we have 3 choices at launch:

1. Accept sharding

2. Accept an excess of servers

3. Accept a few servers and a failed launch.

If we have 1 it's being phased out as players leave, because they will.

If we have 2 lot of dead servers.

If we have 3 it's going to rend Vanilla as unplayable.

What's best in the long run? I have no problems with nr 1 in the initial phase.


I'd rather the launch was awful. Crashing servers, long queue times... all the good stuff. Those are as authentic to Vanilla as anything. Now I can also tolerate sharding for a couple days but it will make the game feel not-Vanilla.

The main concern for me is that Lore didn't in any way promise that sharding would only be used in the first days after launch. He just used that as an example for how it is useful. That is very, very concerning.
03/11/2018 15:10Posted by Kagemoth

Someone who didnt see the video.

You are an idiot aswell Blizzdrone. LOOK_AT_THE_VIDEO. Also see the OPs response.

"That doesn't prove sharding in itself is wrong"

When I say sharding, I mean it in general terms, not Blizzards specific implementation of it in WoW. We both agree that having people appear/disappear around you is bad.
03/11/2018 14:32Posted by Solaris
If a private server can get 10k+ concurrent users WITHOUT lag then a multi billion dollar corporation has NO EXCUSES at all.


There has never been a private server with a 10k population cap without lag.

Again with more lies. Go learn a bit about how server structure works.

Oh and for the record, no private server have or have had 10k concurrent users. That's a lie, served to the community by the server owners.
03/11/2018 15:12Posted by Trajan

I'd rather the launch was awful. Crashing servers, long queue times... all the good stuff. Those are as authentic to Vanilla as anything. Now I can also tolerate sharding for a couple days but it will make the game feel not-Vanilla.

The main concern for me is that Lore didn't in any way promise that sharding would only be used in the first days after launch. He just used that as an example for how it is useful. That is very, very concerning.


Interpretation is key I guess but the way I personally read the blue post was like: sharding is going to be a thing, full time, be warned.'

I'm against sharding.

Overcrowded start zones, even the queues to log in, it's all part of the excitement and the build up which adds to the authentic Vanilla experience.

That said, it's 2019. Whilst not an expert, I'd have assumed that servers today can host many more people with far less equipment/software/memory/storage...whatever than those from 2004 AND Blizzard has experience from the Vanilla launch to help smooth out the Classic launch to prevent large amounts of disconnects and downtime.

Now some troll will probably read this and be like 'omg 2019 servers are not Classic.' Maybe, but I don't see Blizzard going as far as to hunt on eBay for 15 year old server equipment to fully replicate the state of tech back then AND I do not expect them to.

However, a big far no to sharding of any kind.

NO sharding, #NoChanges.
"Last days of Nostalrius":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nu-JMqNTn-M

Now, classic never looked like this - because the players were spread out between servers. I can remember being in a queue for up to 45 minutes at some point back then.

And I'd take that any day of the week, to not have sharding/phasing which will utterly destroy the feeling of community.

Bring back the queue system, or make the servers crash! Anything is better than implementing phasing.
03/11/2018 15:23Posted by Geronîmoo
03/11/2018 14:32Posted by Solaris
If a private server can get 10k+ concurrent users WITHOUT lag then a multi billion dollar corporation has NO EXCUSES at all.


There has never been a private server with a 10k population cap without lag.

Again with more lies. Go learn a bit about how server structure works.

Oh and for the record, no private server have or have had 10k concurrent users. That's a lie, served to the community by the server owners.


Actually Elysium launch was pretty darn clean. The only lag issues we really felt was during the Test periods. Dunno which servers you been playing on but that's how it is.

Even Nost wasn't lagging at 9k and you only really felt it when the server was hitting critical mass after 10k and that was considered an older version of the server.

So hows about YOU stop spreading lies ok?
03/11/2018 15:28Posted by Knecke
"Last days of Nostalrius":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nu-JMqNTn-M

Now, classic never looked like this - because the players were spread out between servers. I can remember being in a queue for up to 45 minutes at some point back then.

And I'd take that any day of the week, to not have sharding/phasing which will utterly destroy the feeling of community.

Bring back the queue system, or make the servers crash! Anything is better than implementing phasing.


+1, for me personally it all adds to the excitement and the hype. It's more authentic and adds value to the experience. It's an MMO, the people are a majorly important aspect of the game and I want to see MANY people, everywhere. I want to make new connections and friends.

03/11/2018 15:12Posted by Trajan
03/11/2018 14:54Posted by Eulalia
But as I see it we have 3 choices at launch:

1. Accept sharding

2. Accept an excess of servers

3. Accept a few servers and a failed launch.

If we have 1 it's being phased out as players leave, because they will.

If we have 2 lot of dead servers.

If we have 3 it's going to rend Vanilla as unplayable.

What's best in the long run? I have no problems with nr 1 in the initial phase.


I'd rather the launch was awful. Crashing servers, long queue times... all the good stuff. Those are as authentic to Vanilla as anything. Now I can also tolerate sharding for a couple days but it will make the game feel not-Vanilla.

The main concern for me is that Lore didn't in any way promise that sharding would only be used in the first days after launch. He just used that as an example for how it is useful. That is very, very concerning.


+1...or 0.5...I'd prefer no sharding, period.

Seriously, reading these forums, you're like my long lost WoW soulmate or something Trajan :-D
03/11/2018 15:10Posted by Kagemoth

Someone who didnt see the video.

You are an idiot aswell Blizzdrone. LOOK_AT_THE_VIDEO. Also see the OPs response.

"That doesn't prove sharding in itself is wrong"


I looked at it yesterday already. Yeah it looks really weird. But my spontane thought wasn't sharding.

To me it looks like these people got kicked off the server, because the time limit allowed for playing the demo was reached.

So how do you know this wasn't the case?
There is a simple solution if they just plan to have sharding on release. People that cant handle sharding can just wait couple of weeks till they disable it and start then. People that can handle playing with sharding can play from start.
03/11/2018 14:06Posted by Billain
Hello,

I see a lot of complaints about sharding, where people say WoW classic should not use it at all. Many of the posts I've read on the topic demonstrates ignorance on what sharding actually is. Let's try to have a constructive discussion instead.

My argument is that sharding in itself as a technology is not bad, but the current implementation of it is.

What is sharding?
Sharding means to break up data into multiple partitions, with each partition being held on a different server or "shard" (or blade, when using a blade server). The purpose of sharding is to spread the load. It also creates some redundancy, since if one shard goes down, players on the other shards might still be able to play.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shard_(database_architecture)

What's the difference between phasing, cross-realm-zones and sharding?
Phasing is simply the technology Blizzard has been using in later expansions to change the world during quest progression. We can all agree that WoW Classic should not use phasing, since vanilla wow did not.

Cross realm zones (CRZ) is the technology used to populate under populated areas, by letting players from different realms play on the same shard. I think we all agree that WoW Classic shouldn't use CRZ, since seeing someone with your own name would break the vanilla immersion.

Sharding is, as I said above, simply a method of spreading out the population on different servers/shards to reduce load. This can be implemented in a multitude of ways. I think we're all in agreement that the current implementation in modern wow, where players suddenly appear or disappear around you, is a poor implementation to use for WoW Class. The purpose of this thread is to discuss how they should implement it.

Vanilla WOW used sharding
Each continent was on a separate blade (aka shard) - Kalimdor and Eastern Kingdoms. Instances ran on a third blade while chat and some databases was handled by the forth blade. In other words, vanilla wow had four shards per server.

As an example, the Instance shard could go down, preventing you from entering any dungeons or bgs. Some times when you tried to exit a dungeon, you'd get the message "World server down", which kept you locked inside the dungeon until the world server came back up.

This means people spamming #NOSHARDS etc don't understand sharding and are arguing for a non-Blizzlike experience, since Vanilla wow DID use shards.

Sharding in itself is not a problem. What I believe we all want is a seamless implementation of sharding that's invisible to the player, while keeping the realm lag free.


you sir, are an idiot.
#NoSharding
03/11/2018 15:43Posted by Eulalia
03/11/2018 15:10Posted by Kagemoth

Someone who didnt see the video.

You are an idiot aswell Blizzdrone. LOOK_AT_THE_VIDEO. Also see the OPs response.

"That doesn't prove sharding in itself is wrong"


I looked at it yesterday already. Yeah it looks really weird. But my spontane thought wasn't sharding.

To me it looks like these people got kicked off the server, because the time limit allowed for playing the demo was reached.

So how do you know this wasn't the case?


Nice troll.

That was the most obvious example of sharding you could get.

Join the Conversation

Return to Forum