quote:
Jania Arindelil said this about your mom:
Why? Because they know how to handle the load using less.
Wrong.
Delphi Aegis fucked around with this message on 12-03-2004 at 02:59 AM.
quote:
Delphi Aegis's fortune cookie read:
Hay Parce, where's a barrens equivalent alliance land? In other words, where is a place that's very common for level 15-20s to hang out on the alliance side, and how do I get there? I'd like to harass (not gank, just give a lot of "xxx is under attack!" messages) the opposition.
Westfall/Loch Modan/Darkshore
quote:
Mr. Parcelan thought this was the Ricky Martin Fan Club Forum and wrote:
Westfall/Loch Modan/Darkshore
And how do I get there? D: I've been to westfall before.. we actually went to Grom'Gol and swam up the coast, only to be utterly overwhelmed (nobody saw us, but about 40 people showed up instantly to our 10).. so, er..
quote:
Delphi Aegis had this to say about Reading Rainbow:
And how do I get there? D: I've been to westfall before.. we actually went to Grom'Gol and swam up the coast, only to be utterly overwhelmed (nobody saw us, but about 40 people showed up instantly to our 10).. so, er..
-_-
Loch Modan is right next to Dun Morogh.
Darkshore is right next to Teldrassil.
quote:http://www.kaldorei.com/worldmap/
Nobody really understood why Delphi Aegis wrote:
And how do I get there? D: I've been to westfall before.. we actually went to Grom'Gol and swam up the coast, only to be utterly overwhelmed (nobody saw us, but about 40 people showed up instantly to our 10).. so, er..
(please note, spelling may by off)
quote:
Trent's unholy Backstreet Boys obsession manifested in:
Stormwind - Ironforge - Dun Morogh - Loch Modan - Wetlands - Menethil Harbor - boat to Auberdine.(please note, spelling may by off)
Fixed for you, Trentypoo.
quote:
Mr. Parcelan stopped beating up furries long enough to write:
Wrong.
Explain why they need 80 servers then. Don't just post "Wrong" after something. Use that melon on your head and back up your argument.
Lyinar Ka`Bael, Piney Fresh Druidess - Luclin
quote:
This one time, at Lyinar Ka`Bael camp:
Explain why they need 80 servers then. Don't just post "Wrong" after something. Use that melon on your head and back up your argument.
Watch the personal attacks.
I thought it was pretty obvious. EQ2 doesn't need 80 servers because nobody wants to play it.
quote:
Blackened had this to say about dark elf butts:
http://www.kaldorei.com/worldmap/
Really slow or broken.
quote:
Mr. Parcelan obviously shouldn't have said:
Watch the personal attacks.I thought it was pretty obvious. EQ2 doesn't need 80 servers because nobody wants to play it.
There was nothing personal about the comment she made...dickhead.
quote:
Delidgamond had this to say about the Spice Girls:
There was nothing personal about the comment she made...dickhead.
Watch the personal attacks.
quote:
Lyinar Ka`Bael thought about the meaning of life:
Explain why they need 80 servers then. Don't just post "Wrong" after something. Use that melon on your head and back up your argument.
80 servers because they dont want 150 people in every newbie zone and other people that cant get it.
As of now, I've been boot'd from game once, and I got back in immediatly(van cleef reset while my group was fighting, but OK)
I still dont get why we even need a WoW vs. EQ2 thread, its not like drysart or addy or anyone else is going to go "O M G I MUST PLAY WOW IT IS AMBROSIA!@#$!"
quote:
Mr. Parcelan had this to say about pies:
Watch the personal attacks.I thought it was pretty obvious. EQ2 doesn't need 80 servers because nobody wants to play it.
Wrong.
WoW's sales and customers so violently outdo EQ2's that they need more servers. It's not that hard to figure out.
quote:
Verily, Mr. Parcelan doth proclaim:
Watch the personal attacks.I thought it was pretty obvious. EQ2 doesn't need 80 servers because nobody wants to play it.
I wasn't talking about EQ2. The question was on Sony and Blizzard's past experience in the intricacies involved in networking for that amount of people and maintaining a lag-free environment. EQ has never had nearly that many servers, not even close, and they maintain the same playerbase that WoW is boasting. Even when there are 150 players in a laggy zone like PoK in EQ, the zone doesn't lag on a system that meets the requirements for the game, and that's the one known as "The Plane of Lag" to many.
Needing 80 servers shows a flaw in your handling of the playerbase, plain and simple. EQ has shown that you don't need that number, so for Blizzard to require that many shows a lack of experience and preparation in that particular area in comparison to SoE. Thusly, SoE comes out ahead on that point.
It's not really indicative of anything but the fact Blizzard didn't know entirely what to expect, whereas SoE was ahead of the game there because they had been there, done it, and had the T-shirt.
Lyinar Ka`Bael, Piney Fresh Druidess - Luclin
Eh.
quote:
At least I'm not Blindy.
You know, if you judged things as good based off simple popularity, Gore was a better president than Bush, and chevrolets are like 40,000 times better than ferraris.
A) Try not to turn this into a politics thread.
B) In a purely commercial setting, popularity is a good way to see what's good.
quote:
Elvish Crack Piper thought this was the Ricky Martin Fan Club Forum and wrote:
I still dont get why we even need a WoW vs. EQ2 thread, its not like drysart or addy or anyone else is going to go "O M G I MUST PLAY WOW IT IS AMBROSIA!@#$!"
Because MMOs are built around bitching, and since neither WoW or EQ2 has really progressed far enough yet to merit valid bitching about class balance and the like, everyone falls back on easier to access bitching topics 
EQ2 players and WoW players are vastly different things
quote:
Mr. Parcelan had this to say about Captain Planet:B) In a purely commercial setting, popularity is a good way to see what's good.
Yeah, right. Popularity has little to do with what is good and a lot to do with what is trendy at the moment. Think about music. Plenty of "artists" have proven that they don't have to be good to sell a huge number of CDs.
My guild is raiding you guys tomorro, so be in barrens so we can kill you people :-p. We are going to kill all your shop keepers, then run away from the guards.
quote:
Mr. Parcelan Model 2000 was programmed to say:
B) In a purely commercial setting, popularity is a good way to see what's good.
Sustained popularity, maybe. A lot of people may have initially bought product X because of hype and then realized it was crap. If a lot of people stick with it (which they likely will) then perhaps that is indicative to its quality.
quote:
Lyinar Ka`Bael had this to say about Pirotess:
I wasn't talking about EQ2. The question was on Sony and Blizzard's past experience in the intricacies involved in networking for that amount of people and maintaining a lag-free environment. EQ has never had nearly that many servers, not even close, and they maintain the same playerbase that WoW is boasting. Even when there are 150 players in a laggy zone like PoK in EQ, the zone doesn't lag on a system that meets the requirements for the game, and that's the one known as "The Plane of Lag" to many.Needing 80 servers shows a flaw in your handling of the playerbase, plain and simple. EQ has shown that you don't need that number, so for Blizzard to require that many shows a lack of experience and preparation in that particular area in comparison to SoE. Thusly, SoE comes out ahead on that point.
It's not really indicative of anything but the fact Blizzard didn't know entirely what to expect, whereas SoE was ahead of the game there because they had been there, done it, and had the T-shirt.
EQ's highest online playerbase was a bit over 100k back in 2002 when they introduced the bazar. I don't think it was ever higher than that. WoW already beat those numbers. It states that in the article from my first post. The reason why EQ acheived that 100k mark with less servers is because EQ's servers were already fully populated(there is no instaced newb zones in eq). . There is no instanced newbie zones in WoW the only instanced zones in WoW are true instanced zones where you don't load any zone until you go to your instanced zone. In EQ2 they solved that problem with "instancing" major zones. Now because WoW's servers are so revolutionary they must introduce server populations by a number of migrations, much like in real life. So that is the reason for so many servers now, The number of servers will go down from 83 but they still will have and overall playerbase that will require more than the original 40 servers.
If SOE could do it they would have seamless servers but they cant so they stick to the old way and work with that. Im no computer major but i figure AT&T's servers must be able to handle so much more if they can handle so many people in virtualy one huge zone.
EQ's servers(i maen eq and eq2) are split up into many zones. Those zones can only handle the 150 or 200 mark. Think of it if Sony could do it they would make bigger zones. I know i may be hard to follow but i just came back from a hard days work in UPS, sorting crap(and yes there was much more WoW being shipped than EQ2 from what i noticed confirming those articles. They all go to small sort so i can take a look at them.
Also, zones may be a big part of it. When you zone in EQ1 or EQ2, isn't there the possibility that you are moving to one of the many computers that make up your "server"? With WoW, there are next to no zonelines, so I'd think that the data for characters and such are being forced onto a smaller amount of computers rather than what EQ has.
I guess what I'm trying to get at is that WoW LOOKS like it has more servers, when actually EQ has more computers in the back ground making the whole game run more smoothly.
(Note: I've never run a server before, and I don't know what EQ, EQ2, or WoW's servers look like. This is just a guess from very minor understanding.)
quote:
Waporiza enlisted the help of an infinite number of monkeys to write:
EQ's highest online playerbase was a bit over 100k back in 2002 when they introduced the bazar. I don't think it was ever higher than that. WoW already beat those numbers. It states that in the article from my first post. The reason why EQ acheived that 100k mark with less servers is because EQ's servers were already fully populated(there is no instaced newb zones in eq). . There is no instanced newbie zones in WoW the only instanced zones in WoW are true instanced zones where you don't load any zone until you go to your instanced zone. In EQ2 they solved that problem with "instancing" major zones. Now because WoW's servers are so revolutionary they must introduce server populations by a number of migrations, much like in real life. So that is the reason for so many servers now, The number of servers will go down from 83 but they still will have and overall playerbase that will require more than the original 40 servers.If SOE could do it they would have seamless servers but they cant so they stick to the old way and work with that. Im no computer major but i figure AT&T's servers must be able to handle so much more if they can handle so many people in virtualy one huge zone.
EQ's servers(i maen eq and eq2) are split up into many zones. Those zones can only handle the 150 or 200 mark. Think of it if Sony could do it they would make bigger zones. I know i may be hard to follow but i just came back from a hard days work in UPS, sorting crap(and yes there was much more WoW being shipped than EQ2 from what i noticed confirming those articles. They all go to small sort so i can take a look at them.
EQ barely having 100k subscribers? WTF are you smoking? Can I have some?
If you had actually read THIS VERY THREAD you would know that EQ alone has over 400k subscribers. As a CONSERVATIVE estimate, it has been stated that WoW doesn't have that many.
Did you google "WoW vs. EQ2" and find us, with the intention of trying to badmouth EQ2 and swing people over to WoW? If so, you're doing a terrible job. Densetsu fucked around with this message on 12-03-2004 at 05:49 PM.
quote:
Waporiza had this to say about Knight Rider:
I got my facts straight
Oh wow, then that changes everything! I mean, as long as you're telling me that they are correct, then of course they are!
Oh, and by the way, I can GUARANTEE you that WoW isn't "one big zone." It's many zones, on many different machines. The only difference is that The game loads the geometry constantly, instead of at set intervals(zoning). This concept is not new, and it HAS been done before.
Hell, EQOA had seamless zones as well. Densetsu fucked around with this message on 12-03-2004 at 05:58 PM.
what do you think that means?
quote:
Densetsu impressed everyone with:
Oh wow, then that changes everything! I mean, as long as you're telling me that they are correct, then of course they are!
Oh, and by the way, I can GUARANTEE you that WoW isn't "one big zone." It's many zones, on many different machines. The only difference is that The game loads the geometry constantly, instead of at set intervals(zoning). This concept is not new, and it HAS been done before.Hell, EQOA had seamless zones as well.
Incorrect.
WoW uses a one server per world. However, each world server shares a DB server with one or two others (A setup which has caused quite a few issues). But the entire world is one server. They are 'World Servers'
In EQ's case. EQ uses a Server Cluster, where as each 'World' server for them is actually a cluster of servers for, a different one for each zone. The same applies for EQ2 I am sure, since its the same architexture they have used on every SoE game to date. EQ2 even takes it a step further by instancing each zone on top of that.
So in essence he is technically correct. Overall WoW uses less servers than SoE on their games. The only reason it appears differently is the cluster setup that SoE employs. So where as in EQ while one 'World Server' may have 2k people on it, they are split up depending on which 'zone' server they are actually logged into, which is why certain zones lagged to all hell and back purely because of the number of people in that zone.
In WoWs case the whole WORLD is that one zone and all 2k people are on ONE server. This wont cause lag however, but the shared DBs do.
There was at one point an article on how SoE uses the cluster method, where each zone was on one server. Which is also why when say the Karrana's crash, no other zone was effected because only that zone's server was the one that crashed. So in essence if you want to get the real number of servers SoE has employed multiply the number of servers by the number of zones (Some zones shared servers though, I believe, but in either case it is still a lot), and you would have EQ's true server count.
EQ1, SWG, and I'd hazzard a guess EQ2, all have more than 80 servers running for thier playerbase as opposed to WoWs total 80 World Servers, and the extra DB servers shared between them.
It is just a different setup.
quote:
Waporiza enlisted the help of an infinite number of monkeys to write:
the keyword is online playerbase )what do you think that means?
You've been asked before to post URLs backing up your claims. A fact isn't a fact just because you say it is.
Hell, the online playerbase, as you call it, of EQ was hitting 5k+ per server back before they finally decided to hide server player counts because people were wanting more servers.
5,000 * 40 = 200,000.
What do you think that means?
First, I never said anything about lag in either game. I don't know how saying that it's not the servers, but the shared databases that lagged, came up. Second, I know that SOE uses clustered servers. You're taking the term 'server' too literally. In an area such as this, when I say 'servers' I don't mean individual boxes. If one 'server' is made up of one box, or one hundred boxes, it's still one 'server.'
And if WoW's servers are so 'revolutionary' as to be able to handle an entire MMO on a single machine, I'd love to read an article detailing how it's done.
Of course, I did a bit of data logging myself last night actually. Took a small sample of 10 medium population PvP servers and 10 medium population normal servers. Used the census tool for Cosmos and took server populations of both Horde and Alliance sides. There was an average of a bit over 1k people on each side for all of this servers, and the Census tool tends to underestimate numbers. (It does a /who for every zone, which maxes out at 49 people. Doing a /who for each class for every level would be more accurate, but take a lot more time.)
So lets just say, for the sake of arguement, that each server holds 2k-2.5k people well. This may be Blizzard's target number of people for medium servers, which is also what's happening. We don't know. I'd say the servers are healthy right now, but I'd really need to do a rundown of every server then. I'm far too lazy for that.
like i said it broke the 100k mark, twice i think
heres an article with url http://pc.ign.com/articles/569/569832p1.html
December 01, 2004 - World of Warcraft is selling well. Very well, according to Blizzard, which announced today that the ambitious MMORPG title is already the fastest-selling PC game ever in North America.
Blizzard's internal numbers and reports from various national retailers, including EB Games, Wal-Mart, and GameStop, show that at least 240,000 eager gamers grabbed World of Warcraft on November 23. Blizzard reports this means the game sold more in its first 24 hours than any other PC title has, ever.
World of Warcraft also broke records in account creation and concurrent players. More than 200,000 players created accounts during the first day. By 5:00 p.m. PST, more than 100,000 were playing the game concurrently. Blizzard points out that these numbers make World of Warcraft the fastest-growing MMORPG yet.
The game, which lets players adventure together in the vast realms of Azeroth -- the world of the Warcraft real-time strategy games -- has sold so well that many retailers have already run out of copies. Blizzard is scrambling to add new servers -- more than 80 are already on-line -- but may limit retail shipments based on new server availability.
"We were all extremely pleased with the success of World of Warcraft on its first day of launch," said Mike Morhaime, president of Blizzard Entertainment. "Once we saw the numbers for the first day, we knew that we had to immediately increase capacity to accommodate the huge numbers of players joining our game. We're glad so many people are enjoying World of Warcraft, and we are dedicated to supporting a fun and smooth game experience for everyone."
Thinking of joining the World? Check out our extensive coverage for details, impressions, media, and more.
-- David Adams
EQ total acounts created were somwhere around a million
WoW got a quarter of that in the first day and they beat EQ's online playerbase
quote:
Densetsu had this to say about Robocop:
Fae,First, I never said anything about lag in either game. I don't know how saying that it's not the servers, but the shared databases that lagged, came up. Second, I know that SOE uses clustered servers. You're taking the term 'server' too literally. In an area such as this, when I say 'servers' I don't mean individual boxes. If one 'server' is made up of one box, or one hundred boxes, it's still one 'server.'
And if WoW's servers are so 'revolutionary' as to be able to handle an entire MMO on a single machine, I'd love to read an article detailing how it's done.
Never said it was revolutionary. I said it was different.
WoW's setup has disadvatages to it. Serious ones... As if you have a DB Slowdown it affects whatever group of WorldServers are attached to that particular DB. Which kinda sucks, but it has gotten better and all is well so I am happy. However if the DB server crashes anytime in the future it will take it's servers with it. However it does have other advatages such as the seemlessness of it, and accountability.
EQ's cluster setup is a lot more stable, in that sense, but saying that EQ never needed that many servers to support it's population so WoW shouldn't isn't a valid thing to say, as like I said, to be technical each of EQs servers are divided up into Zone Severs where was WoW's are not. So you see a limited number of severs LISTED for EQ compared to WoW, but TECHNICALLY it actually needs MORE servers than WoW to deal with its player base because of the way it is setup.
If WoW was setup to have a server for Every zone like EQ, and they STILL had 80 'servers' listed. THEN you could compare them saying "EQ never needed 80 servers why does WoW". But you can't because the way they set them up is different. EQ splits its players over several boxes depending on where they are and what zone. So to deal with the same population they use a lot more servers, but only LIST a few severs as the GATEWAYS. WoW doesn't split is player population so each SERVER is both the World Server AND the gateway that is listed.
The setups are entirely different and not comparable. WoW has 80 servers because everyone on each world is on the same box. EQ has fewer servers because everyone on each world is on several boxes, but only list one Gatway for each world. EQ splits eachs world's player base over different resources, WoW does not. Etc.
Looking at your comparison, its pretty bad. You're comparing EQ at release to WoW at release. EQ was one of the first MMOGs released. The genre in general was small at the time, and EQ was created by a little known company. WoW is being released by a well known company, is part of a well known series, and the genre has been established for several years now. Its silly to make the comparison. The best comparison is to SWG or FFXI, which both have actually trounced WoW in subscription numbers.
quote:
Talonus stopped beating up furries long enough to write:
Waporiza, you're quite wrong. First off, EQ has had over ~400k active subscribers. See Sony's press releases for info on that.Looking at your comparison, its pretty bad. You're comparing EQ at release to WoW at release. EQ was one of the first MMOGs released. The genre in general was small at the time, and EQ was created by a little known company. WoW is being released by a well known company, is part of a well known series, and the genre has been established for several years now. Its silly to make the comparison. The best comparison is to SWG or FFXI, which both have actually trounced WoW in subscription numbers.
SWG has SW fanbois, and FFXI has FF fanbois/asian, so they're still not similar.
DAoC or AO would be a somewhat similar comparison.
quote:
And I was all like 'Oh yeah?' and Waporiza was all like:
they never had 200k online playerbaselike i said it broke the 100k mark, twice i think
heres an article with url http://pc.ign.com/articles/569/569832p1.html
You fail. Come back next year to repeat the grade.
The article you linked and the pasted has nothing to do with supporting your arguement that EQ has such a small playerbase online at any time. It says how much WoW had online in its first day. These two numbers are completely independant.
What I asked for was proof that EQ has only broken 100k players online at one time twice in its entire existence. I even tried giving you the benefit of the doubt and pasted your URL into a window to see if it supported your claim, while the article you cut and pasted for us was a different one. I was sorely disappointed.
