Skip to Content
6-20-2009 @ 12:04PM
6-20-2009 @ 1:17PM
that was my first instinct, too.then i wondered about my server, and maybe it's just the moderately small population, but i don't know if there tend to be many more than 100 people per side in there to begin with. i'll have to see it in implementation before i totally trash the idea, but it doesn't sound too hopeful...
6-20-2009 @ 12:25PM
omg rejoice!wg is so broken as is. its not fun to run in and try to cast something, wait 5 seconds, then be dead and see o ya there were 10 people shooting me... get my drift? ie, lag was murdering wg.sorry this change is NOT "laaaaaame" this is freaking perfect! 200 people is a hella lot, you won't notice the difference in fun i promise, except for the fact that you'll be able to actually function now. yaaay!
6-20-2009 @ 12:38PM
Second the LAME!What's this going to do to raids that form up beforehand? Its common place on my server for 1-3 full raids preforming and prepping for battle. Does this mean a bunch of people from each raid will be denied access? If so I guess we can chance to form up right after the battle begins inside WG.
6-20-2009 @ 12:37PM
100 people per side is plenty. Horde on my server can barely muster 40, sometimes we get half of a second raid going (those are the good battles). I think that we'll mostly love it, as the Allies on out server frequently have more than 100 on their side, so it should even things out and make you rely on tenacity less if you are on the underpowered side of a WG match.
6-20-2009 @ 1:52PM
Yep, I agree, this is stupid. What it essentially does is change WG from an open world PvP zone to just another battleground. It would really be nice if Activision could just get their crap together and make it work. It seems making this game work properly seems to pose too difficult a problem for Blizzard to resolve ever since Activision came on board.
6-20-2009 @ 2:07PM
Posi: OK well, the day you have CCNA's and understand how hundreds/thousands of connections to one server can cause extreme lag, then you can tell Blizzard how to "resolve" things. It's not like they are missing the magic programming button that fixes all lag and solves all their problems.
6-20-2009 @ 4:27PM
6-20-2009 @ 6:48PM
Posi:"Activision" (Blizzard, really, since Activision has no direct hand in the running or making of WoW) CAN'T just get their crap together. They've been trying for over six months now to get WG running smoothly and it just isn't possible in a completely open manner. Computer power doesn't always scale linearly with the amount of processors you throw at a problem, and even if it does, it makes no sense from any viewpoint to have perhaps dozens of expensive CPUs per realm that only ever gets used for fifteen minutes every two hours, yet still are chugging electricity constantly and belching out heat regardless of if they're needed or not.This is one of the best friggin changes they made to the game. If only they'd change the weekly quests back to dailies now so I could earn some easy golds just by winning a battle once a day like I used to...
6-20-2009 @ 7:22PM
Sorry bub... I work in the industry and it comes down to poor and fragmented code from doing so many halfass patches to the game over years of development and the utter disregard to attempt repair of this code because they figure the same addicts will stick around if they promise new content. Therefore all the R&D budget goes to this rather than fixing what's already broke. I gotta love all you bleeding hearts that defend poor maintenance of the game by sayin....ooooh, give them a break, it's really hard. Yeah, deal with it, It's hard to make a game that gross's 234 million dollars anually.
6-21-2009 @ 2:23AM
@wowzowie & kompressah -Yes, it will fix the lag to a small degree. But how will you get to experience this since you'll have a reduced chance to actually get into WG? On my server, there are around 400 alliance per WG during peak times. That now means 3 out of 4 of those players are now gonig to be cursing blizzard for the fact they can't get into WG now. In fact, playing on my server, you've got a greater chance of NOT getting into WG, than getting in. "QQ moar - WG @ 3am" is not a solution for everyone.
6-21-2009 @ 2:58AM
so basically this will turn into a lottery system. great idea. i absolutely love the idea of being denied entry into a WG battle because i rolled a lower number than 100 other people 12 out of 12 times each day.better yet. why don't we just have everyone that logs into 3.2 generate a random number that states wether or not they will be able to do anything at all in the game in order to reduce lag. roll lower than a 30? sorry all of your toons are frozen in place until blizzard uses some of the cash that they wipe their backsides with.. to upgrade the freaking servers.
6-22-2009 @ 8:13AM
Or, Posi, it -could- be that there is -so- much server-side processing necessary to calculate spell effects, message notifications, temporary buffs and debuffs, AoE details, etc., raid-wide (instead of just group-wide) and in large areas that it just takes a lot more processing power than is economically possible for such a limited period of time.Maybe, since threads are expensive (compared to non-threaded code), they group a few connections per thread, and the latency for one person affects the rest of the people in that group. I've never written a communications module for anything remotely similar, so I have no idea what tricks they have to use to pull something like this off on a scale this massive.Or, maybe they actually could spend a lot of time and redesign the entire message parsing and combat engines for the game to make it more streamlined for a 20-minute battle every 2.5 hours. Who needs 3.2 or Icecrown when you can have battles 1000 vs 20!None of us know what is going on with the server-side processing, or whether the code is ugly or beautiful, so none of us can really speculate whether they could have done something different. We can only whine that they didn't do what -we- wanted.Life goes on.
First time? A confirmation email will be sent to you after submitting.
Members enter your username and password.
Enter your AOL or AIM screenname and password.
Please keep your comments relevant to this blog entry. Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments.
When you enter your name and email address, you'll be sent a link to confirm your comment, and a password. To leave another comment, just use that password.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.