Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Blizzard Talks About WoW Stability and Service

Zonk posted more than 8 years ago | from the new-servers-can-only-be-good dept.

100

Via 1up, information from Producer Shane Dabiri on the future of the World of Warcraft service. He offers up details on the new server setups, new server sites, and the much-anticipated character transfer service. From the article: "Scheduled to go live this summer, this feature will allow players to move their characters, within certain restrictions, to a realm of their choosing. This means that player's will now be able to join their friends on other realms without the need to wait for a pre-set mass realm transfer. In addition, this will also contribute to a balancing of the player load from realm to realm, which again is a specific way for us to reduce realm queues and lag. We know that many player's are eager for this service to be implemented, so we'll share further details as soon as more information becomes available. "

cancel ×

100 comments

FIST SPORT! (0, Offtopic)

ringbarer (545020) | more than 8 years ago | (#15264656)

In the meantime, John Smedley addressed the eight remaining SWG subscribers:

"I'm very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very sorry."

FIST SPORT? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15264704)

Is that like that movie with Jean-Claude Van Damme, Bloodsport?

Too bad the server is down for maintenance. (2, Funny)

xutopia (469129) | more than 8 years ago | (#15264675)

Again... /sigh

Re:Too bad the server is down for maintenance. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15264758)

while you're waiting [wowstatus.net]

Troll? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15267845)

Why did the mods mod him a Troll? From his whining I'd say he sounds like an Alliance player.

eh? (1)

voice_of_all_reason (926702) | more than 8 years ago | (#15264684)

within certain restrictions

I see that and immediately think: "bend over, here it comes..."

Re:eh? (1)

radarjd (931774) | more than 8 years ago | (#15264804)

within certain restrictions

I see that and immediately think: "bend over, here it comes..."

I don't know, I tend to think that's more like "we're not going to allow a PvE character to move to a PvP server" or something similar.

Re:eh? (1)

voice_of_all_reason (926702) | more than 8 years ago | (#15264837)

I immediately thought of a myriad of ways they could implement this (disastrously) in the name of stopping "cheaters."

-No moving to a new server that X people have moved to this day/week/month
-No moving to a new server with X people already existing
-No moving to a new server more than X times per day/week/month
-No moving to a new server unless you are level/age X
-No moving to a new server because the server move daemon is down...

Re:eh? (1)

'nother poster (700681) | more than 8 years ago | (#15265009)

I like that last reason. Going to be VERY popular with Blizzard support, me thinks.

Talk about stability (2, Insightful)

adinu79 (860333) | more than 8 years ago | (#15264689)

Yay, the topic's not showing.

They should upgrade their forum servers first and then if this works out, think about upgrading the game servers and doing al those nifty things they're talking about.

Re:Talk about stability (1)

pagluy (651141) | more than 8 years ago | (#15265159)

Yes, because we'd rather talk about the game than actually play it.

Server Stability! (1)

nops (907179) | more than 8 years ago | (#15264691)

Pretty amazing that you can't read this because the forums are down.

Translation of server transfer (2, Insightful)

GeekDork (194851) | more than 8 years ago | (#15264698)

It could mean that Blizzard is expecting a rather massive drop in player numbers and may need to reduce the number of servers. They will transfer characters to other servers at random and then need that feature to let people get back together with their guildmates. Of course, it needs not be Free Beer, but that's probably just my paranoia speaking.

Re:Translation of server transfer (1)

onlysolution (941392) | more than 8 years ago | (#15264718)

That sounds like a great scheme, involuntarily move players to other servers at random and then charge them a fee to move their character to the server of their choosing. I can see blizzard needing to do this to stay a float, since it's pretty clear that they are barely making any money off of WoW.

Re:Translation of server transfer (3, Funny)

GeekDork (194851) | more than 8 years ago | (#15264734)

Well, it doesn't seem like they were paying too much for server upkeep... ;-)

Re:Translation of server transfer (4, Informative)

MindStalker (22827) | more than 8 years ago | (#15264906)

If you had bothered to read, yes they are closing servers but no this won't be happening.

Apparently a server can handle up to 40 realms so entire realms will be copied in whole from one server to another. Its more of a consolidation issue. Sure theoretically if they lost a lot of player they might want to close up some realms if they become underpopulated. But people would leave unpopulated realms pretty much voluntarily.

Re:Translation of server transfer (1)

snuf23 (182335) | more than 8 years ago | (#15265541)

"Apparently a server can handle up to 40 realms"

Hmmm. I'm not sure I agree with your usage of the word "handle".
My experience would suggest this slight revision:

"Apparently a server cannot handle up to 40 realms"

Re:Translation of server transfer (1)

scdeimos (632778) | more than 8 years ago | (#15266238)

Actually, Shane said:
This not only allowed us to open new realms -- each site can hold approximately 40 -- it also allowed us to migrate existing realms over to the new, top-of-the-line hardware we used to build the site.
If there's only one server per site (data center) I think I can see what the problem is. :)

It wasn't slashdotted, it was the mages... (3, Informative)

Rhys (96510) | more than 8 years ago | (#15264710)

They killed the Blizzard warcraft forums. They're all up in arms about their class talent review, which has had the trees posted over at ign or somewhere.

Mages, start your whineing...

Re:It wasn't slashdotted, it was the mages... (2, Informative)

stienman (51024) | more than 8 years ago | (#15264923)


Mirror [vggen.com]

-Adam

Re:It wasn't slashdotted, it was the mages... (1)

MachDelta (704883) | more than 8 years ago | (#15265267)

The aforementioned talent preview [ign.com]

Its pretty interesting, and I think it gives a good idea of how Blizzard sees mages now. Unfortunatly, what Blizz thinks a mage is and what everyone else thinks a mage is have rarely been similar. Part of me is curious to test the new talents out... the other part of me is glad I quit WoW.

...the forums are down (1)

jimfinity (849860) | more than 8 years ago | (#15264714)

I love how this is posted after the forums at the official site have been down for several hours.

reeaallly encouraging

So let the sunshine in (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15264716)

say it with a grin
mommie never knew
how much I liked to poo
so
let the sunshine in
say it with a grin
mommie never knew
how much I liked to poo

I love WoW players. (4, Interesting)

Rallion (711805) | more than 8 years ago | (#15264735)

When the last battleplan was posted, the forums FILLED with people posting things along the lines of "Forget new content until you fix the servers!" When this one was posted, they filled with "What? That was all about the servers! No new content?"

Re:I love WoW players. (1)

whiteranger99x (235024) | more than 8 years ago | (#15264963)

Didn't you know, people want to have cake and eat it too. :)

If you don't have cake (0, Offtopic)

spun (1352) | more than 8 years ago | (#15265333)

How can you eat it? Now the inverse makes sense, you can't eat your cake and have it too, but you pretty much have to have the cake before you eat it.

Yes, I am a pedant, so what?

Re:I love WoW players. (1)

Kelz (611260) | more than 8 years ago | (#15264992)

With a player-base so huge, every time a change is made (or isn't made), there is enough of a minority opposing it to seem that every single aspect of the game needs fixing. Go to any class forums or realm forums and you will get the impression that every class is weak, and every other class needs to be nerfed (or their own class buffed/fixed).

In such a huge pool of players, the people who yell loudest are the only ones that are heard unless you take the time to look closer.

Re:I love WoW players. (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15265268)

I'm no WoW player, but...

  1. Maybe there's a large number of players who want new content, and a large number of players who want more reliable servers. I'm not sure, but I'm pretty sure WoW players haven't marged into some sort of gelatinous blob hive mind. They are allowed to have differing, even conflicting desires.
  2. Maybe it's quite legitimate to want a) fresh content and b) the ability to play it at the same time. No good having fresh content without the ability to play it, and no good having the ability to play the same thing you've played a hundred times before.

Shocking, I know.

Re:I love WoW players. (1)

thesandtiger (819476) | more than 8 years ago | (#15266568)

Who says it's the same people bitching?

Re:I love WoW players. (1)

Surt (22457) | more than 8 years ago | (#15267256)

This is much like how things work on slash: you have a massive number of people involved, and if even 1 in 10 people complains about something, it will seem like a huge number of complaints. There's no reason to believe that the contrary complaints are coming from the same people.

Character Transfers, YAY! (1)

Kranfer (620510) | more than 8 years ago | (#15264740)

I am very happy to see that I will soon be able to move my character from realm to realm and be able to play with my friends so that I am not just running around hack / slashing to pass time for people to come around. Yayness.

Re:Character Transfers, YAY! (1)

Rallion (711805) | more than 8 years ago | (#15264763)

Uh...you know it's going to cost money to transfer a character, right? You won't want to just hop around constantly.

Re:Character Transfers, YAY! (1)

Kranfer (620510) | more than 8 years ago | (#15264895)

Eh its no big deal to me. It allows me to see who else is out there, and RP more which is a good thing

Re:Character Transfers, YAY! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15265037)

Could I possibly have some of that cash you're about to flush down the toilet?

Slashdot benchmark (4, Funny)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 8 years ago | (#15264776)

"He offers up details on the new server setups, new server sites, and the much-anticipated character transfer service."

Sadly, the new server setups rated poorly during the Ziff Davis Slashdot benchmark.

Do You Hear That Blizzard? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15264885)

It's the sound of me not ruffling any bills in a rush to buy your game.

All I know about WoW is what other people tell me, and all other people tell me is that there is nothing to tell because it's down again, or they were banned for no apparent reason, or everyone got AIDS and died.

I'm not paying you a monthly fee to grind through a repetetive game world that I can't get into half the time and will probably be banned from anyway once that access returns.

Here's what will happen (4, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 8 years ago | (#15264929)

Horde on Server A is outnumbered. Horde members on Server A get pissed. Horde members on Server A leave in drowes for server B.

Blizzard will disallow Horde Players on A to leave. Horde members get more grumpy, being outnumbered AND unable to leave. Blizzard will encourage Horders from other servers to move to server A to "balance" things.

Horde member on server C, suffering the same fate, sees the opportunity and jumps over to server A. Only to realize that he traded purgatory for hell. He gets grumpy and with a sigh decides to drop his old char.

Moves back to server A and makes an Alliance character...

Re:Here's what will happen (1)

blunte (183182) | more than 8 years ago | (#15265133)

It's not that simple. I spent time on servers where allies were most populous, and on servers where horde were most populous.

It's actually not fun to be on either side if the numbers are way out of whack. If you're in a huge majority, (and you like world PvP), you find little opportunity to have engaging, entertaining (challenging) PvP.

Likewise, if you're way outnumbered, you never get any good PvP because you're constantly being steamrolled. Personally I prefer this to being on the majority side though, because at least I'll have plenty of potential targets - the problem is just finding them in 1s or 2s.

Re:Here's what will happen (1)

confu2000 (245635) | more than 8 years ago | (#15265543)

This makes no sense.

Outnumbering the opponent on servers means you have to wait forever to get into PVP. Otherwise you really don't care.

So the scenario should be more like:

Alliance on Server A is overpopulated. Alliance member on Server A gets tired of being unable to enter any battleground. Alliance members on Server A leave in droves for server B where Alliance isn't overpopulated.

Of course, the problem is finding a server where alliance isn't overpopulated, but the problem doesn't reinforce itself like you suggest.

Re:Here's what will happen (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 8 years ago | (#15266547)

Granted, my experience comes from the times before Battlegrounds. For me the game lost any appeal after about 3 months, and back then the problem was as stated. In the meantime, I have to agree, it reversed.

The Battlegrounds pretty much did it for me. No offense to those who enjoy WoW (I love EVE, and there are quite a few who simply don't get what the appeal of a game that's more a business sim than an MMORPG could be), but the Battlegrounds looked like some MMORPG version of Counterstrike to me. I've seen PvP in DAoC, and personally, I liked the idea of castle raids more than "enforced" and "pointless" 8v8 matches.

I also think it would have been better if they created 3 sides instead of 2. I know, hard to pull off with the storyline of Warcraft, but I already noticed it in BT3030 (and saw it reaffirmed in DAoC) that 3 sided battles usually yield games with a better long time stability. As soon as one side gains the upper hand, the other two start hacking into the "winning" side, more or less together. Not necessarily in an arranged alliance, rather, they both see that winning side as the bigger threat than the other "losing" one and both underdogs start to hack onto the "winner".

But afaik, the planned add-on should come with a third side for the battle, or something like that. Whatever, I ramble, now mod this offtopic and let's go on. :)

Re:Here's what will happen (1)

GmAz (916505) | more than 8 years ago | (#15266387)

Another problem is how do you know if Server A, B, C, D, E, F.....is overpopulated of your faction. If you go from Server A to Server R and server R is way more overpopulated if your same faction, it was a waste.

Great, Fantastic Irony (0, Troll)

blunte (183182) | more than 8 years ago | (#15265031)

Try to go to the forums and see the post and you're met with a blank, empty forum.

Of course this is because WoW forums have had problems all day, even before the /. post. I know because I'm fairly active there.

It's unfathomable how Blizzard manages to NOT be able to support even their forums. Granted they have a good number of users of the forums, but it's a fraction of their playerbase (a fair bit of which is non-English anyway, and wouldn't be on the US forums.)

Point is, Blizzard needs, and has needed to for a long time, fire their business CIO. Whoever is the top of the chain responsible for network, server, and forum performance and stability needs to be replaced by someone with real large-scale internet-service experience.

I still offer to pay $100 for an off-the-record, name-never-to-be-published full detailing of Blizzard's network and operations systems. I'd like to know if it's simply a problem of demanding too much from too few resources, if it's ineptitude on the part of admins, or if it's full-blown poor architectural design.

Re:Great, Fantastic Irony (1)

garylian (870843) | more than 8 years ago | (#15265158)

Yeah, but this is old news. Just try to reach the forums when it is server maintenance day, and you will see that they cannot handle the number of people that are bored and want to check the forums.

So, it is no surprise that their forums are slashdot'ed.

Re:Great, Fantastic Irony (1)

blunte (183182) | more than 8 years ago | (#15265196)

Sure, I've been there on maintenance day, and that's probably the worst it ever is.

Still thought, I'm baffled that on some days it's just rotten (or Login Server Down) when there's no obvious excuse. The forums weren't working right today before /.... why not?

Re:Great, Fantastic Irony (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15265210)

and GASP its a day when HORROR a dozen realms are down for emergency repair. YA THINK THERE'S A PARALLEL?

Re:Great, Fantastic Irony (1)

blunte (183182) | more than 8 years ago | (#15265287)

I know I'm on the forums often, and they've got problems often. Sometimes there's scheduled maintenance, often there's not.

For some unknown reason, Blizzard just does a poor job much of the time. If Blizzard were in the financial industry they'd be out of business already.

I can tell by the style of your post that you too miss posting on the WoW forums. I imagine it's hard to go more than an hour or two without an outlet for your "lern2play" and "crymorenoob" comments...

Re:Great, Fantastic Irony (1)

blunte (183182) | more than 8 years ago | (#15265579)

Haha. How can my previous (parent) post be offtopic when, at least when I wrote it, the Blizzard WoW Forums were unavailable, so the post referred to by the submission was not readable?

Get real. +1 for the Blizzard fanboi who modded it offtopic. /sarcasm

Re:Great, Fantastic Irony (1)

Chris Pimlott (16212) | more than 8 years ago | (#15265648)

Wow, $100 to put your job in serious jeopardy. And still no takers?

Re:Great, Fantastic Irony (1)

JavaLord (680960) | more than 8 years ago | (#15285347)

I still offer to pay $100 for an off-the-record, name-never-to-be-published full detailing of Blizzard's network and operations systems. I'd like to know if it's simply a problem of demanding too much from too few resources, if it's ineptitude on the part of admins, or if it's full-blown poor architectural design.

It's been stated before that the ingame login server is the same as the forum login server. I think I've read before it's tied into the battlenet login servers too. I'm betting the problem is poor design from teh start, along with demanding too much from too few resources.

There will ALWAYS be someone upset (1)

Dutchmaan (442553) | more than 8 years ago | (#15265125)

You are assuming that everyone posting is of the same mindset and with the same priorities.

1)Group one wanted more server fixing
2)Group two wanted more server content

When fixing 1) group 2) posts. Seems pretty simple to me.

Ironic/sad - this is posted now (1)

oDDmON oUT (231200) | more than 8 years ago | (#15265213)

When select realms (10 or more) are experiencing intermittent outages, database corruption, and other problems starting at about 01:50 AM and expected to be resolved sometime around 20:00 PDT tonight as of the last posting.

Preemptive PR, bad timing or sychronicity? All I can say is: "Way to go Blizz!"

Re:Ironic/sad - this is posted now (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15265313)

Actually, it's 17 realms. Database scanning will conclude about 1:20 PDT, determination of what'll take to restore corrupt data will be made, with an eta of 8:00 PDT before things're back to normal.

And this just two days post regular maintenance [snigger] times.

For the anal there's no way to determine what percentage of of total realms that is, cause http://www.worldofwarcraft.com/realmstatus/ [worldofwarcraft.com] is timing out.

So, no WoW for you poor sods on the affected servers.

[Prediction: with service like this, mass defection is imminent]

grayd skool (0, Flamebait)

necro2607 (771790) | more than 8 years ago | (#15265260)

"We know that many player's are eager for this service to be implemented"

Hmmm.. "We know that many player is are eager for this service to be implemented"?

I see... it makes perfect sense.

On a more serious note, you'd think a company as "big" as Blizzard would catch such an error...

Re:grayd skool (1)

ChozSun (49528) | more than 8 years ago | (#15265306)

Atta boy. necro2607 1, big bad Blizzard 0

Whatever it takes to get you through the day. Ye gawds.

Demonizing Blizzard (4, Insightful)

nahdude812 (88157) | more than 8 years ago | (#15265540)

This'll probably cost me karma, but I feel like I need to say it anyway.

People are really willing to demonize Blizzard for things like server performance. Lots of claims about how I would just fix the code, or how I would buy more servers, or how I would do this or that.

The fact of the matter is that Blizzard is running one of the single largest scale applications in the world period. Their database requirements are way more than anyone reading Slashdot (who doesn't also work for Blizzard or Google) has ever had any experience with.

No matter how much experience you think you have, all the rules change when you cross certain thresholds, and even if you're a really good enterprise architect, unless you have a single data-drive heavily-transactional application with many millions of users, and many billions of records, you don't know what they're going through.

No matter how sinister you might think Blizzard is, they're still a for-profit company (actually, the more sinister you think Blizzard is, the more this applies). For-profit companies don't do things (like be lax about fixing their network problems) if they can help it, since they do lose customers for that sort of thing, and that obviously directly correlates to lost income.

I guarantee that there's tremendous pressure from on top to fix these issues, and if they're not fixed yet, then it's because your php website that supports 20 SIMULTANEOUS users(!!!) was a little easier to fix.

Consider things like common complaints, "Why don't they just throw more hardware at it," maybe their data centers have consumed their floor space, air conditioning capacity, or available power supply. They have 5 independant data centers in the U.S., and each data center can support up to 40 realms. That means, yes, data centers have limited capacity, and if you're full, you have no option to put another server in without begining to risk bringing the entire data center down. You can add more capacity when you physically enlarge the building, buy bigger air conditioners, and also get the power company to run bigger power lines, each of which can take many months to complete.

Not all things are easily fixed with brute force, and people's jobs are on the line here guaranteed, the guys who are in charge of this stuff are more interested in it working than you, since you can turn your computer off and go outside; they can't just ignore their jobs.

Re:Demonizing Blizzard (1)

blunte (183182) | more than 8 years ago | (#15265670)

I won't go line by line to refute your wishful thinking post.

But you should consider that there are plenty of companies who live by their network and service availability and who are running vastly larger datacenters than Blizzard is.

5.5M users (or 6 or 6.5 or whatever they're up to now) pales in comparison to what many financial institutions support every day, or what payment processing companies support, or what trading and clearing companies support.

And the size of database that Blizzard supports is a joke to what telecom companies support, for example.

The simple fact is that Blizzard is not giving their network and server operations business the proper attention or resources.

Like they say on the WoW forums "come back when you're 60"... well, "come back when you've graduated college and managed your own datacenter".

Re:Demonizing Blizzard (2)

revlayle (964221) | more than 8 years ago | (#15266305)

Luckily for the telcos and financial institutions, they only have to deal with a high deal of data transaction that do not need to be down-to-the-second mission critical. Their mode of transaction between accounts of data is much more streamlined also. Noty to mention, NONE of these data centers need to issue graphic and real-time (to-the-second for enjoyable gameplay) data assets to millions of disparately configure client setups all over the world (luckily the client is controlled by a dedicated application)

Also, do these data centers have to deal with real-time AIs to interact with all of these accounts?

I'm sure Blizzard is giving all the proper attention it can. Do not even compare a MMORPG with a telco/financial institution on levels of complexity. Except for managing constant data transfers (which all apps have to do), they don't do the same thing at all and Blizzard's system (for all we know) may be incredibly more demanding that other companies' needs.

Re:Demonizing Blizzard (4, Informative)

juuri (7678) | more than 8 years ago | (#15266454)

Do not even compare a MMORPG with a telco/financial institution on levels of complexity.

Right because if you think Blizzard's system is even remotely as complex or robust you are either totally ignorant of real financial systems or being obtuse on purpose. If there's a transaction error on a Blizzard database (and yes these do happen somewhat frequently) a person might complain via in game mail. An error with a financial transaction and laws may have been broken.

Blizzard is doing nothing special, the fact that they are having the same growing pains issues as every MMORPG simply shows their arrogance.

Re:Demonizing Blizzard (1)

rehtonAesoohC (954490) | more than 8 years ago | (#15270920)

Blizzard is doing nothing special, the fact that they are having the same growing pains issues as every MMORPG simply shows their arrogance.

You know, I don't really remember any other MMORPGs ever reaching 6+ million subscribers. But then again maybe I'm just being arrogant...

Re:Demonizing Blizzard (1)

blunte (183182) | more than 8 years ago | (#15273539)

Several non-US MMORPGs have surpassed 6M. Do some research sometime. WoW is impressive only for its growth rate, not for it's total # subscribers.

Re:Demonizing Blizzard (2, Funny)

HarvardAce (771954) | more than 8 years ago | (#15271617)

An error with a financial transaction and laws may have been broken.

Either that or you just landed on Community Chest.

Re:Demonizing Blizzard (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15268176)

oh dear you really do have no knowledge of large scale systems at all do you. Try telling the stock exchange that there processing system does not have to be real time up to the second lol. you have got to be kidding me. What blizzard do is no where near the scale or omplexitity or have anywhere near the real time processing requirements that most financial systems have. A seconds lag on the stock market can cost millions.

Re:Demonizing Blizzard (1)

revlayle (964221) | more than 8 years ago | (#15270229)

Actually I do, since I have worked as a software developer in that industry (and in other areas also) for 15 years. In the stock market, yeah I can see why you want real time. eCommerce? Bank transfers? Accounting information, etc.... none of that has to be real-time. Close to real time? Maybe. Costing millions? Maybe so, but is it any more COMPLEX? Exactness of a process and complexity are two completely different things. I'm not saying Blizzard's system is more complex.... I'm just saying you can't compare the two ultiamtely, they are different. They have their own complexities that may dwarf financial/telco system... AND vice-versa.

Re:Demonizing Blizzard (1)

Breakfast Pants (323698) | more than 8 years ago | (#15276063)

In financial systems dealing with millions of people they can typically all interact with each other. In Blizzards case, aside from the account system itself, everything is broken down into separate "servers"--these scale almost linearly. Want to add 1000 more people? Throw on another server. A thousand more? Throw on another. In systems that aren't disconnected like that it might be: add a thousand people? Throw on another server. Add another thousand? Throw on 4 more servers.

Re:Demonizing Blizzard (IHBT) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15266799)

Dude, what is the point that you were trying to make? Seriously?

That blizzard sucks?

That parent is stupid for being so short-sided?

That they hired retarded network people that aren't capable of doing jack?

That their network infrastructure was poorly designed?

In the end, you can replace "blizzard" with "your-most-frustrated-company" - and come up with a seemingly valid arguement the appears to pinpoint the exact problems and issues the company in question is dealing with. Honestly, why don't we replace Blizzard with

ATT

Sprint

Microsof

Google

Ford

Exxon

Perhaps you should go line by line to refute his wishful thinking post. Because, as far as I can tell, parent post describing the whiners out to demonize Blizzard making claims on how you could do a better job - well that seems to fit your profile down to the tee. You seem to know the answers on how to go about doing it - which would mean you already know the questions. Instead of copy pasting some generic trollbait material, why don't you post something of value?

Honestly, the only statement you seemed to have made was this:

5.5M users (or 6 or 6.5 or whatever they're up to now) pales in comparison to what many financial institutions support every day, or what payment processing companies support, or what trading and clearing companies support.

That statement says, "the major institution's dick is much bigger than blizzard's, and they seem to be able to handle the load- why can't blizzard with their tiny ass penis?" What's with the Chebacca defense? All you seem to do is mask your poor attack by by backing up some miscellaneous dick that seems to be bigger than Blizzards. That offers us nothing (other than a lot of dick waving).

Re:Demonizing Blizzard (1)

nahdude812 (88157) | more than 8 years ago | (#15269098)

There's a lot more going on on Blizzards servers than data transactions; data transactions are just a part of the pie. But even looking at the data transactions, there's also probably several orders of magnitude more transactions per user account made on a daily basis than with a financial institution. I for one don't transfer $1 into my account 300 times a day, while each time a user loots something, a transaction has to be performed. If they kill a mob with 7 silver on it, a gray item, a quest item, some runecloth, and a bit of cheese, and that mob also satisfies a quest count, right there is 6 transactions that the user expects to all happen within 1 second. It is the exception if I generate 6 financial transactions in one day at my bank. Further, many banks even go so far as to limit the number of transactions you're permitted in some interval (sometimes it's X per day, sometimes it's X per month) without being penalized.

Bank transactions are focused more on the transactional nature of their operations than they are on the timeliness of their operations. Yes, you expect bank transactions to occur relatively quickly, but if it takes 10 seconds, or 30 seconds, it is not actually that big of a deal. You expect MMO transactions to happen in half a second. Quality of Service (in the sense of response time -- lag) is way more important in an MMO.

So let's play with some conservative numbers. Let's assume that a large banking institution has 500 million accounts, and let's assume that that banking institution has very busy customers who generate an average of 5 transactions each daily. You have 2.5 billion transactions a day. Blizzard has conservatively 5 million customers. Let's assume that on average each customer kills 100 mobs a day. Let's assume that each mob drops some money, and an average of 2 items (whether it's quest, gray, green, etc). Not counting in the separate transactions that are required to update quest progress, reputation gain, or exp gain, that's 2.5 billion transactions there as well (note that each item gain is actually two transactions since there's one for acquiring the item, and one for later unacquiring it, when it's merchanted, turned in for a quest, put up for sale in the AH, or just destroyed). Then there's the reputation gains, exp gains, quest progress tracking, etc to put on top of that. 5 million MMO customers can easily generate more transactional data than 500 million bank customers.

On top of that yet, the servers in the MMO data center have to make a lot more decisions than a financial server does. They have to handle logic of character positioning, mob positioning, make decisions about mob loot tables, mob aggro radius, spell casting, etc. They also have a lot of safeguard checks in place for things like, did you finish casting your hearthstone half a second after you started casting it? Did you just move through a wall in 3d space that you shouldn't have been able to? Are you in line of sight with this mob? What path should this mob take to reach you? What path should your pet take to reach that mob? What about once you or the mob has moved?

No, Blizzard's data needs cannot so easily be shrugged off, there's a lot more going on here than that.

Re:Demonizing Blizzard (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15274165)

Then again, do financial institutions and telcos only charge $15 a month per user? I'm sure if Blizzard charged what 100% uptime was worth, they'd have it. Instead, they charge what their target audience is willing to pay.

It's not entirely Blizzard's fault that their target audience wants to pay practically nothing for continuous entertainment *and* expects it to be available 24/7. That's like complaining that airlines don't offer you meals and lemon-scented towels anymore with your cut-rate fare. Who will be the first airline to raise prices so they can bring those services back? Who will be the first MMO to raise prices so they can afford 100% uptime? I doubt in either case that the first one to raise prices emerges as the winner, regardless how shiny those services are.

Re:Demonizing Blizzard (1)

wormbin (537051) | more than 8 years ago | (#15265802)

It's really simple. If the servers aren't performing well (this is subjective but Blizzard is currently admiting this) then Blizzard should not be selling new subscriptions.

The fact that they are still charging for new subscriptions while the servers are borked is crooked. Whether they are unwilling to fix the servers, unable to fix the servers, or if nobody on the planet is able to fix the servers, is irrelevant.

Re:Demonizing Blizzard (2, Insightful)

mmalove (919245) | more than 8 years ago | (#15265925)

They actually tried that whole stop selling subscriptions until we fix the servers thing when the game first came out.

But seriously, I'm not one to tell them how to fix the problem - true, but I do know things have not gotten better in the last year, they've tumbled worse. And when it comes down to it, they don't pay me to fix their computers, or even understand them. I pay them for a service they aren't delivering. That's the most aggrevating thing a company can do. It would be different if Blizzard would own up and institute a policy of "server's down, free day for all associated accounts". Which they do do sometimes. But not all the time, it's very inconsistent.

Re:Demonizing Blizzard (1)

Nosnam (858873) | more than 8 years ago | (#15266012)

You are right, armchair administrators such as myself do have a habit of saying I would have done this different, and that different. Sometimes our suggestions might be relevant to Blizzard's situation, sometimes (as you suggest) we just don't understand what they are dealing with, and our suggestions are irrelevant.

That said, I think it is very fair for us to all claim Blizzard went into this without enough foresight, and it is their own fault they are now over their heads.

If their datacenters are operating at full capacity without any sort of elbow room for expansion - why did they let this happen? Why are they still taking new subscriptions, when they know they can't expand their datacenters? Why are they letting more people create characters on realms that already have queues over an hour long?

Sure, the people creating new characters are warned that the server is full, and they will experience a queue. This really isn't fair to the people that already have characters on this server, created months ago, because the capacity was low. There is absolutely no sort of queue priority, based on length of time the character has been registered. For those of us that purposely create characters on low-population servers, Blizzard really gives us the shaft by making us wait, once the server is over populated.

It shouldn't take me literally a minute or two just to make a simple Auction House query. Regardless of how complex the database servers are that power the AH, it simply should not take that long. It does take that long though, and even if I don't know the solution to it, it is obviously broke. Even if I can't offer a solution, do I not have a right to complain about it being broke?

I also disagree with your claim that the people running the servers have more interest in it's survival than I do. I doubt they get paid based on the server's performance. Even during the recent frequent outages, increased lag, and general un-playability, they are probably still getting paid to work on it. They are getting their end of the deal regardless. I, on the other hand, am not getting my end of the deal. I am not getting to play, even though I am not paying any less. I can turn off the computer and go outside, but that doesn't mean I am not still paying for the game. If I have to turn off the computer and go outside too much, I might just stop paying. I don't say this as a threat to Blizzard, I say it because I am sure there are plenty of other people out there that will stop paying if they don't get what they pay for.

Re:Demonizing Blizzard (2, Funny)

scdeimos (632778) | more than 8 years ago | (#15266204)

Of all the days to not have mod points!

Re:Demonizing Blizzard (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15266806)

I think it is very fair for us to all claim Blizzard went into this without enough foresight

How the hell do you forsee becoming over 10 times bigger than every other MMO out there, EVER?! And doing that in the first 12 months of operation to boot.

Re:Demonizing Blizzard (1)

Nosnam (858873) | more than 8 years ago | (#15268893)

You're right, they probably didn't have the foresight to know they would become the largest MMORPG ever, ten fold. That doesn't mean they couldn't halt distribution of new subscriptions, until they met the current demands. If they only planned on supporting (hypothetically) 5 million subscriptions, once they hit 4, they should have stopped taking new customers.

Re:Demonizing Blizzard (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15266183)

Actually, I know I could do a better job with their webservers than they did.

At one point when attempting to access my account options through their website, I got a Java stack trace. Apparently their account system is written in J2EE.

[sarcasm]Which is so well known for it's stability and scalability...[/sarcasm]

PHP probably would be a step up from using something written in Java. There are a million better technologies to use than J2EE. So, yeah, I think I could do a better job with their web servers.

Game servers? Definitely not.

Re:Demonizing Blizzard (1)

kindbud (90044) | more than 8 years ago | (#15266705)

The fact of the matter is that Blizzard is running one of the single largest scale applications in the world period.

Bullshit. The NYSE is far larger, and so is your regional ATM network. eBay is way bigger. Fortune 500 companies run datacenters with much more computing nodes.

Blizzard's main problem is that they are trying to run one of the cheapest large-scale applications ever.

No matter how much experience you think you have, all the rules change when you cross certain thresholds, and even if you're a really good enterprise architect, unless you have a single data-drive heavily-transactional application with many millions of users, and many billions of records, you don't know what they're going through.

I do. They're cheaping out. That's the basic problem. The service should cost over $50/person/month if it were to deliver the performance customers expect. Blizzard has 85% uptime because that's what they budgeted for. :shrug:

Re:Demonizing Blizzard (1)

Incoherent07 (695470) | more than 8 years ago | (#15268827)

I hope you're not comparing the architecture of a MMOG like WoW to a web-based system. I really do. There's a world of difference between those two things.

Re:Demonizing Blizzard (1)

kindbud (90044) | more than 8 years ago | (#15269990)

Oh? Do tell. Do tell. I have worked on large multiplayer game systems and large transactional web systems, so I am as qualified as anyone to discuss this.

Tell me, what's the biggest difference between a MMOG architechture and a transactional web architecture?

Re:Demonizing Blizzard (1)

Surt (22457) | more than 8 years ago | (#15267238)

I posted a similar comment to a previous article, no one listens.

And actually, not even google has experience running an application as scaled as WOW, their frontend is so trivial there really is no comparison.

Re:Demonizing Blizzard (1)

MMaestro (585010) | more than 8 years ago | (#15267941)

not even google has experience running an application as scaled as WOW

WOW! Way to make yourself look completely computer ignorant! Google searches trillions of websites simultaneously to millions of users almost hourly. The 5~6 million user base World of Warcraft caters to is water vapor compared to the number of users Google (and GMail and Google Earth and Google Groups and Google News and Froogle to say the least) serves.

And if you want to see a computer system that with enough processing power to make any computer geek cream his pants, just imagine how many supercomputers, PCs, business servers, server farms and specialized computers are connected to the New York Stock Exchange at any given time.

Re:Demonizing Blizzard (4, Interesting)

Surt (22457) | more than 8 years ago | (#15268164)

You have to think about what those processes are doing. Is google's search time sensitive to the ms range? Does the NYSE have to be more accurate than the nearest second? You do understand that google doesn't actually search the live data of the web when you make a search at google.com, right? You response indicates a grave misunderstanding of the difference between the way a company like google serves a precomputed search response vs WOW computing and serving a complex simulation in ms time sensitive real time.

Re:Demonizing Blizzard (1)

xenocide2 (231786) | more than 8 years ago | (#15268669)

I donno about NYSE, but Nasdaq is shooting for guarenteed transaction times in under 100 ms. Guarenteed, not "as long as you're not idling in ironforge / trading in Treasury Bonds." And they don't have the luxury of dividing the accounts up into trading groups / Realms. Yes, WoW is larger than your average video game system, more complex, and provides a high degree of interaction. But it's really not so far beyond everything else that they appear as ants. Moreover, many of the actors in the system are incredibly simple rules based automata, easily scalable or transferrable to a seperate process / computer.

Your response indicates a grave miscommunication of the difference between the way financial transaction systems operate and the amount of actual work done by a video game server.

Re:Demonizing Blizzard (1)

Surt (22457) | more than 8 years ago | (#15270267)

Well, I'm probably one of a few people who has worked on both types of systems, and I can tell you, they are quite different. The financial systems are easier to parallelize, and far more tolerant of delay. A 100ms response time for a transaction is something nasdaq may be shooting for, but would be completely unacceptable to WOW players as horiffically laggy (and would have them complaining nonstop). A max of 33ms, and shooting for 10ms reigns in video game work. That's an order of magnitude difference in the target performance, and if you don't believe an order of magnitude makes a difference in how you build things ... well I wouldn't know what to tell you. None of which even talks about keeping sets of simulations in sync across a significant number of servers, which doesn't have to be done by either google or nasdaq (assuming their design is reasonably sane).

Re:Demonizing Blizzard (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15270718)

Dude, what are you smoking? Lag is EVERYTHING in financial systems. Not only that but each transaction involves significant amounts of cash. Then there is DOJ and SEC oversight. I doubt very much that Blizzard has to provide the government audit logs of every transaction on demand.

Re:Demonizing Blizzard (1)

MMaestro (585010) | more than 8 years ago | (#15274670)

s google's search time sensitive to the ms range? Does the NYSE have to be more accurate than the nearest second?

Yes and Holy mother of God, hell yes. Speed is everything in the information age, ESPECIALLY when it comes to the NYSE. If the NYSE went down for just 1 hour, whoever screwed up would be blacklisted from working every single corporation even the world for the rest of their lives. Thats how damned important server stability can necessary.

You response indicates a grave misunderstanding of the difference between the way a company like google serves a precomputed search response vs WOW computing and serving a complex simulation in ms time sensitive real time.

Do you even play WoW? Over 90% of the NPCs run on basic "walk X path and go into attack mode if you see PCs (player characters)". What 'complex simulation' are you talking about? The servers CRASH when there are several hundred players in the same general area at the same time. (See : the near constant server crashes on Dark Iron caused by the Penny-Arcade VS PvP Online fighting and the HORRIBLY executed Ahn'Qiraj gate openings which resulted in constant server crashes for several hours for EACH server.) For crying out loud, they can't even get the servers back up at the time they claim updates will be finished. Granted they can make a good game, but holy fuck if they were running anything important and I was their manager, I'd fire them for incompetence.

Re:Demonizing Blizzard (1)

nahdude812 (88157) | more than 8 years ago | (#15269030)

Google's searches are non-transactional, and their data collection is neither transactional nor time sensitive, meaning if it takes 4 hours to index a website, no big deal. Basically every action that happens in an MMO is both transactional and time-sensitive.

It's a very different type of data C.R.U.D. operations which allow you to focus on making the R. aspect insanely efficient while the others can complete whenever they complete. Also, even the R. aspect is not accuracy sensitive, if two people from different IP's do the same search, they'll usually get a widely different set of results after the first page or two.

Blizzard deserves the demonization they get... (1)

MI_Siberian (937272) | more than 8 years ago | (#15269360)

There have been other games at the complexity of WOW. Yes WOW has the largest userbase but to claim that makes it an order of complexity higher then other MMORPGs is silly. The ex-Blizzard guys who left to from ArenaNET clearly took with them much of the talent that got Blizzard were it is today. Guild Wars runs a single server for the well over 1 million users they have. (I say users since they support this w/o resorting to subscription fees ;P ). On top of supporting those counts and players from all over the world on a single server they also manage to do so while streaming game content to players and patching the game while the servers are running with zero downtime. No 2 hour maintance windows, no big fiasco of 12-15 hours down due to patches. Nope, you get a little message in chat 'A new build of Guild Wars is availiable. Please log off and update.' You don't even have to logout and update, you can keep playing normally without issue. Compare that to WOW which seems to be barely able to patch without 12 hours of downtime.

Re:Blizzard deserves the demonization they get... (1)

nahdude812 (88157) | more than 8 years ago | (#15270043)

Guild Wars uses a totally different model. They instance everything everywhere. That means that when one zone is performing badly, they can just put more hardware in place to handle that zone. Non-instanced you can't do that. Only one physical box can handle Ironforge, you can't just magically put more computers together to make it run better.

Re:Blizzard deserves the demonization they get... (1)

SScorpio (595836) | more than 8 years ago | (#15270302)

Actually I read an interview with the creators at Arenanet and there is a very large number of servers. They have servers spread throughout the world (US, Europe, Korea, Singapore, Japan, and Australia) connected to the backbone. The game will automatically check was server has the lowest latency for all players in a group and will transfer them to that location.

With Guild Wars there is only a single point of login with some central place to hold player data. They do not seem to have the problems that WoW is having with simply trying to authenicate.

Overall Guild Wars has a good design that more MMOs will likely be moving to. City of Heros, Everquest 2, and WoW to an extent. This allows for a large player base without the issues of one server being full and the others empty which is an nice change. The only real issue is the shortage of player names since you can't have 50 Leroy Jinkins spread across 50 servers.

Re:Demonizing Blizzard (1)

Intrinsic (74189) | more than 8 years ago | (#15272846)

No matter how sinister you might think Blizzard is, they're still a for-profit company (actually, the more sinister you think Blizzard is, the more this applies). For-profit companies don't do things (like be lax about fixing their network problems) if they can help it, since they do lose customers for that sort of thing, and that obviously directly correlates to lost income.

I understand where you are coming from, but it seems to me that they should be keeping everyone in the loop as to what going on. I know I have allot of respect for a company when they keep me informed of exactley what is going wrong and what they are doing to address it.

To leave your customers in the dark all of the time just breeds frustration and anger. I dont really think they are handling damage control very well, IMHO.

Re:Demonizing Blizzard (1)

DarkFencer (260473) | more than 8 years ago | (#15278773)

The one thing that Blizzard does that I have not heard of being done (at least on this scale) is the database clustering. This is much of the problem. You have 16 or so realms sharing the same database clusters. So one or two of those servers goes down (as happened this week) and you need to keep all of the cluster down to work on them.

I know their datacenters are limited in space but you cannot tell me that in a year and a half, they could not:

  - increase the amount of data centers
  - reduce significantly the number of servers per database cluster

They DO have a larger customer base but their costs are (per customer) considerably less due to spreading fixed costs out to more customers.

Re:Demonizing Blizzard (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15279017)

For-profit companies don't do things (like be lax about fixing their network problems) if they can help it, since they do lose customers for that sort of thing, and that obviously directly correlates to lost income

So your contention is that for-profit companies don't have poor customer service? BAHAHAHAHAHA

Cell phone companies get away with this because all the cell phone companies suck, so there's essentially no competition. Blizzard gets away with it because their game is 1) addictive, 2) only provided by them, and 3) unlike a phone company, if you switch to a different MMO you have to start all over.

Companies will skimp on expenses like customer service to the degree that they can get away with it. Just as an extreme example, if WoW's servers are down half the time but nobody cancels, there is no incentive to fix it because income stays the same while the bandwidth bill just dropped 50%.

This is a bit similar to how gym memberships work: they want to sell to fat-asses who never come through the door because then it's all profit and no expense. I'm sure there is some crossover point where a little downtime actually MAKES money because of overhead savings outweighing the very few people who will quit over slight amounts of downtime.

Player's and players (3, Funny)

Radiant_Zer0 (972885) | more than 8 years ago | (#15266448)

"This means that player's will now be able to..."
  "We know that many player's are eager for this..."

  I note a common error here, and offer the following. It is intended to be a polite, adult comment, not offered as an insult or to denigrate anyone's intelligence.

  "'s", as in "Bob's" or "player's" is used in reference to something belonging to or about Bob, or a single player. As it appears in the post, players should not have an apostrophe. Without a ', it then refers to multiple players, generic players, not 'a' player, but |some, all, many, the| players.

  This is a remarkably common error, and your writing stands a greater chance for being taken seriously if you try to avoid this sort of thing. Some grammar/spelling/usage mistakes are much more easily overlooked, but things like the misplaced ' as above are SO common they become worthy of polite comment. The writer is submitting in a professional capacity, representing a company, and seeks to have his comments taken seriously. That's more likely to happen if he avoids most of the more basic mistakes, such as that one.

  Again, I intend this as a polite, reasonable observation, with honest intent to help someone, not to cause ill-will. I apologize to anyone that feels offended, and ask that you re-read the above, while considering me smiling as I write it. Rather than feel offended, I'd rather you read the above and come away feeling empowered with new information.

Re:Player's and players (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15268297)

I am not offended but I would just like to point out a few things.
English is a changing laungage, we incorperate new words, change the meaning of old ones and, yes we even use different grammer and writing styles in english. If you were to go back two hundred years I am fairly certain you would have as hard time understanding english of the time, spoken or writen as they would trying to understand you. Consider the next time you go to point out a missing apostaphie or miss used word, wether the person managed to get their message across.

This message is encoded into simple english and intentionaly contains many spelling and grammer errors. If you have the urge to post corrections apon reading said message please refrain from posting untill your head explodes!

Correction: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15268808)

please refrain from posting untill your head explodes!

It's spelt "asplodes"

Blizzard and WoW (1)

petrus4 (213815) | more than 8 years ago | (#15267374)

I've just started playing WoW a week ago, and my main character reached level 14 this morning. (Male forsaken mage) It is an amazing game...by far the most mature MMORPG I've seen. Virtually none of what I considered flaws in Ultima Online in present here.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and state as I have before that I do not consider Blizzard the evil company that many seem to make them out to be. Yes, they're strict, and yes, they come across as somewhat paranoid with regards to the rules, but given what I remember of the PKs in UO and the Diablo hackers on Battlenet, I believe that Blizzard have reason to feel threatened. The average teenage PK you'll encounter on an MMORPG can without exaggeration be described as completely sociopathic.

The other element of my perspective (and I realise that this one isn't going to go over well with those Slashdot readers who prefer to use Richard Stallman's brain in leiu of their own) is that Blizzard runs the service, and as such, they're completely entitled to set house rules. The user, as always, is likewise entitled to decide whether or not s/he finds said rules agreeable and thus hand over their money.

I also considered (and still consider) Blizzard to have been entirely within their rights to squelch bnetd. I also tend to strongly suspect that that particular project would have been started (and run) by the same type of reflexive Stallmanite fanatics as Andrew Tridgell. Namely people who find the concept of software ownership difficult to tolerate.

I'm also not interested in hearing about how the bnetd coders were contributing to Stallman's divinely sanctioned crusade to save the rest of humanity from the evil corporations. Yes, I do also hold the belief that *some* of said corporations are evil, but I'm definitely not waiting for the FSF attack bots to save me from them...primarily because I believe that the FSF itself has its' own agenda which (in some respects at least) is arguably just as unwholesome as that of said corporations. Stallman isn't any less authoritarian, or any more morally desirable, than anyone else in my opinion.

Re:Blizzard and WoW (1)

ezzzD55J (697465) | more than 8 years ago | (#15267724)

Namely people who find the concept of software ownership difficult to tolerate.

Please, enlighten me. Which software ownership was violated?

Re:Blizzard and WoW (1)

petrus4 (213815) | more than 8 years ago | (#15268955)

I'm guessing that your perspective is that it was the ownership of people who'd bought copies of Diablo/Diablo 2.

My own perspective about bnetd though is that Blizzard (and anyone who develops an application or protocol, for that matter) has the right to decide whether to open the source of said application or document the workings of the protocol, or not.

I'm not going to disagree with anyone who says that FOSS is a good thing. It's beneficial in a lot of different ways. What I do have problems with on the other hand is a philosophy which says that people must release everything they produce as FOSS, and that they don't have any right to decide otherwise. It IMHO should be a choice.

One-shot case study, eh? (1)

Moraelin (679338) | more than 8 years ago | (#15268976)

There was a joke that went something like this: "One-shot case study: a study made on a single test subject, from which it is concluded that all clovers have four leaves."

Point in case: yeah, so your new character created on an empty server still has no problems. Whop-de-freakin'-do. Big surprise that. Mine had no problems after a week either.

Skip forward a month or two, and the server was already full to the brim. Yay for 30 minutes waiting in a queue. Well, ok, that still worked. Then it was occasionally 1 or 2 hours waiting in a fucking queue. Let me tell you, that had started to suck heap plenty, as my tribal shaman would say. And then some more.

Seeing that other new realms were still empty, didn't help the morale either. Sure, lemme move there, then. Nope, sorry, Blizzard didn't consider my server full enough yet to allow a transfer.

Skip some time forward and some RL friends join WoW too. They can't create their characters on the server I was on, because it's full. (And honestly, with the unholy time spent in the queue, I wouldn't have advised them to start there.) So they start somewhere else. And Blizzard _still_ doesn't allow me to copy my existing character there.

Apparently the server is still not full enough, their page would have me believe, as I play Solitaire and with Thottbot's talent planner, to pass the time while I wait in the queue.

OK, wth, then I'll kiss my existing characters and guild goodbye and start new ones on that server. Skip two months forward and it's full too. Watch me wait 30 minutes in a queue again.

Yes, it's a good game and all, but queues and stability issues _aren't_ fun. They're at best an annoying price we have to pay to get to the actual game. It does say something that people are willing to pay that price, but annoying it still is.

So generalizing that because your one-week-old character is still ok, then surely everyone else is just evil and demonizing Blizzard... heh. Get a clue. It's like saying that since a one-week old ballpoint pen still has ink, surely noone else ever ran out of ink for theirs. Surely all those "refills" are just a myth created by evil people demonizing the pen manufacturers.

As for the utterly irrelevant and incoherent rest of your rant... heh. I'm not even going to be polite about it. I don't know what kind of a psychiatric condition (ADHD maybe?) would cause one to run amok through irrelevant rants about UO PKers and all the way to rants about Stallman when starting at server stability. Unable to just follow a simple train of thought, or just desperate for straw men?

Trust me, virtually noone on WoW gives a shit about bnetd or Stallman, nor whether corporations are good and evil, and I certainly don't. Maybe those in the Linux section of /. care about that kinda ideologic crusades, but the vast majority of WoW players couldn't care less. We just care about playing the fucking game, that's all. Anything that lets me play the game is good, anything that keeps me tied (like a medieval serf) to a realm where queues run amok, isn't good. That's all.

Or to put it otherwise, if, in your own words, you don't want to hear about bnetd coders and Stallman's crusades, then don't be the one starting about them. It's that simple, really.

So in a nutshell, that's the best straw-man you can pull to justify your "it's just evil people demonizing Blizzard!!!" troll rant, you're not even funny. You're preaching to the wrong group. If you're going to use a straw man, at least please do your research and pull a fitting one.

Re:One-shot case study, eh? (1)

petrus4 (213815) | more than 8 years ago | (#15290117)

>Point in case: yeah, so your new character created on an empty
>server still has no problems. Whop-de-freakin'-do. Big surprise
>that. Mine had no problems after a week either.

What I meant was primarily that none of the *gameplay* issues which I saw with UO are present in WoW. Yes, I've experienced a queue on my resident server now, (Jubei'Thos) and yes, I've also now experienced the joy of Tuesday night. One other problem which I'll admit having is that on my server at least, Alliance players apparently outnumber Horde by at least five or so to one. Is this last issue common to other servers as well?

Thoughts (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15272464)

Ok I have been a long time reader of Slashdot... but I am seriously thinking the slogan should change to something like "News for us. Stuff that matters to us." Because everything that is WoW hits the game articles. A brand new game is released but does not get mentioned because it has a similar fan base. I have heard the 6 million users of WoW ya I am sure there are that many active players... well waiting players from what I have read. But there are over 1 million GuildWars players in North America and Europe, this does not include Korea, China and Japan. This was the last reported account. I guess Slashdot does not feel any of them might want to visit here. ArenaNet released GuildWars Factions a few days ago. But search for WoW you will see quite a few about anything that Blizzard does even coughing to loudly will get posted. What is up with biased filtering just because you love a game obviously to much. Are you just getting kick backs to filter out? Makes you wonder who is paying for your WOW accounts.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...