Skip to Content
7-19-2011 @ 1:21PM
I don't know much about servers, but if emote spamming can bring down a server, can we expect them put on their own gcd? =P
7-19-2011 @ 1:29PM
The problem isn't spamming, the problem is every single action or emote performed by one of those 5000 players in one area has to be communicated to the other 4999 players around him... so load grows quadratically and the server blows up.
7-19-2011 @ 1:51PM
Does Blizzard not make enough money to afford enough servers to allow many times that number of folks to do the emote thing? If so, why do they not have them? If not, then why not? What do they do with the x times 11 million per month cash dollars they make from us subscribers? Does Bobby Kotick go swimming in an olympic size pool filled with fifty dollar bills?
7-19-2011 @ 2:13PM
@ThomasBlizzard is still limited by current available technology. It's not like they can go out and buy CPUs with infinite power for their servers.
7-19-2011 @ 2:15PM
@Thomas HigginsBlizzard (or any company for that matter) is not going to spend a whole bunch of money to increase their hardware footprint in order to withstand an event that happens with an alarmingly small occurance rate.To make a car analogy - You're not going to build a car out of pure tungsten, carbon fibre, and diamonds b/c it's not cost effective. Yes, there will be situations where those materials will save the car, but the amount of money it costs to prepare for those edge cases is enough to destroy your business model.
7-19-2011 @ 2:27PM
@Thomas Higgins:Alice is next to Bob. She /waves. That /wave goes to the server and is then sent back to Bob.Now Charlie walks over, and he waves. That /wave goes out to the server, and is then sent back to Bob and Alice.Bob, not wanting to be a jerk, /waves back to Alice, who is also /waving at Charlie. Both /waves go to the server. Alice and Charlie are sent Bobs /wave, while Charlie and Bob are sent Alices /wave.In this simple scenario, there are only three people who sent a total of 4 emotes to the server. The server had to process and send back 7 emotes.Now let's scale that up. Let's get 5000 people emoting in the same area. The server receives 5000 emotes, but has to send back 4999 emotes to each one of them. That is TWENTY FIVE MILLION messages to deal with. Good luck finding a server cluster that can handle that kind of load at peak hours. You would have a higher chance of being struck by lightning on a sunny day.** I do not have the statistics to back this statement up. It's called hyperbole.
7-19-2011 @ 4:14PM
> Blizzard is still limited by current available technology. It's not like they can go out and buy CPUs with infinite power for their servers.True. Even more true is that they are limited by how they have coded the world. We on the outside have little information on the actual architecture comprising a "server". Speculation is difficult.EVE Online, on the other hand, is fairly open about their ability and desire to aid localized player density, eg battles between hundreds of ships. You can ask for CCP to allocate additional computing power to specific systems, and they can make it happen.Whether Blizzard has ANY ability in that regard is uncertain. I've never seen them advertise any ability in that direction.
7-19-2011 @ 5:23PM
"Oh Pashmina! I love you so!""Pwnmehard, I love you too!"/HUGYou can't do that right now/cryYou can't do that right now/cluck?
7-19-2011 @ 7:49PM
@Avan That's also million messages if ONE emote is said per player. When roughly 30,000 emotes are said by all of those players the message count is just huge. This was also during peak time so the server would've already been working at a slower than optimal speed. All of those people spamming emotes like idiots as well as the normal server load added on to it makes me wonder how the server stayed up long enough for anyone to get anywhere near 30,000 emotes said.
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.