Slashdot Mirror


On World of Warcraft's Network Issues

alphaneutrino writes to mention a C|Net article discussing some of the recent problems the World of Warcraft playerbase has experienced. From the article: "'Being a system administrator myself, I have some understanding of what goes on in a corporate data center,' said Evgeny Krevets, a sometimes-frustrated WoW player. 'I don't know Blizzard's system setup. What I do know is that if I kept performing 'urgent maintenance' and taking the service down without warning for eight-hour periods, I would be out of a job.' Blizzard blames some of the problems--such as the disconnection, for several hours on Friday, of players linked to several servers--on AT&T, its network provider. (AT&T did not respond to a request for comment.) "

407 comments

  1. A typical week on Mal'Ganis by SaguratuS · · Score: 5, Informative

    Sunday: The day the server stood still
    Monday: *gasp*, playable (until 11pm)
    Tuesday: Weekly Maintenance Day. Nothing else EVER needs to be said about this day.
    Wednesday: Playable (until 11pm), good chance maintenance aftermath.
    Thursday: The 10 second instant-casts day for MC & BWL.

    Yeah, it goes on. Our server reliably bites the dust around 11pm every night for 6 hours, not to mention the constant plague of login issues and 30-minute loading screens during peak hours. Funny how this is all on a low-medium population server.

    1. Re:A typical week on Mal'Ganis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      What are Friday and Saturday? Go outside in the scary real world days?

    2. Re:A typical week on Mal'Ganis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've been to the world of warcrack data center and let me just say I'm sorry! I didn't mean to trip on the power cord and down half of the racks! (LOL). No but seriously. If AT&T was down, this is what SLAs are for. Get your money back. If it was your fault for being down, why the moaning?

    3. Re:A typical week on Mal'Ganis by rrgrzcool · · Score: 2, Informative

      I play on bleeding hollow, one of the highest population servers, and I can say I have pretty much the same experience. You are constantly disconnected in critical situations, periodically and systematically lagged to death, and then there's times when it's bad. A couple of weeks ago, my guild was trying to go to MC but you couldn't stay logged on past 5 seconds anywhere in all of Kalimdor for about 4 hours. Summons FTW! Blizzard servers FTL!

    4. Re:A typical week on Mal'Ganis by Robmonster · · Score: 1

      I've not played WoW myself( other than the free beta prerelease) but do you seriously have to wait upto 30 mins just to log on to the game? That'd eat up all my gaming time right away!

      --
      I have no sig yet I must scream.
    5. Re:A typical week on Mal'Ganis by Jikrschbaum · · Score: 1

      That sums up what used to be my experience on Shadow Moon. The amount of downtime, in just waiting to get connected ate up my nightly game time. Oh well, I have written off MMO's for a bit. I think it is good to take a break once in a while anyway.

    6. Re:A typical week on Mal'Ganis by Hal_Porter · · Score: 2, Funny

      That reminds me of a song,

      I'm waiting for my man
      Twenty-six dollars in my hand
      Up to Lexington, 125
      Feel sick and dirty, more dead than alive
      I'm waiting for my man

      Hey, geek boy, what you doin' online?
      Hey, geek boy, you hackin' our servers with third party addons?
      Oh pardon me sir, it's the furthest from my mind
      I'm just lookin' for a dear, dear friend of mine
      I'm waiting for my man

      Here he comes, he's all dressed in black
      PR department and a big EULA
      He's never early, he's always late
      First thing you learn is you always gotta wait
      I'm waiting for my man

      Up to a Brownstone, up three flights of stairs
      Everybody's pinned you, but nobody cares
      He's got the works, gives you sweet taste
      Ah then you gotta split because you got no time to waste
      I'm waiting for my man

      Baby don't you holler, darlin' don't you bawl and shout
      I'm feeling good, you know I'm gonna work it on out
      I'm feeling good, I'm feeling oh so fine
      Until tomorrow, but that's just some other time
      I'm waiting for my man

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    7. Re:A typical week on Mal'Ganis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I started playing in February... supposedly AFTER most of the startup problems were ironed out. It goes like so:

      I create a new character on a 'new/low' population server (Malygos). My ping is around 20-30ms. Everything is silky smooth.

      After two months, my ping is 100-120. I start to see 'stuck crouching' bugs, instant cast spells are now 2-3 seconds, and selling things to vendors hangs for 5-10 seconds.

      After four months, my ping is 200-220 on average. PVP is now spiky and aggrivating as people warp around the screen on occasion. We're now a HIGH/FULL rated server.

      In April, Blizzard raises the 'acceptable' ping range (green) from 0-100 to 0-200, and the light green range to 300. They also make the ping meter average out over 3-4 minutes, completely smoothing over all but the worst spikes.
      Nice fixes there.

      In August, the ping meter is no longer reliable - setting up a network monitoring program shows huge spikes of 1000+ and packet loss of 2-3%, yet the ping meter just hums along at 200. Gameplay continues to decline and you get occasionally booted unexpectedly from the game. Queue times start up on the server, so now getting booted means a 5-10 minute wait. Tuesdays (patch days) are now more or less unplayable. Sundays and Mondays before maintenence are getting close to unplayable.

      This cycle continues until your character you've played for half a year is worthless due to lag. You can reroll on another new server to watch the process start all over again... I've done this four times already (Eredar, Ursin, Gurubashi)... which is what people tend to do because they're addicted.

    8. Re:A typical week on Mal'Ganis by whoop · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yes. If your server reaches some limit on the number of people, you get put into a waiting queue. The wait time of this queue varies it seems. A few months ago, it was an average of 15-25 minutes. In recent days, there hasn't been any wait times (though I don't play hardcore so it might vary day-to-day).

    9. Re:A typical week on Mal'Ganis by TheJediGeek · · Score: 1
      I rarely ever have any problems with WoW. I've played on 3 servers over the last year and never really had problems with any of them. The last time I really had any inconvenience is when 1.10 was released. After that the night when Kalimdor didn't work on any servers. (still trying to figure out how THAT happened)
      Other than that I can always get in, there's no queue, rarely any lag.

      I dunno, maybe I'm just lucky. I wouldn't say I play very little, (just ask my wife) but I'm not on all the time either.

    10. Re:A typical week on Mal'Ganis by coaxeus · · Score: 0

      This is an animated depiction of trying to log onto the game: http://www.leagueofpirates.com/sirvival/queuedance .html Sadly.. this was made over a year ago when the game was newly released (though it spent forever in alpha and beta stages) and most people complained, but held onto the hope that these issues would be worked out over time. A lot of major issues have been fixed, but performance issues still remain to this day. I've seen the server-end software that WoW runs on, it's not that complicated. They simply need to build a new infrastructure with the best database, account, and storage server clusters they can easily afford, have a day of downtime, and migrate everything to the shiny new infrastructure. No more daily/weekly downtime trying to get the current 486dx servers to run decently.

      --
      My name is coaxeus, and I approve this message. In fact, I think it is awesome.
    11. Re:A typical week on Mal'Ganis by Wornstrom · · Score: 1

      if 30 minutes is all you would have to play, then it is a good thing you don't. I started playing in August and on my main character I have a little over a full month of play time. That's in game, at the keyboard logged hours. Recently the network issues have been getting better on our server, but I think some of that is attributed to the recent server transfer they opened up for our realm. From the holiday season up until recently, I have seen up to 1 hour login time. I started joking about changing the default channel on the teamspeak server i run to "Authenticating..."

    12. Re:A typical week on Mal'Ganis by coaxeus · · Score: 1, Informative

      What really doesn't add up for me is that things were pretty nice and lag free during the closed beta, there were large maintenance windows understandably, but the game ran smooth otherwise. As soon as they made it an open beta where anyone could play, and dumped large amounts of users into the equasion, performance was horrible. A lot of the purpose of the open beta was to act as a stress test, which the product/infrastructure obviously failed horribly, yet the release date was kept. The game going release added millions more users, more than they could imagine, to what already couldn't handle a fraction of the load.. and we are suprised at the results ?

      --
      My name is coaxeus, and I approve this message. In fact, I think it is awesome.
    13. Re:A typical week on Mal'Ganis by drdewm · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I love that this is all the same as with the Everquest servers. People constantly said that they would not buy from Sony eyc again because of the problems, nerfs, lack of support etc. It seems as if these issues are inherent to MMORPGs.

    14. Re:A typical week on Mal'Ganis by CTachyon · · Score: 3, Funny

      They BROKE a continent? I hope it was still under warranty...

      --
      Range Voting: preference intensity matters
    15. Re:A typical week on Mal'Ganis by pisces22 · · Score: 1

      Maybe 11:00 p.m. is when when Leeroy Jenkins gets tired of waiting and storms the server room.

      http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-771464369 3602998196

    16. Re:A typical week on Mal'Ganis by psyberjedi · · Score: 1

      This is a good 50% of the reason I have yet to get into MMORPGs.

      People of Earth! Harken to me!

      These are servers run by corporations that want to get every last penny out of each server and as long as they can massage the numbers and make it look like solid performance on paper, they will squeeze as many players as possible onto any one server. They are not *REALLY* concerned with smooth frame rates, but keeping the new guy happy long enough to get him addicted and then gradually lowering his expectations while maintaining his addiction and his account.

      Unless the players revolt, get comfy with your current performance.

      --
      He who confuses his religion with his science knows neither.
    17. Re:A typical week on Mal'Ganis by Emetophobe · · Score: 1

      Blizzard was using AT&T to host Battle.net way back in the day aswell I believe. Back in the day when I played Diablo 2 on BNET, I used to say AT&T stood for Astronomical Transfer Times. It's amazing that AT&T is still providing subpar service to Blizzard many years later, and yet Blizzard still puts up with it!

    18. Re:A typical week on Mal'Ganis by kryten_nl · · Score: 1

      Unless the players revolt, get comfy with your current performance.

      Revolt? I think forming a militia for an armed uprising might be more appropriate.

      --
      For the perfect anti-Unix, write an OS that thinks it knows what you're doing better than you do and let it be wrong.
    19. Re:A typical week on Mal'Ganis by default+luser · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      My god.

      It AMAZES me how much shit people will put up with to keep playing MMORPGs. If the system is broke that badly, why don't you leave? Why the hell do you think the problems keep getting WORSE?

      I mean, I certainly wouldn't put up with that shit, especially if I was paying a monthly fee.

      Hell, I stopped playing Battlefield 2 after they released the version 1.12 patch because it suddenly caused a memory leak on my computer. With only 1GB of RAM, it would crash to desktop after about 30-45 minutes. I like to play Battlefield for much longer stretches, so this was unacceptable.

      I LOVE BF2. I *CRAVE* the experience...it's even more addicting than BF1942 was. But I quit playing, because I have standards. I am NOT going to upgrade to 2GB RAM just to "fix" THEIR problem.

      QUIT the game. Let Blizzard have a chance to catch their breath, then maybe they'll resolve the issues.

      --

      Man is the animal that laughs.
      And occasionally whores for Karma.

    20. Re:A typical week on Mal'Ganis by Flamekebab · · Score: 0

      Blizzard servers trialling light-speed technology! Major stability issues encountered!

    21. Re:A typical week on Mal'Ganis by Sierpinski · · Score: 1

      I remember being on the boat from Menethil to Theramore, hearing from a guildmate that the Kalimdor server just went down. (You know something's wrong when half of the 30-40 guildmates suddenly disconnect at once) I was just hoping that it'd come back up before the map loading screen. Alas, I was booted. The only thing worse than getting disconnected suddenly is knowing in advance that its about to happen, and not being able to do anything about it.

      Hindsight, I guess I coulda just jumped off the boat and died in the Fatigue zone. I'll have to remember that for next time.

    22. Re:A typical week on Mal'Ganis by SpiralSpirit · · Score: 0

      Sadly, games like WoW (which I played in the beta, but not now) require a massive amount of time investment to get any serious "cool" game returns.

      After donating 100 hours of your life, nay, your leisure time, to WoW you are reluctant to simply walk away because of server issues that "might possibly someday not to far into the future maybe soon" be fixed on blizzard's end. If I had a project that I had already put 100 hours into I wouldn't want to walk away from it either.

      Worse MMORPGs are like crack to begin with, so you can factor the addiction issue into that as well. Large percentages of people who begin to play often, become hardcore psychos that can't possible countenance the idea of leaving because of network issues. I suppose you can call it dependency issues.

    23. Re:A typical week on Mal'Ganis by Malakusen · · Score: 1

      Let's get the guilds together and kill key NPCs until they heed our complaints! Or until we get tired of the repair bills to our gear. Either way, there will be some killin'.

      --
      Never give in--never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to conviction
    24. Re:A typical week on Mal'Ganis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think I was still playing then... I was riding the zepplin... and someone said something like: "oh crud jeff says were screwed" and then the boat dissapeared over the ocean.... it was righteous having to go stealth and dive deep(undead WITH a diving helmet) to avoide the uber monsters and watch everyone else die.

      I barely made it back to the shore cause the fatigue zone like you said.

    25. Re:A typical week on Mal'Ganis by snuf23 · · Score: 1

      "After donating 100 hours of your life, nay, your leisure time, to WoW you are reluctant to simply walk away because of server issues that "might possibly someday not to far into the future maybe soon" be fixed on blizzard's end."

      Too true. And it isn't just the technical problems. People keep playing despite gameplay issues. I know many people who hit level 60 and weren't hardcore raiders who kept rolling alts and running through the same content over and over again. Some of them eagerly reading each patch notes in hope of something else to do after 60. I know hardcore raiders that are pretty much the same way. Some of them play other games and only log on for the raids. Most of these people really don't sound like they enjoy it anymore. I think mostly what they do enjoy is the community. It's amazing how people can end up feeling "guilty" for leaving a game, not wanting to let down their guild mates.
      I enjoy MMOs but have learned to quit when the fun stops. Your time with an MMO is NOT an investment towards something that has a conclusion. There will always be something else you could do but the higher end stuff are usually just time sinks completely lacking in fun. For me the journey is the fun part and when I hit that level where the effort is greater than the entertainment I get back from it - I quit.

      --
      Sometimes my arms bend back.
    26. Re:A typical week on Mal'Ganis by NickCatal · · Score: 1
      Are you sure it was AT&T's fault?

      AT&T's backbone can handle the WoW load (assuming Blizzard doesn't keep all of their servers in one physical location, which they don't) the question really becomes "Can Blizzard's Servers Handle xyz"

      I'm going to take a wild guess (that is based in some fact) that they use Windows servers. Which is fine, Windows Server 2003 isn't that horrible of an OS. But how in the hell do they develop these things on one individual server. They announced on the official site awhile ago tht they were deploying new servers on "updated hardware." So this means that the hardware was dated when they opened the 20 servers the previous month?

      Isn't EFNET able to run on 500Mhz servers (well, multiple 500Mhz servers.) Of course, none of them use Windows (I don't believe, correct me if I am wrong) but it is the same concept: sending a TON of information between people in a TON of channels. I'm sure blizzard's servers are much more complex, but lets think about what data is necessary to send: User Location, Location of other NPCs nearby, chat in specific zones, chat server side, chat, chat, plaintext communication, chat, chat. Etc. All of the character location is client side (see: Client Side Cheats) so I just don't get it. How can they not keep these god damn things up?

      Now I understand downtime every week. Or unannounced downtime during the week, but come on. One thing a lot of people have mentioned is the fact that there is a waiting list to get into the servers. I would imagine this isn't hardware/software side but simply an effort to not overload the servers and have every NPC on the server dead in 5 minutes because the population is too high. I would rather wait 20 minutes (perhaps with a big beep when I have a spot) if it means I will have an acceptable gameplay experience when doing quests, rather than fight with each and every other user on the map over 20 Crazy Murlocks (aren't they all crazy?)

      Per Windows Statements: Unofficial WoW servers all run on Windows. The servers themselves aren't amazingly complex if someone reversed engineered it in about a month. Literally, they reverse engineered them IN A MONTH. Most of the actual game play is client-side. Although I believe they use an absolute ton of memory.

      It would have been nice if the actual blizzard tech team said something to the /. community in their last interview, instead of their PR team replying to everything.

      Bah.

      --
      -nick
    27. Re:A typical week on Mal'Ganis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was a little curious if what was really happening was that Blizzard was getting DDoS'ed in an attempt to get cash out of them. Realize that with the (millions?) of players currently on the system, they're making a ton of cash - having lots of server issues, lag issues, and such could very-well drive players away, so that kind of DDoS "protection racket" seems like a possible logical conclusion.

      It just reminded me of the late '90s when the Undernet IRC system got hit by a big DDoS attack. Servers offline, huge lagbursts, couldn't connect, etc. In the end, the server ops hardened the system fairly decently, but a lot of users left for greener pastures - I don't think money was a motive there, but in this case...

    28. Re:A typical week on Mal'Ganis by Awptimus+Prime · · Score: 1

      I LOVE BF2. I *CRAVE* the experience...it's even more addicting than BF1942 was. But I quit playing, because I have standards. I am NOT going to upgrade to 2GB RAM just to "fix" THEIR problem.

      I only have 1GB and have never had an issue. Before swinging your e-penis around on forums, you should probably take some time to investigate your PC. Noob.

      Also, how exactly are you teaching EA a lesson by giving them $60 and not playing the game?

    29. Re:A typical week on Mal'Ganis by spiro_killglance · · Score: 1

      Nice video above, a really funny example of how not
      to play upper blackrock spire. I know lets run
      everywhere, agro all the monsters, so they attack
      my team mates and wipe out the whole group,
      that will make me popular.

    30. Re:A typical week on Mal'Ganis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      some days maybe busy for the players, but normal is easy to connect.

    31. Re:A typical week on Mal'Ganis by chrish · · Score: 1

      You guys pay for this?

      Maybe they're using Access in the back-end and the large data sets are causing your performance to degrade over time. Or flat text files.

      --
      - chrish
    32. Re:A typical week on Mal'Ganis by chrish · · Score: 1

      I've never had to wait to log on to City of Heroes and City of Villains.

      Server maintenance is generally an hour or less around 8:00 or 9:00 AM Eastern, and things are generally very smooth and happy. There have been problems when large patches are released (the big patch right before City of Villains was released caused a bunch of lag, etc. for people; in their defense, it was enormous).

      Granted, there aren't millions of subscribers, but shouldn't the enormous piles of money sitting around at Blizzard HQ be able to pay for some additional '486 boxes to run as servers? ;-) Seriously, they must be 5' deep in greenbacks there.

      --
      - chrish
    33. Re:A typical week on Mal'Ganis by default+luser · · Score: 1

      I only have 1GB and have never had an issue. Before swinging your e-penis around on forums, you should probably take some time to investigate your PC. Noob.

      Noob? Investigate my PC? You think I DIDN'T investigate the problem?

      Before patch 1.12, OTHER players complained of memory leaks that I NEVER experienced. I could play for hours on-end (and did) without a single memory issue or crash.

      Patch 1.12 fixed memory leaks for a LOT of people, but it actually INTRODUCED a memory leak for me.

      Specifically, the game used up memory that could not be reclaimed by the OS. At a point, the game was using so much memory that it begins swapping to disk. It was at this point that the game either turned into a slideshow, crashed to desktop or hard locked. If the game crashed to desktop, a couple hundred megs of memory could not be reclaimed by the OS (obvious memory leak). Mind you, this hardware had ZERO issues on any other game I ever purchased, and had ZERO issues in all the patches leading up to version 1.12.

      The game was working fine for most people, but I did find other folks who had the same problem. The only things we could find in common were 1GB ram and 6600 GT series video cards...but that didn't quite pan out, because other folks with similar hardware had no issues. In the end, we just figured the game had issues with some 128MB cards. The folks with 2GB ram wouldn't notice it, because it would take HOURS of continuous play for that meory leak to raise its head, so that made it even harder to track down the issue.

      Still, we tried to fix it. The community tried out different beta and WHQL certified driversets to try and find a fix. They tried different sound configurations and different acceleration settings to try to corner the issue. In the end, I said fuck it, and went on to other things.

      Funny thing, I recenty upgraded my system, and for the hell of it I installed Battlefield 2. Just as I expected, no memory leak - there is no unreclaimed memory upon exit.

      Also, how exactly are you teaching EA a lesson by giving them $60 and not playing the game?

      Let's just say I got my money's worth before patch 1.12 was released. I played the game for almost 6 months. I wasn't teaching EA a lesson - no, this was an exercise in self-control. I don't upgrade just because a game suddenly stops working, not when my new PC is less than a year old.

      I figured I would let it rest until my next upgrade, because BF2 is fairly popular, and the player base isn't going anywhere. I figured the game wouldn't have the same memory leak on different hardware - and what do you know? It works fine on the new machine, and feels fresh now that I put it on the shelf for a year.

      THAT is the point I want to get across to these WoW players. You don't have to quit PERMANANTLY. But if you're sitting around on their servers just waiting for a miracle to happen, it's not gonna. MMORPG players are like breadcrumbs: once a few key players start leaving one game for another, others follow in droves, but until that happens nobody moves a muscle. The key is, someone has to have the willpower to take that first step.

      I'm sick and tired of people whining about poor playing conditions on WoW, and having to wait hours or sometimes days to get in some play time. This ISN'T the first time I've seen WoW whining stories on the front page of Slashdot, and it only seems to be getting WORSE. These are issues that would KILL any other MMORPG, it is simply the massive inertia that keeps people from leaving. I love it that I was modded troll just for telling some whiner to either suck it up and take the beating from Blizzard (stop whining), or forge their own road and leave WoW.

      Boo-hoo. You're spending $15 per month to wait an hour every night, and not play on Tuesdays at all. Woe is you! Save it for someone who cares. You've had a year and a half to realize things just aren't getting any better, and meanwhile you could have been pumping your money i

      --

      Man is the animal that laughs.
      And occasionally whores for Karma.

    34. Re:A typical week on Mal'Ganis by japhmi · · Score: 1

      Hell, I stopped playing Battlefield 2 after they released the version 1.12 patch because it suddenly caused a memory leak on my computer. ... But I quit playing, because I have standards. I am NOT going to upgrade to 2GB RAM just to "fix" THEIR problem.

      Ummm.. then re-install and only upgrade to the previous patch? That's what I've done in the past. It's really not that hard.

      --
      "Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys" P. J. O'Rourke
    35. Re:A typical week on Mal'Ganis by nairobiny · · Score: 1

      After donating 100 hours of your life, nay, your leisure time, to WoW you are reluctant to simply walk away because of server issues that "might possibly someday not to far into the future maybe soon" be fixed on blizzard's end. If I had a project that I had already put 100 hours into I wouldn't want to walk away from it either.

      100 hours? N00b... my MUD addiction is currently clocking in at 6,000 hours

    36. Re:A typical week on Mal'Ganis by Gyorg_Lavode · · Score: 1

      To be honest, EQ servers rarely crashed after the first 2 years. I think Povar (sp?) had 3 or 4 true crashes, but other than that EQ did ok. Hell, after 3 or 4 years, the EQ servers could stay up for literally MONTHS at a time. Blizzard reboots all of its servers once a week, whether they need patching or not.

      --
      I do security
    37. Re:A typical week on Mal'Ganis by drdewm · · Score: 1

      I miss the old EQ days. Even with the crazy trains, corpse runs, raid set up waits, etc I still had a blast playing that game. i just don't have the time anymore. *sniff

    38. Re:A typical week on Mal'Ganis by Gyorg_Lavode · · Score: 1

      It was a good game, but I think it focused WAY too much on the high end and massive encounters. When you don't limit the number of people on a raid, you have to balance the encounter to a 100-200 person force. I like the focus WoW puts on the non-60 characters and smaller guilds through 20-person raid instances, Many lower level group instances, near-infinite amounts of quests and rewards for trade skills. I hope that Saga of Heroes follows the same philosophy but also makes the journey to 60 MUCH longer so a person can simply enjoy playing with their friends (without being 60) and just level up as the levels come. In the end, it's the social aspect that keeps people playing the games. As I get older and would prefer to engage friends in real life rather than online, I want to do the complex raiding and tight social groups but simply don't want to feel the burden of having to be level 60 with excellent gear to do so

      --
      I do security
  2. Ahhh.... by popeguilty · · Score: 3, Funny

    ...so THAT'S how Blizzard is combatting server lag.

    1. Re:Ahhh.... by Robin+Farrell · · Score: 1

      Just Tried to unsubscribe from WoW because i totally forgot they'de been charging me the last few months and I get this when i click account management. HTTP Status 500 - type Exception report message description The server encountered an internal error () that prevented it from fulfilling this request. exception javax.servlet.ServletException: Filter execution threw an exception com.blizzard.wow.web.accountManagement.action.Main tenance.doFilter(Maintenance.java:38) org.springframework.web.filter.CharacterEncodingFi lter.doFilterInternal(CharacterEncodingFilter.java :73) org.springframework.web.filter.OncePerRequestFilte r.doFilter(OncePerRequestFilter.java:73) root cause java.lang.OutOfMemoryError note The full stack trace of the root cause is available in the Apache Tomcat/5.0.27 logs.

  3. $15/mo times six million users.... by otis+wildflower · · Score: 2, Insightful

    .. What's that come to again?

    And _why_ are there any problems whatsoever?

    Blizzard, I can guarantee this: if you spend $35 million per month on refactoring, hardware and bandwidth, all your problems go away. Guaranteed. I promise.

    1. Re:$15/mo times six million users.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Blizzard, I can guarantee this: if you spend $35 million per month on refactoring, hardware and bandwidth, all your shareholders go away. Guaranteed. I promise.

    2. Re:$15/mo times six million users.... by stevesliva · · Score: 3, Funny

      Just like with nine women you can have a baby in one month.

      --
      Who do you get to be an expert to tell you something's not obvious? The least insightful person you can find? -J Roberts
    3. Re:$15/mo times six million users.... by vikstar · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I agree. If blizzard even spent 1% of a months revenue they could get a bunch of engineers to completely rewrite the entire world of warcraft code and buy some new hardware to accomodate the new size. Scaling issues are dealt with at once. Where is all of this money going? Is it going to some CEO sink? Are there any share holders that can shed some light on this?

      --
      The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than the question of whether a submarine can swim.
    4. Re:$15/mo times six million users.... by stupidfoo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The problem doesn't seem to be how much they spend but where they spend their money. According to the article AT&T seems to be their only network provider. Who thinks that makes sense? To have such a huge bandwidth hungry product and rely on one provider for it. I would never host a commercial web site on a host with a single provider, let alone a huge undertaking like WoW.

      But, then again, I may also be an idiot... who knows?

    5. Re:$15/mo times six million users.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      15x6million is not how much blizzard is getting in revenue.

      remember each region pays a different rate.

      AND most importantly, Vivendi Universal gets a MASSIVE cut of this figure. Why? Because they footed the bill for Blizzard to finish the game during the last few years of development and as part of that agreement they dictated they get a tremendous amount of the subscription revenue (upwards of 70%, I've heard.)

      So then it becomes a question of, who actually is responsible to maintain the servers? Blizzard of VU? Also remember, that's not all going to be spent on WoW. Blizzard has other games in development (Starcraft 2, Starcraft MMO, Diablo 3, WoW Expansion). These people need to be paid something. Not everyone is happy to work purely for recognition. Some of us have these things called bills that we have to pay every once in a while.

    6. Re:$15/mo times six million users.... by otis+wildflower · · Score: 3, Funny

      Given their reliance on only ATT as their network provider, this is precisely the problem they have _now_, and what they need to spend bucketloads of cash fixing.

      They need multiple sites around the world, with multiple OC192s to multiple providers, all BGP'd to the gills. They need to buy dark fiber and light that shit up.

      Then again, why bother, it's not like it's a free market out there and there won't be any competitors to WoW that can get their act together, right? I mean Blizzard owns the patents on MMORPGaming, right?

      Oh wait.

    7. Re:$15/mo times six million users.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just like with nine women you can have a baby in one month.

      That sounds like a good idea--I think I'll give it a try.

      -- gid

    8. Re:$15/mo times six million users.... by secolactico · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I agree. If blizzard even spent 1% of a months revenue they could get a bunch of engineers to completely rewrite the entire world of warcraft code and buy some new hardware to accomodate the new size. Scaling issues are dealt with at once. Where is all of this money going? Is it going to some CEO sink? Are there any share holders that can shed some light on this?

      Do you really think that they are currently depending on a bunch of hacks that are coding in Visual Basic and their entire network knowledge consist on knowing the correct sequence to crimp in a RJ-45 ethernet connector?

      Are you proposing a full rewrite? Are you serious! Including testing, how long would that take? What you are proposing is pretty much that they scrap everything and start from scratch.

      --
      No sig
    9. Re:$15/mo times six million users.... by Ryan+Amos · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Because they have to pay developers, bandwidth fees, datacenter fees, customer service people, billing people, web designers, janitors, office supplies, and basically everything else it takes to run a business. $35 million / month with probably 15-20 million a month in overhead.

      Yes they are making money (businesses are allowed to do this, remember?) Re-architecting a massively distributed game like this takes time *and* money. They underbuilt their infrastructure to begin with, which is where they really went wrong. They are supposedly trying to remedy that, but by the time you have re-architected the system it has grown to the point where you have to do it again.

      Also, they're pulling so much bandwidth from so many disparate places that when a link close to them goes down, all the other links have to compensate and there's not necessarily enough fat pipes close to their datacenters to allow everyone on. I would be curious to see what percentage of traffic flowing over certain core routers can be attributed to World of Warcraft; I am betting it is non-trivial.

    10. Re:$15/mo times six million users.... by Mindee · · Score: 1

      Actually AT&T is not their only provider, they have a bunch. Last week, however, they had a message up relating problems with *certain* servers and it being an AT&T issue. It listed perhaps 15 servers (out of dozens and dozens) so I think they mix up providers to server groups a lot.

    11. Re:$15/mo times six million users.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not sure where you get your number of six million users.
      Everytime I see an article posted about blizzard the player count goes up by at least half a million.
      IF there are even 6 million accounts registered for World of Warcraft (and I think that is a really big if, I'm pretty sure you just made up a number), no more than half of those are currently active and paying monthly fees right now.
      Also, out of all the active accounts, probably at least half are in China and other portions of Asia. You have no information about the pricing structure in these areas, and I would assume that it equates to less than 15 USD.
      Finally, few people even pay a full 15 USD a month for the game. If you pay in advance, it ends up being somewhat less than the full price.
      And shame on anyone who jumped on this six million bandwagon that you clearly made up; in the future maybe you should cite some sources before declaring as fact something that is pure speculation.

    12. Re:$15/mo times six million users.... by IcyNeko · · Score: 0

      Clearly you've never had a tech job doing coding, and likely you never will. Do the engineers a favor and don't be a manager or a spec writer. Nothing infuriates software engineers more than some half-wit who goes around telling engineers to write some ungodly project in two weeks just because they think it's easy to implement.

      If it really was that easy, do you think Blizzard would NOT do it? They don't have anything to gain by having users pissed. Hell, I cancelled my WoW account because of the lag.

      If Blizzard was to re-write the entire code, the release would be called World of Warcraft 2. Or possibly this is what is in store for the Burning Crusade expansion (not likely).

    13. Re:$15/mo times six million users.... by jacksonj04 · · Score: 1

      Whoever designed the network either didn't understand the concept of scaling, or was just plain incompetent.

      --
      How many people can read hex if only you and dead people can read hex?
    14. Re:$15/mo times six million users.... by PapaZit · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's still not a good excuse.

      ANY company that makes a significant portion of its money from internet sales should have multiple providers for EVERY public-facing server. I'm not saying that every machine should have multiple NICs, but they should have their servers connected to beefy network equipment that can switch all traffic to working providers the moment one provider has problems.

      In this case, they can even control the protocol and contents of the packets, so they can't even blame protocol limits for the problem.

      --
      Forward, retransmit, or republish anything I say here. Just don't misquote me.
    15. Re:$15/mo times six million users.... by coaxeus · · Score: 0

      I assume they use this clever thing that any decent datacentre uses called "BGP". And "peering". If they don't, all hope is lost.

      --
      My name is coaxeus, and I approve this message. In fact, I think it is awesome.
    16. Re:$15/mo times six million users.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its not about the amount of money to spend on this problem. Not many services of this calibre can be done WITHOUT caching. They have to maintain a respectable level of service for:

      Game Servers
      Web Servers (Forums, website, help, account information)
      Email Servers (Customer Support, etc)
      Database Servers (Equipment, Characters, etc)
      Patch Management*

      *Although most of this is done with BitTorrent, there is still some of the patches hosted on their servers!

      Most web sites use tricks to handle this kinds of traffic, like caching (memcache etc). We have seen sites die after a slashdotting, but imagine this type of traffic almost 24/7. I think Blizzard is doing a pretty decent job. They definately have to find some new ways to solve this problem, and I really hope they do.

    17. Re:$15/mo times six million users.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AT&T has had issues for a while, there a terrible network.

      when every they (AT&T) has a problem, and it IS there problem, they blame it on sombody else.

      I have always hatted AT&T. they never get stuff right, Blizzard should switch network providers.

      also, a side note for AT&T:
      I think that everybody should do something against the merging with bellsouth. i don't like bellsouth either (even tho they do have FAR superiour network managment than ATT), but they will take out several networks in the proccess. including the wireless providor Cingular. this is a bad move on ATT. and should be fought. and Blizzard is in that place to fight it. they could switch providers.

    18. Re:$15/mo times six million users.... by CRiMSON · · Score: 1

      And you should do the same. Blizzard has made several press releases stating they hit the 5M subscriber limit, then the 6 million mark.

      --
      oogly boogly!
    19. Re:$15/mo times six million users.... by JakusMinimus · · Score: 2

      Whoever designed the network either didn't understand the concept of scaling, or was just plain incompetent.

      that sums up my impressions after playing wow for 9 months or so since its release last november (2004 not 2005). the network setup(s) theyve had just do not work for the load the game has generated. i think that short stress test semi-open beta they had (right before release) was cut short a few months too early. but hey, they had to trump eq2 right? whats funny is soe still got the jump on blizzard with eq2, even tho it's a turd too.

      disclaimer: i've not played eq2, but being a soe customer since early 2000 and reading the mess that's been made of swg, i feel justfied in my poop slinging.

      --

      You can be an atheist and still not want to succumb to some weird cross-over sheep disease -- AC
    20. Re:$15/mo times six million users.... by vikstar · · Score: 1

      I'm not suggesting they do it in 2 weeks. I'm suggesting that assemble a seperate group to respec and rewrite for such a large number of users. And no, I'm not your scapegoat. It would take what, a year max? How long did it take them in the first place to start from absolute scratch (and this doesn't include all the graphics/models/sounds/quests)? In a world of warcraft 2 as a user I would not only a expect new game/server engine but completely new and different content.

      --
      The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than the question of whether a submarine can swim.
    21. Re:$15/mo times six million users.... by Rogerborg · · Score: 1

      They've had 16 months. Now, what's your point?

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    22. Re:$15/mo times six million users.... by necro2607 · · Score: 1

      They probably have some kind of exclusive deal with AT&T or whatever... which might make sense money wise, but I think we all know that Blizzard is just rolling in the dough so I'm not sure why they would do something like that..

    23. Re:$15/mo times six million users.... by An+ominous+Cow+art · · Score: 1

      We had binary ghost patties and pea rings at my last datacentre, and it didn't help one bit :-(.

    24. Re:$15/mo times six million users.... by drdewm · · Score: 1

      "Do you really think that they are currently depending on a bunch of hacks that are coding in Visual Basic and their entire network knowledge consist on knowing the correct sequence to crimp in a RJ-45 ethernet connector?" If so I'm sending them my resume because I know some of that stuff. I'm not real good with the VB and sometime I crimp cosovers accidentaly but it would be leet to work for Blizzard. I would randomly WOOT! all day long. But seriously the problems tehy face with scaling has got to be a massivly difficult moving target to solve. I'm impressed with any uptime on that scale.

    25. Re:$15/mo times six million users.... by jargoone · · Score: 1

      You advocate "beefy network equipment that can switch all traffic", but don't think that redundant NICs are necessary? Thanks for proving that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

    26. Re:$15/mo times six million users.... by lgw · · Score: 1, Insightful

      EQ2 seems to be getting its shit together. I wouldn't say it's a better game, per se, than WoW (that's pretty subjective anyway, though Blizzard clearly has the art advantage), but the code is solid under the load that EQ2 gets. SOE apparantly decided sometime in the past six months that enough was enough with WoW having 10x or 20x as many subscribers, and heads started rolling.

      I was one of the "never going back to any SOE product" EQ burnouts, but in both EQ2 and SWG the corporate overlords have come down on the "screw the players, we hate them" mentality with a vengance. Major staff changes happened, major game changes are underway (SWG is almost a completely new game), and one gets the sense that, finally, they *get* it.

      Here's hoping, anyway.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    27. Re:$15/mo times six million users.... by Ubergrendle · · Score: 1

      Based on some anecdotal experiecne I need update your hypothesis -- you can only MAKE 9 babies with 9 women in 1 month.

      --
      John Maynard Keynes: "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?"
    28. Re:$15/mo times six million users.... by calzones · · Score: 1

      Or we could let them build a two tiered internet so we could pay our providers extra to pay AT+T extra to give WoW preferred bandwidth, which Blizzard also pays extra to AT+T which would be reflected in paying Blizzard extra as well!

      What joy! Instead of paying my provider $50/m and Blizz $15/m, I wold get to pay them $65/m and $25/m respectively. And that's not counting all the other 'exclusive premium' services I could be taking advantage of.

      Yeah, that might eat into my net-news browsing budget and I wouldn't be able to afford decent access to slashdot anymore.

      --
      Asking people to think is like asking them to buy you a new car
    29. Re:$15/mo times six million users.... by JakusMinimus · · Score: 1

      that's good to hear from a non-fanboi player's perspective. and i hope, as you do, that the changes for the better continue.

      something worth mentioning as well, soe does have a good great deal of experience running mmo's (they own the pioneer in the field afterall). this know-how is the one area where blizzard has obviously been lacking in comparison and it is why they are hurting.

      yeah i know, grats captain obvious, but hey, i felt it did deserve mentioning explicitly.

      --

      You can be an atheist and still not want to succumb to some weird cross-over sheep disease -- AC
    30. Re:$15/mo times six million users.... by chowsapal · · Score: 2, Funny

      um, this is slashdot -- good luck getting one baby in 90 years with one woman! there's always adoption.

    31. Re:$15/mo times six million users.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Last time I checked, 15/mo * 6,000,000 = 90,000,000. So where does the thought that 35 million out the door each month would break them come from?

    32. Re:$15/mo times six million users.... by Broken+Bottle · · Score: 1
      They underbuilt their infrastructure to begin with, which is where they really went wrong. They are supposedly trying to remedy that, but by the time you have re-architected the system it has grown to the point where you have to do it again.
      I think that this is really pretty close to the actual problem. Less than underbuilding their infrastructure, I think that they under appreciated the demand for their game and have been playing catch up on the infrastructure ever since. Blizzard has never run an MMO before and they had the dumb luck to produce the most successful one on the market their first time out of the gate. What we're seeing here is their learning curve and the natural lag of infrastructure installation driven by demand. When you've got 6M customers on a system that complex, putting in a server isn't just a matter of plugging in a box. It's hardware purchase planning, testing, network infrastructure to support the new server, possibly hiring the people to maintain it, allocating time for the existing employees to roll it out. I'm aware that they've been having problems lately but, frankly, this is nothing compared to what we went through after Christmas.
    33. Re:$15/mo times six million users.... by codeonezero · · Score: 1

      I was talking with one of my guild mates (we both play World of Warcraft). He works as a tech in a ISP in Australia. He told me that part of the reason for Blizzard's problems was that they signed a long term exclusive contract with SBC to provide service. Ultimately SBC got gobbled up by ATT. In any case my guildmate considered Blizzard's move to sign such a contract a stupid one.

      Of course I haven't see any articles that cover if this is true, but I found it interesting, and since my guildmate is in the industry (fixing lines, etc), I figure he should at least know something about this whole mess. :-)

      --

      ....
      int main (void) { ... }

    34. Re:$15/mo times six million users.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Multiple NICs on single servers is more or less irrelevant. The motherboard (and probably CPU and memory for low end kit) is a single point of failure. For any serious redundancy you want multiple computers.

    35. Re:$15/mo times six million users.... by stienman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Just like with nine women you can have a baby in one month.

      They've had nine months. They should be having a baby every month now.

      Downtime is either being caused by poor design, hardware/software limitations, or bandwidth limitations.

      These are not things that are unknown, or uncontrollable.

      If this project is too complex to get a firm handle on the problems, and the work force can't be scaled to meet the demands, then your only avenue for relief is to scale back the complexity.

      Otherwise you're admitting that you are managing the project poorly.

      For those that don't play, keep in mind that this is an ongoing, crippling (ie, showstopper) situation. This isn't occasional short downtime.

      It's as if every time there's a crash they have to run a WoW style FSCK on the world image before they can bring it back up.

      I know I'd be much happier if they at minimum
      1) Acknowledged any downtime immediately (ie, if I can't get on then there should be a status message about it - not four hours later)
      2) Described, briefly, what stage they are at in troublshooting (ie, is the problem understood? Is the fix being implemented? Has anyone even been notified?)
      3) Gave a time frame. (Will be accepting logins within the hour, within 5 hours, within 24 hours.)

      I don't know, maybe everyone else has copious amounts of free time, and the ability to play whenever they want. I have to schedule time for myself to play WoW. When I can't play I essentially lose that opportunity - I can't just swap things around.

      At least throw us a bone and give us the information we're all begging for, since you certainly aren't going to give us back our time or money.

      -Adam

    36. Re:$15/mo times six million users.... by nuzak · · Score: 1

      > soe does have a good great deal of experience running mmo's (they own the pioneer in the field afterall)

      Pardon? Ultima Online is owned by Electronic Arts.

      --
      Done with slashdot, done with nerds, getting a life.
    37. Re:$15/mo times six million users.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Multiple NICs on single servers is more or less irrelevant. The motherboard (and probably CPU and memory for low end kit) is a single point of failure.

      Errhh... no.

      That is all.

    38. Re:$15/mo times six million users.... by toleraen · · Score: 1

      Pardon? M59 is owned by Near Death Studios.

    39. Re:$15/mo times six million users.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you want to be pedantic about it.. technically a properly designed cluster will be redundant at every point. Multiple NICs, fiber SAN attachments, machines, switches, backbones, etc. Did you want to discuss cluster architecture? There are several books available on the subject, or you can dig up documentation for the major vendor's offerings for more specific configuration info. Or you can just please FOAD. kthxbye.

    40. Re:$15/mo times six million users.... by AnotherUsername · · Score: 1

      Changes for the better? SWG changed for the better? Are you nuts? No, I'm not a fanboy, but like the parent said, its an almost completely different game. The business majors in upper management realized that they could bring in people by totally switching how the game was played, thereby alienating all those who were in the game before the switch. They may have gained a new audience, but was the cost of gaining that new audience worth it?

      --
      I don't like Linux. This doesn't make me a troll.
    41. Re:$15/mo times six million users.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Architect is not a verb, damn you!

    42. Re:$15/mo times six million users.... by lgw · · Score: 1

      And The Realm Online pre-dated M59, and The Realm Online was merely the first "MUD with pictures" on a non-pay-per-minute service. And of course the early "MUDs with pictures" added little to the commercial MUDs of their time.

      My guild started on Yserbius on the ImagiNation Network in '92, and every game along the way has added incrementally to the MMORPG genre. EQ was clearly a pioneer, however, as were the other games mentioned.

      Blizzard, OTOH, had the same lack of server availability on Diablo II when it came out, and apparantly failed to learn from that experience. Based on my experience with the D2 launch, I decided to avoid WoW at launch to give Blizzard time to get server availability sorted out. Seems like I should give them a bit longer.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    43. Re:$15/mo times six million users.... by C0rinthian · · Score: 2, Funny
      Just like with nine women you can have a baby in one month.

      They've had nine months. They should be having a baby every month now.

      Downtime is either being caused by poor design, hardware/software limitations, or bandwidth limitations.
      You know, those causes are suprisingly funny when speaking about childbirth...
    44. Re:$15/mo times six million users.... by JakusMinimus · · Score: 1

      hahah wow, flashback. i totally forgot about Ultima Online. even so, this does not nullify my point.

      --

      You can be an atheist and still not want to succumb to some weird cross-over sheep disease -- AC
    45. Re:$15/mo times six million users.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...take out Cingular? What are you talking about? Cingular Wireless is owned by SBC (Which is now AT&T, technically) and Bellsouth. It is also partially what remained of AT&T Wireless, having acquired them a year and a half or so ago. Note that AT&T Wireless has little to do with AT&T, however...

    46. Re:$15/mo times six million users.... by dhj · · Score: 1

      So when does WOW II come out? Because that's when they're going to be able to fix all this from the ground up. Hopefully they can keep enough people happy with WOW I long enough to justify making a second one. If they piss too many subscribers off Blizzard might decide the whole venture just isn't profitable enough. Although I doubt it considering the success already acheived.

      --David

    47. Re:$15/mo times six million users.... by Widowwolf · · Score: 1

      To be precise, Cingular (Which is 40% owned by Bellsouth and 60% owned by at&t (all lowercase, the new company formerly SBC and AT&T (landline) bought out AT&T wireless, and kept the name of the parent company "Cingular", due to the fact that name "AT&T Wireless" was still owned by the parent company AT&T (landline) at the time.. Now that SBC obtained (merged whatever) the old AT&T (landline) company, they sat down and decided they wanted to call the new landline company at&t for brand recognition. Now at&t is talking about buying out Bellsouth, which includes the remaining interest is Cingular. The 40% venture is what at&t is really after, only because they see mobile/cellular growth, and they want to keep the profits to themselves. Myself, working for at&t and my wife working for Cingular, have read the memos. Once Bellsouth is obtained, at&t under the lead of Ed Whittacre (or whomever if he retires) Cingular Wireless will once again revert back to at&t wireless for the brand recognition, and to knock one more provider out of the Customer Service ratings standings. These are the facts of the case.

      --
      ~~"Of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~~Dennis Miller
  4. Are they a victim of their own success? by llevity · · Score: 1

    Every time I see these types of posts, I have to wonder if they're a victim of their own success. With something like 6 million subscribers, it can't be an easy job maintaining the service.

    Then again, they're getting $15 a month from 6 million people, you'd think throwing some money at the problem could help, but it's never that simple.

    1. Re:Are they a victim of their own success? by basketbeatle · · Score: 1

      Yes that was a great excuse when the game first came out in 2004. Now there is no excuse.

    2. Re:Are they a victim of their own success? by TrueKonrads · · Score: 1

      For 90 million a month a company has enough funds to hire Scott McNealy personally to install a patch or two. Heck, it could probably buy or hire as a consultants some of non directly competing MMORPG companies that know how to solve such problems (EVE Online, for example, has a continuous world, no shards and has very little downtime). But then again, Microsoft has even greater resources and they ar e not in the market of getting talented people from outside to fix outstanding issues fast. That said, I think that it really is a management issue and someone too proud to admit that they don't know how to solve this problemset.

      --
      Lone Gunmen crew.
    3. Re:Are they a victim of their own success? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      $15 X 6,000,000 = $90 million per month, or $1.8 billion per year in subscriptions alone for just this one game. Most casinos would drool over that kind of income. Ah, no excuses. The servers are wretched, and the service is wretched, too.

      It took them almost a week to help me find a character's realm that I'd forgotten (hey, I was a newb). The service was so bad that I wanted to cancel my registration over the weekend and the Account page was down almost all weekend.

      And here's the best part --- they blamed me for it. Now, I know I should remember my Realm, but, come on. Land's End doesn't blame me when I do the wrong thing. The support person sent me all these snooty emails telling me I "didn't follow procedure" --- I did, it's just their damn server was down and the GMs kept sending me form emails asking me to send them the character's Realm (!). Meaning they hadn't read my request.

      As far as I'm concerned, they're not good enough to charge a membership fee for their ham-handed server mismanagement. If you're asked to buy a membership, the thing should ALWAYS be available. They have no incentive to improve their server availability until members start cancelling their memberships. I already have. Join me!

      (P.S. They keep your characters on ice for you so you can get them back.)

      My $.02...

  5. 8 hours? Coincidence? by ziggamon2.0 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Maybe it's the Blizzard guys' moms that come in and say "Enough of those stupid games already, go to bed!"? ;)

    Or are they too cool to be running the servers out of their parents' basements like the rest of us?

    1. Re:8 hours? Coincidence? by antibryce · · Score: 1


      Or perhaps a disgruntled father and a firearm is involved.

  6. Last heard from the WoW datacenter... by fuyu-no-neko · · Score: 5, Funny

    "Well, at least I have chicken!"

    --
    Don't take the above poster too seriously. He doesn't.
    1. Re:Last heard from the WoW datacenter... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      leeeeeeeroooooooooooooooooooy!

    2. Re:Last heard from the WoW datacenter... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought it was meant to be "At least Im not chicken", but it seems everyone has picked it up to be "At least I got chicken"

    3. Re:Last heard from the WoW datacenter... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree, I hear it as "at least I'm not chicken" which, in the context of what he did, has meaning. How much chicken was in the posession of Mr Jenkins at the time does not, in any easy to see way, appear germaine.

  7. wow by crabpeople · · Score: 1

    I didnt know fourm trolls get their own cnet articles now. Whats next? an article on nerfing hunters in the new york times? Ive barely even seen any issues since patch 1.10. I think patch day the servers were down all day, but thats to be expected.

    Seriously, if the game goes down for a few hours, you can do other things. What about cleaning your apartment? i bet it needs it.

    --
    I'll just use my special getting high powers one more time...
    1. Re:wow by JavaLord · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Ive barely even seen any issues since patch 1.10. I think patch day the servers were down all day, but thats to be expected.

      Server preformance varies from realm to realm. I hadn't really had any issues until the last week or two when my server decided to drop 40 minutes into our 45 minute baron run, and then again in the BG's later on.

      As someone else mentioned, I think they are still a victim of their own success. Sure it's been over a year since launch, but they were expecting 250,000 subscribers and got 6,000,000.

    2. Re:wow by JavaLord · · Score: 0, Troll

      I didnt know fourm trolls get their own cnet articles now

      Also, if forum trolls got their own articles, this one would be about the lead developer Furor, and how his guild was allowed to level up on an easymode pve server, and then that server was among the first to be allowed to transfer to a server with a pvp ruleset.

      Then it could go into how furor was nothing but a forum troll in EQ, who used to rant about how he hated the paladin class, and that is why the WoW paladin is in such a sorry state and got boned during it's review.

    3. Re:wow by Xugumad · · Score: 1

      > I think patch day the servers were down all day, but thats to be expected.

      Why, though? If they scheduled all day, and were up after an hour, fine, because it means when something goes horribly wrong with an update, they've scheduled the time to fix it. What I don't see is why patches take so long, or why they need to have weekly maintenance.

      Anyone?

    4. Re:wow by lymond01 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think patch day the servers were down all day, but thats to be expected.

      It's funny what people get used to. In the original EQ, patches were just a few hours in the morning, one day a week, unless something went wrong (which generally didn't happen, despite what the boards say).

      In Horizons, another MMORPG, database lag was so bad that you could pick up an item and not see it in inventory for 10 minutes. You could run through an area full of monsters and not see one by the time you were through, because the client couldn't build them fast enough.

      If you're shovelling out $15/month for a service, about what you pay for cheap telephone service, you'd expect it to work when you wanted it to work. Like I said, it's funny what people lower their expectations to.

      No wonder Bush is still president (snap!)

    5. Re:wow by sonstone · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yeah, we can do other things; but not all of us have a lot of free time to play the game. We have jobs, family, other interests, etc... It's very frustrating when we set aside time to play the game we pay for and the servers are down.

    6. Re:wow by NetNinja · · Score: 1

      Yeah! what he said!

      My moldy dishes and over flowing garbage my overgrown front lawn and piles of dirty laundry need to be done. :)

    7. Re:wow by cowwie · · Score: 1

      Have you PLAYED since 1.10? For us, BWL is almost unlivable. Fight starts, lag spikes through the roof. Warriors can't sunder, healers can't heal, aggro goes crazy, people die... repeat process. It hangs at authentication, and after moving on from that... hangs at handshaking. If you're lucky, Retrieving Character List will only take 20 seconds during primetime. If not, it'll be 5 minutes like it did to me last night. This is not counting the fact that every Friday night, the entire server just starts dropping zones. If you're in an instance you're ok... if not.... buh-bye now.

      For the last month, Windrunner has been absolutely atrocious. I don't know if you just play during the day and not during US primetime or what, but our server at least is in foul shape.

    8. Re:wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, that was complete BS with FoH and that server transfer.

      But, Hyjal has a exceptional number of jerkwads (high guilds & otherwise) so it's not too surprising.

    9. Re:wow by Corgha · · Score: 4, Insightful

      As someone else mentioned, I think they are still a victim of their own success. Sure it's been over a year since launch, but they were expecting 250,000 subscribers and got 6,000,000.

      The controlling factor for their server performance should not be the total number of subscribers, but the number of subscribers per realm, and Blizzard has complete control over that number, because they can mark a realm as "full" and disallow logins/signups. IOW, as you know, those 6,000,000 people are not all playing in the same game at the same time.

      It should be possible to make the realms completely independent, so that this just becomes a matter of horizontal scaling, and having hardware/systems monkeys roll out new realms via some standard operating procedure.

      Unfortunately, based on the rumors I have heard, Blizzard has chosen to tie a bunch of stuff together. For instance, the common web forums use the characters from all the realms (the web forums know about your level 23 mage), they have a single set of auth servers, it's not clear that the item databases are not shared between realms, and so on. This is sort of sad, because it's not like Blizzard are the first people to roll out an MMORPG.

      Now, some might argue that tying some of this stuff together makes for a better user experience. However, when this entanglement leads to downtimes, one could make the argument that it's not worth it.

      Anyway, my point is not to bash on Blizzard; I'm sure they've made some difficult design decisions correctly, and some difficult ones incorrectly. My point is that "we have lots of users" is not a good excuse when you have a service that lets you divide those users into sub-populations, and that there are probably architectural improvements they could make to improve their scalability. The real question is whether they have competent and experienced systems engineers to help them make those improvements, and whether management is committed to supporting them.

      Anyway, so much for pre-coffee ramblings....

    10. Re:wow by blutfort · · Score: 0

      Cleaning your corner of your Mom's basement is more like it.

    11. Re:wow by SilentChris · · Score: 1

      "Sure it's been over a year since launch, but they were expecting 250,000 subscribers and got 6,000,000."

      Actually, that's a little off. I read they estimated about 1-2 million subscribers the first year. Unfortunately, they got 1 million in the first month or so.

      Part of the issue is just a basic fact: no one has ever had an online app on this scale before. Web sites have far more visitors but the content gets downloaded in drips and drabs. In Wow, millions of players are ALL connected at the SAME time for HOURS at a time. It's be stressful on any infrastructure.

      Knowing Blizzard, I know they'll see a way through this. My realm is relatively problem-free besides the occasional prime time lag. The more popular realms are the ones really having the problems (and people should leave them).

    12. Re:wow by _bug_ · · Score: 2, Insightful

      As someone else mentioned, I think they are still a victim of their own success. Sure it's been over a year since launch, but they were expecting 250,000 subscribers and got 6,000,000.

      Then Blizzard should not have distributed 6 million copies of the game. They've brought this upon themselves. Open beta consisted of a very small user base (relative to what it is now). So the kind of resource pressures they face now were never realistically tested pre-release. So really, the first (and it seems, current) adopters of the game became part of a second beta test of sorts. And I'll grant Blizzard that they were caught off guard but they've had almost 2 years to get things right and they still haven't managed it. And regardless of their known problems they continued to distribute more and more copies of the game. They should have shown a bit more restraint after initial release but they went all-in and now we're stuck with what we have.

      The big problem is that customers, especially those who've been around since release, will be reluctant to leave even if the service drops further. Reasons being addiction and the loss of investment on the time spent playing the game.

      I think WoW could go completely offline for a week and come back with a very minimal loss of its user-base. They don't have the motivation to do better.

    13. Re:wow by Slime-dogg · · Score: 1

      The controlling factor for their server performance should not be the total number of subscribers, but the number of subscribers per realm, and Blizzard has complete control over that number, because they can mark a realm as "full" and disallow logins/signups. IOW, as you know, those 6,000,000 people are not all playing in the same game at the same time.

      They can control the people creating accounts and logging on, but they never will actually disallow logins or signups. They have to cater to those who create accounts so that they can "play with their friends," which means that even if a server is labeled "full," people can still create toons on them.

      The current method of control is the automatic realm selection, right when you log in. It doesn't send you to a full server, and if you choose one that is full, it pops up a warning message. You can still click through the message and do your thing.

      --
      You need to restart your computer. Hold down the Power button for several seconds or press the Restart button.
    14. Re:wow by crabpeople · · Score: 1

      "In the original EQ, patches were just a few hours in the morning, one day a week, unless something went wrong (which generally didn't happen, despite what the boards say.)"

      I guess you dont see the irony in making this statement to reinforce your point. Fourm trolls ftl

      --
      I'll just use my special getting high powers one more time...
    15. Re:wow by glsunder · · Score: 1

      they were expecting 250,000 subscribers and got 6,000,000.

      So split it up completely, with different log in servers, everything. Put them in different locations. If they split them into say, 4 parts, if one part goes down, only 1/4 of the servers will be down. Then, they could even spread the scheduled downtime across them so people could log in anytime during the week if they wanted.

    16. Re:wow by lymond01 · · Score: 1

      Perhaps mistakenly, I rate Slashdot's boards somewhat higher on the objectivity scale than the MMO boards. But point taken. I'll just use the postal service from now on so my input seems less objectionable. ;-)

    17. Re:wow by JavaLord · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, based on the rumors I have heard, Blizzard has chosen to tie a bunch of stuff together. For instance, the common web forums use the characters from all the realms (the web forums know about your level 23 mage), they have a single set of auth servers, it's not clear that the item databases are not shared between realms, and so on. This is sort of sad, because it's not like Blizzard are the first people to roll out an MMORPG.

      Yep, they have a single login server for the forums and the game. Which is funny, because when the login server goes down, everyone rushes to the forums to whine, and they can't login. Then again, that might be "Working as Intended" in blizzards view. ;)

    18. Re:wow by sasdrtx · · Score: 1

      But they took all 6,000,000 customers' money. If they don't know how to support more than 250,000 customers, they're just stealing money from the rest.

      --
      Most people don't even think inside the box.
    19. Re:wow by Broken+Bottle · · Score: 1
      The controlling factor for their server performance should not be the total number of subscribers, but the number of subscribers per realm, and Blizzard has complete control over that number, because they can mark a realm as "full" and disallow logins/signups. IOW, as you know, those 6,000,000 people are not all playing in the same game at the same time. It should be possible to make the realms completely independent, so that this just becomes a matter of horizontal scaling, and having hardware/systems monkeys roll out new realms via some standard operating procedure.
      Because it's just that easy, telling the monkeys to release another server. From what I've read, Blizz has been rolling out patches to keep new content coming while they've been migrating realms to new higher end hardware while they've been opening new realms to ease congestion issues on more crowded servers. They look like they're taking their issues seriously but an operation of that scale just doesn't expand at the snap of the fingers. They have to plan plan plan to add capacity. All added capacity comes with increased costs and if they're too short sighted, they're doing it all again in a few months. BAsed on some of the dev posts that I've read, it seems like some of us are going through a little pain now so they can work to prvent that pain again in the near future.
    20. Re:wow by rujholla · · Score: 1

      Can you imagine then what people would be selling accounts for on Ebay??

      If they all of a sudden said no more new accounts I'll bet you could sell accounts for $1000 or more.

    21. Re:wow by SydShamino · · Score: 1

      I think one of the worst parts of their design is the location of all servers post-release in California.

      On release day, they had separate data centers for their east-coast and west-coast servers. (Before I quit, I played on Argent Dawn, an original server from the east coast.)

      Shortly after release, they merged the server "pool" (on the page where you pick a server) so that all servers were combined into one list - even though individual servers still ran their clocks on either east or west or central or mountain time.

      Then, whenever they added a new server, as far as I understand they always did so at the California facility. It didn't matter what the time zone for the server was - east coast, Australian, anything, it was put in the California rack farm.

      I think part of the result is that problems have a greater chance of affecting multiple realms. Even if it caused delays in some types of data updates, distributing the servers across the country would make it more likely that some facilities, with different ISPs, different power sources, different neighboring infrastructure, would stay up regardless of disturbances that took out other facilities. Then, there would be fewer folks kicked off, and thus fewer folks hitting the shares services, such as the root authentication server.

      Argent Dawn was sluggish due to the number of simultaneous players (and my poor video card), but after the first backbone improvements Feb-Mar after release, there were never any real problems. And the only time we had crashes was the night when the stupid warrior n00bs protested on our server because they weren't l33t enough or something. (Yes, I played a paladin intending to tank, as I was led to believe I could before release.)

      --
      It doesn't hurt to be nice.
    22. Re:wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They were always in the same data center, the only thing that was different was the clocks. Blizzard changed it so that the population would self distribute more smoothly across the servers.

    23. Re:wow by snuf23 · · Score: 1

      "They can control the people creating accounts and logging on, but they never will actually disallow logins or signups."

      Actually they did do this on the high pop realms that were the quickest to complete the AQ dungeon world event. The server I used to play on (Doomhammer) had this restriction imposed. At the time I quit the restriction was still in place. I have no idea if they removed it - I would imagine so.
      The server population was full and at the time I left you could expect a 30-60 minute queue wait (weekday 9pm Hawaiian time, so well past prime time on the East coast).

      --
      Sometimes my arms bend back.
    24. Re:wow by SydShamino · · Score: 1

      No, the original east coast servers are/were in Blizzard's server farm in Virginia, while the original west coast servers and all other servers added since then (afaik) are in their California server farm.

      --
      It doesn't hurt to be nice.
  8. You're doing it wrong by voice_of_all_reason · · Score: 2, Interesting

    if I kept performing 'urgent maintenance' and taking the service down without warning for eight-hour periods, I would be out of a job

    The difference is that Blizzard sees itself as already having it's customer's money. Therefore, there's no reason to spend any more for service. Your boss needs the network up just to make money.

    1. Re:You're doing it wrong by TallMatt · · Score: 1

      What do you think the chances are that some of these customers stop their subscription due to these problems? I'm not sure how long I would continue to shell out $15 a month for the constant frustration of trying to connect to a server, only to have my connection drop right at the height of action. If this problem does not get fixed soon with all the problems they are having, I think there is a good chance that subscriptions are going to start to fall off.

    2. Re:You're doing it wrong by voice_of_all_reason · · Score: 1

      The run the same rig as colleges. Both have more potential customers then they can handle, so the best solution for profit is to lower service because the loss of customers will be negligible compared to total income.

      As a corellary, imagine how much they would have to spend to ensure 99.9% uptime? It would get exponentially more costly as you tacked more 9s on the end of that decimal, in a similar fashion.

  9. Re:It seems... by plastic.person · · Score: 2, Funny

    I tend to agree, today's net users are so spoiled. Back in 1993 AOL went down every Tuesday and Thursday at 11PM for six hours- at least. And AOL isn't even a recreational service as WoW is, it is vital things like email and stock tickers.

    The above poster needs to learn to become tough like valient AOL users did, and who were also the tip of the spear that tamed the net for WoW players to come a decade later.

  10. AT&T have a right to provide poor service to W by Odiumjunkie · · Score: 2, Funny

    Those communists over at Blizzard want to use Edward Whitacre's pipes for free!

  11. Quit the game about three weeks ago... by TooMuchEspressoGuy · · Score: 1, Informative

    ...and migrated to EQ2. Little server lag, only a few instances of unplanned downtime, and stuff actually *works* (i.e. no year-long unfixed bugs). I'd highly recommend it to people who are bored/frustrated with WoW as I was.

    --
    Many Bothans died to bring you this sig.
    1. Re:Quit the game about three weeks ago... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have any idea if EQ2 is as popular as the original was? I stopped playing EQ before version 2 came out, but I heard from a few friends that many of the gamers who started playing EQ2 eventually went back to EQ. I think they had mentioned bugs, as well as the game requiring too much computer horsepower just to run properly. In my experience, EQ was a pleasure to play. No worries of downtime other than the scheduled patches.. which almost always took as long as Sony had expected. None of this 2 hour patch time that extends all the way to 8 hours. I would never pay for a game that takes 1 day out of your week of playtime, and I am not even taking into account the amount of time it can take just to join the server. I would hope that they schedule the patches sometime during the weekdays, late at night preferrably. But this still causes issues for people that either 1) are on a different schedule, or 2) live in different parts of the world. Maybe they patch certain servers at different times, but from what I have heard, I would still spend my money elsewhere. Hopefully they are dealing with these issues, and although there are growing pains, problems need to eventually be minimized. It is lame for them to blame their problems on AT&T, since they are ultimately responsible for their services reliability. Get another backbone provider if you don't like AT&T - or maybe get redundancy.

    2. Re:Quit the game about three weeks ago... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Little server lag, only a few instances of unplanned downtime"

      Because nobody's playing it.

    3. Re:Quit the game about three weeks ago... by Llywelyn · · Score: 1

      Or play Eve-Online.

      --
      Integrate Keynote and LaTeX
    4. Re:Quit the game about three weeks ago... by code-e255 · · Score: 1

      There's no lag in EQ2 because everyone stopped playing it. :p

    5. Re:Quit the game about three weeks ago... by C0R1D4N · · Score: 1

      EQ2 still hasn't reached the number EQ1 hit, but there's a helluva lot more competition out now than there was in 1999. Also a lot of the people who made EQ so good left before or at the beginning of the EQ2 project (McQuaid, Trost, etc). I myself am now looking at Vanguard should I ever really get interested in MMOs again (after 7 years they get to be kinda the same thing in every single game) http://www.mmogchart.com/ for the numbers

  12. wow @ WoW... by Attis_The_Bunneh · · Score: 2, Informative

    wow...And I thought SOE was bad at maintaing MMORPGs.... I'm sure glad I'm playing Saga of Ryzom. 6_6

  13. Guildwars by KingBahamut · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Free, not Pay per month, and as long as I have played it, only 2 spots of down time in 6 months. I guess WoW has many things one upped on GW, but still.

    --
    "God of Rock, thank you for this chance to kick ass. "
    1. Re:Guildwars by nurd666 · · Score: 1

      Same thing here, I got tired of the waiting in WoW, decided to try Guildwars. It's not the same experience, and theres alot of things I miss but, I get to play whenever I want without waiting.

    2. Re:Guildwars by IronChefMorimoto · · Score: 1

      Not even the same game, dude. It's free 'cause it's bland. I played GW for about 4-5 months before I jumped into WoW. Have I gone back? To help my GW playing friend who wants to finish the narrative plotline missions?

      Hell no. I'm not saying that WoW is totally the shiznit -- it's hard as hell to solo if you're new to the game. And if you get invited to a high level guild, which I'm in, they won't bother playing instances with you (even with alts) until you get up to level 50-60). And then there are all the complaints listed above when just trying to get in and play.

      That said, no way is GW like WoW. It's much more explorable, much more variety in the missions/quests (although FedEx runs for lazy NPCs are getting old at the lower levels), and you get to interact with so many more people. With GW, it's either hurry up and finish the missions to get the storyline OR play PvP.

      And forget about selling crap in GW -- no one wants to pay anything since there's so many dupes of items in the game. It's irritating as hell. At least I've been able to auction stuff and make some gold in WoW. And if I didn't make $$$ selling stuff or looting it, I can craft in WoW and make my own underwear. As opposed to having to beg for gold so my GW character's willy isn't falling out for lack of decent armor.

      My 2 cents.

      IronChefMorimoto

    3. Re:Guildwars by Jaysyn · · Score: 1

      Neverwinter Nights, *free*, smaller servers but more variety, close-knit community, something for everyone, *no gold farmers*.

      Jaysyn

      --
      There is a war going on for your mind.
    4. Re:Guildwars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you just made my brain bleed a little. When I played WoW, I didn't think a game could be so popular, and so bland at the same time. The lack of depth in WoW is amazing for its genre.

      Then there's the conundrum of trying GW instead of WoW, even though it's not in the same genre. It's diablo with easier to use multiplayer functionality. It's lack of character development is incredible. There was more character development in Daggerfall, and that came out almost a decade before GW. I'm pretty sure the reason they don't charge a monthly fee for GW is because maybe 5% of their profit from the $50 you spent on the box goes to cover development costs. The rest goes into all the pipe they waste hosting a single player game. Seriously though, if you're going to suggest someone go from a terribly easy, very basic game to something else, follow the above posters suggestion of NWN. Or at least keep it in the genre and suggest maybe EQ2 (for a little depth), DDO, or one of the classics with plenty of depth like EQ1, UO, or DAoC. Maybe suggest the upcoming Vanguard. But for the love of god, don't try and push someone from a crappy game into an even crappier game.

  14. Network and other WoW performance issues by Eggplant62 · · Score: 2, Informative

    I've noticed that since starting to play WoW last year around June that over time the performance issues and network performance have just gone in the toilet. Game patches result in difficulties too numerous to enumerate here. Login queue times have skyrocketed over the last four months, and I keep sending in complaints about how $150 a year should get me better performance than this. I'd love to see their setup and critique it.

    1. Re:Network and other WoW performance issues by skuzz03 · · Score: 1

      Speaking of it being on AT&T's network where most of the trouble lies - maybe it has to do with the NSA's snooping on Internet traffic on AT&T's network (courtesy AT&T) that is causing the issues..hmm.....

    2. Re:Network and other WoW performance issues by EnronHaliburton2004 · · Score: 3, Funny

      This was a business decision, not a technical descision. Probably an exclusive agreement made with the PHB in charge of WoW.

      "But why do we need two providers? ATT has assured me that they can provide all the bandwidth we need, and that they have failover capability! *plus* their datacenters are built on SPRINGS!"

  15. Monthly fee by Mayhem178 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Oh yeah, that monthly fee is totally going towards maintenance costs, just like they said. That much is apparent.

    Seriously, I still can't believe how easily people took to paying monthly subscription fees to play games that already cost $60 and, without paying the fee, are completely useless. It's kinda like giving cold, hard cash to a charity. You have no idea where that money is going, and you sure as hell can't trust Blizzard's PR department to give you the whole truth.

    I stand fast in my assertion that I will not pay a monthly subscription to play any game except under one of two circumstances: 1) the game must have an equally fun single player mode (and it better be damn good), or 2) the game itself is free, and the monthly subscription is the only cost.

    Call me anal, but it's bad enough when I pissed half my college years away playing Diablo II online for free. I don't see the point in having to pay for the privilege to waste my time.

    --

    "You will pay for your lack of vision..." - Emperor Palpatine to Ray Charles

    1. Re:Monthly fee by JavaLord · · Score: 1

      I don't see the point in having to pay for the privilege to waste my time.

      You don't pay to go to the movies? Or for cable TV? Or for any form of mindless entertainment out there?

    2. Re:Monthly fee by quanticle · · Score: 1

      I don't know about you, but my cable TV doesn't go out for 8 hours every other night.

      --
      We all know what to do, but we don't know how to get re-elected once we have done it
    3. Re:Monthly fee by Glonoinha · · Score: 1

      Yea, this guy's in for a brutal wakeup call the first time he takes a woman out for dinner at a nice resturant.

      --
      Glonoinha the MebiByte Slayer
    4. Re:Monthly fee by Mayhem178 · · Score: 1

      That's never a waste of time though. That's time invested, with expected returns. :)

      --

      "You will pay for your lack of vision..." - Emperor Palpatine to Ray Charles

    5. Re:Monthly fee by Mayhem178 · · Score: 1

      Occasionally, but that's a waste of time on a much smaller scale than WoW. I don't spend all my time doing those things, as many WoW players do. Truth be told, I really should cancel my cable TV subscription, I never watch it except occaionsally for the weather.

      --

      "You will pay for your lack of vision..." - Emperor Palpatine to Ray Charles

    6. Re:Monthly fee by podperson · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Call me anal, but it's bad enough when I pissed half my college years away playing Diablo II online for free. I don't see the point in having to pay for the privilege to waste my time.

      Actually I think it's a good thing to charge a monthly fee, that way even folks who don't understand the concept of opportunity cost won't be blissfully unaware that playing games all day is never "free". The really annoying thing for me is that most of these games require you to, basically, work (in the game).

      E.g. in WoW at some point you'll want to collect a set of gear from Molten Core. Each class has eight pieces of "tier 1 set gear" which can be obtained from Molten Core (we'll ignore the other stuff you can get there). It takes 40 people to clear Molten Core, you can only do it once per week, and you get about 20 pieces of set gear from one trip. Do the math and, optimistically, you'll need to do Molten Core 16 times to equip each of those forty people (of course, it will actually take much longer -- say six months -- to get most of the people most of their pieces).

      Now, every visit to Molten Core -- once you figure out how to do it -- is pretty much the same. So after your first few nightmarish two-three evening death-a-thons, you'll eventually be able to "do" MC (as it's known) in maybe three hours. So we're talking at absolute minimum 48h solid gameplay, much of it mindless repetition. (You know how to do everything, you're just waiting for your helmet to "drop".)

      But that's not all. At least until you all become very well equipped, Molten Core takes a toll on your equipment and consumables (e.g. potions and ammunition). To stock up on victuals and repair your gear, you'll probably need to spend another couple of hours prep time for each "adventure". So, we're now talking, at absolute minimum, 80h of solid grind to get a complete suit of "tier 1" gear. Again, all of this is mindless repetition.

      Now Molten Core is just one instance. I don't know how long it took to assemble it, but I suspect it would take a team of developers fewer person hours to put something like Molten Core together than it will take a typical guild to finish collecting set armor. Of course, they had to attend meetings and so on, so multiply that by ten, but what you're looking at is the fundamental flaw in all current MMORPGs ... they leverage a small amount of content with a gigantic dollop of tedium to keep people online as long as possible, paying their monthly fees and ruining their expensive college educations.

    7. Re:Monthly fee by Mayhem178 · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure the monthly cost is really getting that point across to the players though. Other than that, I completely agree, and in that respect, I have but one word for you: Mephisto.

      --

      "You will pay for your lack of vision..." - Emperor Palpatine to Ray Charles

    8. Re:Monthly fee by schon · · Score: 1

      You don't pay to go to the movies?

      He might, but if he does, he's not forced to pay $60 for the "movie theatre box", plus $10 for each movie he sees.

      Or for cable TV?

      He might use his TV for broadcast TV, or might have satellite. The difference is that the TV isn't useless without the monthly subscription to its manufacturer.

      Or for any form of mindless entertainment out there?

      The difference between the mindless entertainment you mentioned and WoW (and most other MMORPGs) is that the other mindless entertainment doesn't require you to "buy" something you can't use unless you pay a subscription to the people who make the thing you "bought".

    9. Re:Monthly fee by Lord_Dweomer · · Score: 1
      "but what you're looking at is the fundamental flaw in all current MMORPGs ... they leverage a small amount of content with a gigantic dollop of tedium to keep people online as long as possible, paying their monthly fees and ruining their expensive college educations."

      Funny how one person's flaw is another industry's business model.

      I mean, I completely agree with everything you've said, but don't expect things to change until their revenue stream is A. no longer directly influenced by the number of hours people need to put into the game to advance or B. they see a bigger increase in revenue from cutting down on grind and making the game more fun.

      Neither of which are likely to happen any time soon unfortunately.

      --
      Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
    10. Re:Monthly fee by TheLinuxSRC · · Score: 1

      "I don't know about you, but my cable TV doesn't go out for 8 hours every other night."

      Well, it does... they just call it infomercials.

    11. Re:Monthly fee by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      other mindless entertainment doesn't require you to "buy" something you can't use unless you pay a subscription to the people who make the thing you "bought"

      Never heard of a "complimentary good" have you? Skipped out on econ class in 9th grade? I take it you get pissed that you have to buy dvds to use your dvd player? Do you kick over the garbage can while you're filling your car with gas? Do you toss coffee grounds all over the place when you have to refill your mug? I can't even imagine what you think about having to pay your electric or water bill. Look out for those crazy things called business models!

    12. Re:Monthly fee by twosmokes · · Score: 1

      You're not the first person to call that a funamental flaw. I don't understand... when you quit having fun, quit playing the game.

      How hard is that?

    13. Re:Monthly fee by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      To sumarize, the Risk/Reward ratio is completely out of whack in MMORPG.

      It doesn't have to be, but sadly that is the way it is.

    14. Re:Monthly fee by snuf23 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "but what you're looking at is the fundamental flaw in all current MMORPGs ... they leverage a small amount of content with a gigantic dollop of tedium to keep people online as long as possible"

      The interesting thing is that with an MMO like WoW (not just WoW, there are others similar) you actually get quite a bit of content in the lower levels. You then run into this brick wall. It really starts with the tier 0 sets in the level 55-60 dungeons. You get to spend a couple hours for an 8% chance for an item that you might have to roll against another player to get. The first couple of runs through an instance can be good fun. The 20th run usually is not. And that is just a prelude of the still to come ZG, MC, BWL, AQ experiences of the end game.
      I had 6 out of 8 pieces of tier 0 gear and had done some ZG runs when I decided to quit. The game that to me was great from lvl 1-60 (ok well maybe 1-55) offered nothing but huge, boring and repetitive time sinks.
      I really enjoyed exploring WoW and think it's a great game - but I'd rather be exploring new content in some other game than going for my 30th run in Undead Strath hoping that the Baron will be wearing my pants tonight.

      --
      Sometimes my arms bend back.
    15. Re:Monthly fee by quintesse · · Score: 1

      Uhm, well _I_ did. Not that I've stopped paying (yet) but that's because I want to try a few more classes just to get a "feel" for them. But I absolutely hate doing raid dungeons let's say more than 3 times. After that it becomes completely boring and seems to be a complete waste of time.

      Somehow my girlfriend actualy _likes_ to spend hours each night doing the same instance over and over and over, but I think it's the social aspect that makes it interesting for her.

      I've invested a large amount of playtime in WoW but it could have been much more if the raids were more interesting, less tedious and more rewarding. I don't need this über-specced lvl 60 character, but to not have gotten one single epic item in all the time I've played is frustrating in itself :-)

      And if I could just have continued discovering more areas and been doing more quests and such I probably wouldn't have minded about those epic items, but after you get to lvl 60 what else is there left to do?

      So, IMO Blizzard _is_ doing something wrong, because they will definitely lose me as a paying customer in the very near future even though this has been one of the most enjoyable games I've played.

    16. Re:Monthly fee by stryc9 · · Score: 1

      But, if you had carried on playing you would see that it actually gets worse.

      For instance, you join a Guild so you can run MC more often, with better players, so you can run it in under 3hrs. This guild requires a certain level of attendance and probably uses DKP or another awarding/attendance system to assign loot to the raid attendees... so you have to play often or you will never get your gear.

      This guild also requires a certain base level of fire resistance gear for fights like Rag as well as bosses in BWL. So you now have to spend other, non-raid, days to farm for Librams, quest items, materials for enchants, and money for gear. So now you are spending even more time.

      You guild is also requiring other enchants on the gear that they have given you, like +dmg or +agility or +stamina(health). You also need Fire Resist potions, nature resist potions, +dmg or +stamina potions, etc. which all cost money and therefore require you to put more hours in farming for items to sell for money to purchase these items.

      It eventually turns into one giant perpetual grind and an incredible time sink. Before you hit 60 you can play as long as you want, or as little as you want and turn it off for dinner or whatever. After 60 you need to put all this time in, unless you just want to do ZG PUGs all the time. This is why I just lvl alt characters and try to keep my spot in my guild by raiding my main the bare minimum amount.

      Anyone want a 60 lock on Hellscream??

      --
      www.madeofwinandawesome.com
    17. Re:Monthly fee by podperson · · Score: 1

      You're right of course (although a guild which can do MC in less than 3h doesn't need to).

      I've really only listed out the very tip of the iceberg in terms of the insane tedium that WoW requires.

    18. Re:Monthly fee by podperson · · Score: 1

      The sad thing is that good MMORPGs are still (with this flaw) better games than most single player games -- in part because you're playing with other people, and in part because the folks producing them appear to have more creativity and talent than the folks generating fps tunnel of fun and groundhog day mission games.

      So -- are MMORPGs perfect? Far from it, and here's one thing fundamentally wrong with them.

      Does this mean that I'd rather watch paint dry or play Quake 7? No.

      Your response is about as reasonable as telling someone who complains about injustice in the electoral system "well if you don't like it here, move to Cuba".

    19. Re:Monthly fee by twosmokes · · Score: 1

      I don't think you can equate (not) playing a video game to moving to Cuba.

      And quitting is effective. Most MMORPGS ask you why you are quitting. Give them feedback. Vote with your dollar. It's the only thing that companies understand.

  16. Re:It seems... by Armando_Mcgillicutty · · Score: 4, Funny

    No one except the 6 Million users that play the game.

  17. Code patches? by lawaetf1 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I'm not a WoW player but if it's true that these systems regularly go dark for 8 hours at a time I have to wonder if they're not racing through some software patch. In other words, I don't know an architecture out there that can't be rebooted in 8 hours so a straight-up crash seems unlikely. I would assume they've taken care of scalability problems by now so system load / tablespace, etc, ought to not be an issue.

    Could it be that WoW suffers constant attempts at subverting the framework of play ... and some succeed, requiring a quick patch to the code base? I wouldn't doubt that they have monitoring mechanisms in play which detect unreasonable changes in a character's level / gold, etc.

    --
    CommentBot 0.7a running with args "-module irritate,disagree -target random"
    1. Re:Code patches? by plalonde2 · · Score: 1

      They do a few things in those 8 hour stretches. Some of them I know for sure, others are likely. 1. PVP rankings - it's clear that their system doesn't tabulate PVP rankings on the fly. I suspect the whole ranking system runs as a big select/join over the database of players, and that it just won't run online when the DB is being changed. You could go through the effort to do it, but it's not easy to get right, and this "solution" works now.
      2. DB compaction - the back end of these games is a large transactional database, but usally homebrewed instead of using, say, oracle. It's easy to design it so that you need to do substantial database clearing and compaction on a regular basis. Again, you could do this live, but it's harder to get right.
      3. Patches and content updates - same thing.
      You get a lot of this stuff closer-to-right after your first MMOG - it's a much more daunting problem than it first appears to be.

    2. Re:Code patches? by briaman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Then they're daft. If they have a mechanism for detecting unreasonable changes in a character's level / gold / etc - they have no need to implement a patch to fix the problem. They are the admins and can re-edit or delete the character or ban the player. If they're dirupting the play of thousands for just this alone then they have lost sight of the point of their business: To entertain, not frustrate.

      --

      ==========
      Error in module creativity.dll : Unable to create witty comment.
      Abort / Retry / Ignore ?

    3. Re:Code patches? by lawaetf1 · · Score: 1

      I'm sure they do ban players that try to subvert the game but that would only be symptom treatment. The whole premise to the fantasy "World" is that your time investment results in a measurable achievement. You get the next sword, the bigger bag of gold, etc. This is especially true when you consider that many of these items are now considered to have real-world value. Can you imagine the uproar if it became evident that one guild that found a way to leap-frog ahead of everyone else? People's lives and sense of well being are tied to this world of make-believe. Any cracks in the framework of this false reality really would require immediate intervention. I'm not saying this is at all the case, but it is one possibility.

      If database compaction and the like are the reason for these sudden outtages then Blizzard is being extremely careless. Build in a "night time" phase or some other fantasy explanation for the outtages.

      --
      CommentBot 0.7a running with args "-module irritate,disagree -target random"
    4. Re:Code patches? by Evangelion · · Score: 1

      This is especially true when you consider that many of these items are now considered to have real-world value.

      Not especially. Only Gold in WoW has much real world value (in terms of being able to liquidate it). Most items worth having are "bound" after using them, and can't be changed hands.

      Can you imagine the uproar if it became evident that one guild that found a way to leap-frog ahead of everyone else?

      Yes, because it happens all the time. Guilds explot in PvP to gain honour. Oh noes! Someone might make a thorough, detailed post on the forum of that particular realm calling that guild out and providing screenshots.

      The response would be a link to the ORLY owl.

      People's lives and sense of well being are tied to this world of make-believe. Any cracks in the framework of this false reality really would require immediate intervention. I'm not saying this is at all the case, but it is one possibility.

      Umm, whatever dude.

  18. They need to be listed as a Service. by Shivetya · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Just like ISPs are and held to accounts for it. When I played WOW they were good about refunding for extended downtime. Yet at no time do any of these pay to play games make any guarantee of service availabilty.

    As far as their continuing stability and growth issues.

    STOP SELLING THE DAMN GAME.

    Sheesh, how hard is that to understand? If you cannot provide a stable set of servers and servers where people can play WHENEVER they want to then stop selling new copies until otherwise.

    Hopefully with the number of professionals playing the game one of them will get annoyed enough to sue them in court, either to force a change by ruling or just having their named dragged into the mud.

    --
    * Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
    1. Re:They need to be listed as a Service. by Armando_Mcgillicutty · · Score: 1

      As long as people are buying, broken or not, why would they stop selling? That might be the "right" thing to do, but it makes little business sense. I'd love to have a broken product for sale that 6 Million people would give me $15/month to use.

    2. Re:They need to be listed as a Service. by JavaLord · · Score: 1

      One would think they could just lower the population caps on the servers and that would improve performance. If you took today's medium population servers and considered them high pop/closed to new characters and then transfered people out of the high pop servers, it should work itself out.

      That is, except for the problems they have with their own ISP. What does it take to get good service from an ISP nowadays?

    3. Re:They need to be listed as a Service. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, that's exactly what they did in February 2005 or so. They pulled the game off the shelves for about a month, I think, because they couldn't keep the servers up to the demand.

      And while some servers seem to be having issues, I've not seen many problems in the year+ I've been playing. And especially lately, things are really stable and fast, at least on my server. And no, I'm not saying which one it is. I have no great desire to /. my wow server. :)

    4. Re:They need to be listed as a Service. by brouski · · Score: 2, Informative

      IIRC, they did exactly this 1-2 months after launch. A couple of weeks later, they declared their problems solved.

      --
      Proud member of the American Non Sequitur Society. We might not make much sense, but boy do we love pizza!
    5. Re:They need to be listed as a Service. by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      If you cannot provide a stable set of servers and servers where people can play WHENEVER they want to then stop selling new copies until otherwise.

            What, and ruin a profitable business model? (Note I said profitable, not ethical).

      1. Sell game to new people who are ignorant of the server problems
      2. Older players get fed up and leave, freeing space on the servers.
      3. Profit from the monthly subscriptions even if the average player only stays a couple months.
      4. Repeat until everyone has tried/is pissed off with WoW.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  19. Nothing new for MMORPGs by Speare · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Having been intimately involved with the server management of one of the first graphical MMORPGs (3DO's Meridian 59), all I can say is that this is nothing new for MMORPG server clusters or services.

    Our game had its server problems and we were in "learning mode" to deal with some major outages, major gameplay renovations, major strife from jerks, and major socio-legal issues behind the scenes such as player-to-player harassment and real-life stalking. EA/Origin's Ultima Online started later and had some of the same issues in an almost predictable order and timing. Then EverQuest repeated our mistakes, and so on.

    I would think that as an industry, as a set of geeks, we MMORPG server managers would learn from each others' mistakes, but apparently, we do not. It is also a problem in that the management in *product* companies think it is easy to become a world-class *service* company, where the service is being sold to thousands to millions of *household* mass market customers.

    --
    [ .sig file not found ]
    1. Re:Nothing new for MMORPGs by garylian · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You are quite correct, just about every game has had these kind of problems, especially if they break new ground in subscription numbers. EQ had a lot of problems at launch, and for the first year or so. UO did have problems, as well. Blizzard certainly blew away everyone with it's subscription numbers with WoW.

      However, Blizzard has really dragged their feet when it comes to fixing things. The article makes it sound like this is a recent phenomenom for WoW, but it has been around since the game was first released.

      Granted, they didn't anticipate quite the initial subscription numbers they got, but within weeks we saw login queues show up, and Blizzard hastily added more servers. In fact, I do believe the more servers they added happened to be all that they had originally contracted for, and they used up that "growth servers" room right away. Now they have maxed their server capacity with their ISP, and they were sorta screwed at that point. Not that they couldn't have thrown money at the issue, but this is a game company owned by a media company. Throw money at the problem? Bwahahahaha

      Heck, I was on one of the original "terrible 20" servers; Uther. It was down so much it was scary. I think I ended up with more than 2 weeks of free play time for service outtages, and probably closer to a full month.

      Also, this whole thing about "a patch caused a new set of problems" is also not new for Blizzard and WoW. Every patch they did for the first several months would break half the server lag fixes they put in. Loot lag was so bad you could be stuck for more than a minute looting a corpse. From launch to when I quit playing 9 months later, they still had the problem of ore nodes and/or harvest nodes that would lock your toon up because it had nothing on it but failed to clear. I suspect that bug is still in place, but I don't care anymore. After a while, things got better, but as the queues came back, so did the content breaking patches, and the wife and I got out. Heck, we were 60, and bored.

      What is different is that most of these game companies have had their act together after 1 year, give or take a few months. It's been what, about 16 months since WoW was first released? They should really have their act together about now, or damn close to it. But they don't.

    2. Re:Nothing new for MMORPGs by MMaestro · · Score: 1
      No offense but this is 2006 not 1997 (the year UO was released). Any MMO system is STILL having server stability problems in this day and age is a piece of crap. Heck even EQ cleaned itself up (relatively) and continues to impress.

      It is also a problem in that the management in *product* companies think it is easy to become a world-class *service* company, where the service is being sold to thousands to millions of *household* mass market customers.

      The cable company seems to do fairly well at this job. Seriously, if you do your research its not that hard to really plan and prepare for mass market audiences.

    3. Re:Nothing new for MMORPGs by Dixie_Flatline · · Score: 1

      The scale of WoW is much bigger than every other MMO that's ever been released. Their problem is that they didn't adequately prepare for popularity.

      I can build a solution for a single person, and I can scale it up to work for 10 or maybe 100 people. After that, I have to start looking at reworking my initial architecture. Blizzard probably prepared for, seriously, an order of magnitude fewer players than they have right now; based on past trends in this marketspace, that would have been reasonable.

      At a certain point a system that large that's modified so often needs to be re-architected, but that's expensive, dangerous and time consuming. I'm a game programmer myself, and while I haven't worked on an MMO, I still feel that I know what they're going through. It's easy to fix a bug and create two new ones in large system.

    4. Re:Nothing new for MMORPGs by rfunches · · Score: 1

      Square Enix & PlayOnline recently debuted XBox 360 service for the MMORPG Final Fantasy XI, with the new expansion pack Treasures of Aht Urghan. Prior to the 360 release there was an extended open beta for those users. They had a similar miscalculation - they didn't expect as many users as they got. Nonetheless, the worst problem they had with the server? It finally hit a physical limit for characters on the server (each "server," or "world," is a cluster of servers) and SE/POL were forced to delete inactive level 1 characters.

      When 360 service actually began, the new expansion pack (and a slew of patches) brought a fair amount of maintenance. The longest maintenance? The scheduled one that would unlock the expansion, which lasted for eight hours. The login servers (everyone, including 360 users, go through these login/lobby servers; this was the case when the 360 version was still in beta) stayed up (in the past, sometimes they did get clogged) and client updates, which have been known to constantly timeout from surging demand, went fairly smooth.

      So why am I pointing this out? The game has had substantial growth since the beginning of the year, and the issues plaguing it have resulted in 2-3 unscheduled maintenances, lasting 2-3 hours, to fix critical issues. FFXI's worst outage ever? An 8-hour scheduled maintenance that got completely borked and lasted for 16 hours. Methinks severe network issues are pretty much a thing of the past for MMOs, and WoW is an isolated case.

    5. Re:Nothing new for MMORPGs by Rogerborg · · Score: 1

      WoW is only bigger in the number of servers. There's no reason that each server should be carrying more load than any other MMOG server, unless they're being deliberately OVER-loaded. The only scaling issue they should have is rolling out consistent server builds to each server. If they get ONE working, they should ALL work.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    6. Re:Nothing new for MMORPGs by Speare · · Score: 1

      The issue isn't a service company having problems, but of established product companies trying to change their mindset and business from "put together some atoms you can ship, inject it once into the retail channel, get a wad of cash in the clear" to "talk to customers for a long time, maintain the systems for a long time, get a trickle of ongoing cash." It's not a trivial shift for an established business to make.

      --
      [ .sig file not found ]
    7. Re:Nothing new for MMORPGs by theantipop · · Score: 2, Informative
      You pretty much hit the nail on the head here. What makes it even worse from the customer's standpoint is the lack of information Blizzard provides about anything. They are so terrified of something (admitting fault?) that Blizzard will never admit a problem until they have already taken down servers to fix it. This leaves players constantly wondering whether their concerns are even being addressed, nevermind in a timely manner.

      Perhaps this problem is symptomatic of their lethargy in getting their systems together 17 months after launch. I quit for a while, yet came back a few months later to find things better. As you said, though, they quickly got worse and like you I may be ready to give it up for good.

    8. Re:Nothing new for MMORPGs by Jack9 · · Score: 1

      The problem is scaling. They followed the typical Vivendi hardware cluster solution. Have load problems? Scale by adding more hardware. They did very well in comparison to previous attempts, having learned from all previous attempts. However, when a major chunk of the market is playing...it's still impractical. Of course AT&T wont say anything. Anything they would say about it could...and WOULD endager either AT&T or Blizzard's distributed networks.

      --

      Often wrong but never in doubt.
      I am Jack9.
      Everyone knows me.
    9. Re:Nothing new for MMORPGs by Kreigaffe · · Score: 1

      "However, Blizzard has really dragged their feet when it comes to fixing things. The article makes it sound like this is a recent phenomenom for WoW, but it has been around since the game was first released." Since before, actually. The Open Beta had the exact same loot lag, disconnection issues, authentication server problems, all of it. I'm not sure about the Closed Beta, though. That might have been fine.

      --
      ... still waiting for this free-as-in-beer free beer I keep hearing about. :|
    10. Re:Nothing new for MMORPGs by Fazlazen · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Granted, they didn't anticipate quite the initial subscription numbers they got, but within weeks we saw login queues show up, and Blizzard hastily added more servers.

      I've seen this argument before, and I'm completely baffled by it. If Blizzard ordered to have 1,000,000 copies of the game printed and distributed to retail locations, how can they be surprised when 1,000,000 people try to sign up?

    11. Re:Nothing new for MMORPGs by Dixie_Flatline · · Score: 1

      It's obvious that they've had problems population balancing, and it's believable that they have NONE of the servers working properly because, as I said, they miscalculated. They're now in the position of having badly overloaded servers -- which is why there are queues and server transfers. They can't implement the queues at the level that they probably should since that pisses off players possibly even more than the game performing poorly.

      In the end, I think they have optimization issues that don't manifest until they start pushing the population limits beyond what they originally expected. My server, Doomhammer, is (or was recently) the single most populated server in the world. When the server was moved to new hardware, a lot of problems disappeared.

      So yes, the servers ARE overloaded. For a long time, there weren't proper checks put in place to make sure that people couldn't create more characters than the server could handle. I wouldn't say that Blizzard themselves are deliberately overloading the server, they're simply not restricting server populations enough.

    12. Re:Nothing new for MMORPGs by garylian · · Score: 1

      I was in the closed beta, and there was no appreciable loot lag. The open beta, there was, but then they didn't really add much in the way of servers at that point, so we all kind of expected it.

      They did some tweaks, and at initial launch, there was no appreciable loot lag. It wasn't until a few weeks in that things started to fall apart. And when it fell, it fell hard.

    13. Re:Nothing new for MMORPGs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do the three FFXI fans here always neglect to mention the week-plus outage FFXI had? WoW has yet to do that. Possibly because Blizzard isn't stupid enough to try and use the SMTP port for their MMORPG.

  20. Re:It seems... by 955301 · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    Ngggggshhshseehahhad! I can't take it, I have to reply!

    AOL vital? Email and stock tickers through AOL vital! Now, I do believe I've heard everything! It's one thing to celebrate the Mom and Pop ISP's that filled the dialup service needs for millions of people, but celebrating AOL users as valiant is comparable to celebrating underarm bacteria for helping drive home the hygeine issue.

    I only WISH the AOL users back in the 90's were at the tip of the spear! A awl pike actually.

    --
    You are checking your backups, aren't you?
  21. O.o by robyannetta · · Score: 2, Insightful
    [sarcasm]

    The reason they're having so much trouble is because the integration with the AT&T to government monitoring station upgrades are taking too long.

    AT&T: Keeping terrorists off WoW!

    --
    - Just my $0.02, take with a grain of salt, your mileage may vary.
  22. Website is down by quietlysubversive · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Interestingly enough, the article's own webserver is down...

    Glass houses :-)

    --
    ----(o)----
    1. Re:Website is down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On the other hand, I doubt the guys running the article's server are pulling in $90,000,000+ _every_month_ that they can throw at bandwidth and maintenance...

  23. What I love about patches and hotfixes... by ragnarok56 · · Score: 1

    is that they Patch one thing, and something else ENTIRELY UNRELATED gets broken. In a recent patch, there were no changes detailed in patch notes regarding Onyxia, yet they managed to cause her deep breath to occur every 10 seconds or so. How the hell does this happen?

    1. Re:What I love about patches and hotfixes... by fooslacker · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Generally it's a source management problem. Improper config management and source labeling leads to promotion of untested or incorrect code files so chagnes not intended to go get packed up with the ones that are intended. That's probably most of it. The rest is just not doing correct impact analysis. For example changing something in a base class and not realizing that 400 things inherit from it instead of just the one you're trying to fix. If people did better interface managemnt and impact analysis and they did proper source and config management many of these patch side effects would vanish.

    2. Re:What I love about patches and hotfixes... by Glonoinha · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Actually, that's how software maintenance happens in the real world.

      Real code is complex, and generally written as a massive matrix of inter-related side-effects causing things to happen*. When it gets written, the entire matrix is designed, intended, documented, and understood. Two years later the guys working on the code have no clue about the matrix of side-effect driven code, no clue about the complex set of business factors driving the technical aspects of the code (and by business factors, in a MMORPG I mean things like class X has bad faction with everybody making it more difficult for him to start out, but in return for overcoming that challenge has more powerful magic later in life - stuff like that) and when they are making a change they go in, find the one line of code that looks like what needs to be fixed and just change it without knowing all the places that change will ripple back to, invisibly, via the side-effect matrix.

      A technical phrase to understand here is 'globally scoped variables' - and another one is 'design intent' - and as the current set of hacks don't understand the ramifications or scope of either, this is what happens.

      Footnotes
      * I didn't say it was a good idea. I just said it happens.

      --
      Glonoinha the MebiByte Slayer
    3. Re:What I love about patches and hotfixes... by snoopyowns · · Score: 0

      Yeah that really threw my guild a loop. But it's so easy to dodge Deep Breaths anyway that it wasn't too big of a deal. I don't think they are fully documenting their patches.

    4. Re:What I love about patches and hotfixes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, but that's Working As Intended.

      Yeah, Deep Breath should be raid-wiping, and standing out of the way won't cut it anymore.

      DPS like an idiot during phase 2 to get it over with and you still stand a chance. Good luck.

      I suppose that buff should have been balanced with a tweaked loot table.

    5. Re:What I love about patches and hotfixes... by Slime-dogg · · Score: 1

      I imagine that another huge issue confronting WoW is the database design, the hardware that the database is sitting on, and how reality has exceeded the expectations that Blizzard had.

      It seems that it is difficult to bring up old backups of a database, and recreate items that have been hacked/sold/destroyed. They probably didn't expect that people would be hoarding stacks and stacks of stonescale eels, or that the auction houses could possibly get to over a million items. They didn't expect to have 5+ million subscribers, realms with over 50,000 people on them... all of which could be sitting there creating heavy runecloth bandages, or looting mineral nodes, bodies, etc.

      The instance servers and world servers are all tied to that database, so it has to handle everything that happens in the game. That means tables that have grown beyond the billions of entries in size. I don't think that the database was designed to handle this load smoothly, which would be why it takes minutes to loot, sometimes, or why it takes a few seconds for all of the player positioning and item information (determines what you see) to make it to the client, when you're zoning into a heavily populated zone (Ogimmar, Ironforge).

      --
      You need to restart your computer. Hold down the Power button for several seconds or press the Restart button.
    6. Re:What I love about patches and hotfixes... by idontgno · · Score: 1
      Or, in the words, of the typical Klingon progarmmer:

      What is this talk of 'release'? Klingons do not make software 'releases'. Our software 'escapes' leaving a bloody trail of designers, quality assurance people, and customers in its wake.

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    7. Re:What I love about patches and hotfixes... by fooslacker · · Score: 1

      Yes this is often the case in the real world...no it doesn't have to be. Some teams are much better at managing this than others which implies that it is not simply an unavoidable artifact but rather that how we work matters. All systems suffer to some extent but it is way out of control in the "real world" right now and those who've worked with a top notch delivery team can tell you that it's much rarer on in those groups that design, manage, and document chagnes properly. Initial designs targeted at maintainability and proper management can't elimiate side effects but it can very much limit them.

    8. Re:What I love about patches and hotfixes... by GnuDiff · · Score: 1

      "The instance servers and world servers are all tied to that database,"

      Sounds pretty crappy. I doubt very much that'd be the case.

  24. More Crafty by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Sounds like WoW has a house of cards network with single point of failure architecture problems.

    And that AT&T is exploiting them, marketing a new "premium service/support" contract by letting them go down.

    I can't wait until WoW has to pay AT&T (and its handful of competitors, if they get rid of the SPF) the extra "premium tier" routing fees, once the telcos market their "nonneutral" Internet. Because a world of angry Warcraft players jonesing for their fix will be a nice gift for telco suits just trying to make it home from work.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

    1. Re:More Crafty by Lord_Dweomer · · Score: 1
      "Because a world of angry Warcraft players jonesing for their fix will be a nice gift for telco suits just trying to make it home from work."

      Sounds like a Hunter quest....

      --
      Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
  25. Blizzard SUCKS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They charge you $15 a month and then pocket the money.
    If they spent 1/10th of that on making sure the service actually works, everybody would be happy.
    I'm terminating today.

    Go to hell, Blizzard!

    P.S. - I'm going to miss my orc shaman a LOT! :(

  26. Oh please... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why are we bringing this crap from the WoW general forums onto /. now? I even see the whole "Blizzard is making $15 x 6,000,000 a month but is too cheap to spend money on their game" BS.

    My server has had no unplanned downtime since the issues that occured with the 1.10 patch were resolved. I can live without the game for one day, so I'm not upset with that. I have not experienced any queues or even severe "loot lag" since then. It is about 100 times better than it was over the Holiday season or at launch. I've been playing since Beta, so I've been there through EVERYTHING.

    I've dealt with issues in every MMO I've played, including EQ1, Anarchy Online, Ragnarok Online, DAOC, and so forth. In every game, there are a bunch of whiners who complain about the game/balance/art/economy/grinding/stability/servic e/lag but continue to play for years. If you hate WoW and/or Blizzard that much, quit. Seriously. Leave the game to people who enjoy it without having to complain about every little thing.

    1. Re:Oh please... by pandrijeczko · · Score: 3, Insightful
      But then the other argument is that it's people like you, who endure these outages without complaint, who make it bad for everyone else?

      I don't play any online games but I thought the whole idea of them was that you subscribe to that service for it to be available just about 24x7 whenever you feel like jumping in. Sure, occasional outages are to be expected but if it gets to the stage where the game is frequently slow or unavailable, the common sense solution would be to cancel your subscription until Blizzard (or whomever) improves the service they deliver you. If enough people did this, they'd have to do something about it...

      I'm sorry but I think far too many people have become "slaves" to marketing by truly believing that they simply cannot do without a lot of the products & services that they pay good money for - to the point where they "need" those items so much that they're afraid of complaining in case they're denied those things completely.

      --
      Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
    2. Re:Oh please... by crabpeople · · Score: 0, Troll

      Well since you dont play, im glad youve commented! thats what we need more of. Anyways to your point;

      "you subscribe to that service for it to be available just about 24x7 whenever you feel like jumping in"

      This is exactly, for the most part, by and large, what happens for everyone. What the parent is saying, correctly, is that the 1% of users who have problems make 99% of the noise. This is how the phrase "fourm troll" was coined and what it generally means. People who love complaining about the game and yet are completely dependant on it to a point where a day of downtime is some kind of crazy conspiracy. Basically, the only time that anything bad happens is either 1) around patch time 2) during peak server loads. And honestly, ALL computer systems are like that.

      "they're afraid of complaining in case they're denied those things completely."

      Well im not afraid of complaing, or some sort of apologist, but its really NOT THAT BAD. Personally, i would complain more about the horrible GM policies (name changing on TOTALLY legit names*1, bans for casual swearing, gms suspending your account for something you did 6 hours ago when your just about to down rag, etc). The hardware problems are the least of my problems with the game. Power tripping GMs and uneven enforcement of policy is so much worse than an hour or two of downtime.

      *1 They actually changed my friends name because it was ntny (anthony with some letters missing) which they said was "random characters" which is a renameable offense. what words arent collections of random letters, i ask you.

      --
      I'll just use my special getting high powers one more time...
    3. Re:Oh please... by pandrijeczko · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I'm not sure I understand the tone of your response - I'm not qualified to comment on WoW, I don't play it, a few friends of mine play City Of Heroes/Villains & Dark Age Of Camelot, I don't get too involved in their conversations about any of those games but I don't hear them complain much at all about service outages or lags. That's about all I know about MMORPGs and if people enjoy them then great & good luck to them.

      However, I get a little sick and tired of people treating certain companies as being almost "beyond criticism" on Slashdot - Apple seems to be one of those, Blizzard appears to be another. (BTW, I'm an avid player of Warcraft 2 & Starcraft so I actually rate those particular products, and therefore my personal experiences of Blizzard, very highly).

      The fact is that if you don't feel you get value for money, whether it's from Apple, Microsoft, Blizzard, Dell, etc. etc. then *DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT* rather than just sitting back & accepting it. Maybe I'm just middle-aged & cynical but I don't consider *ANY* product or service as being that important to me that I wouldn't throw it straight back at whoever sold it to me if it didn't meet my expectations.

      The problem is that clever marketing has made certain products "cool" and/or made some people fearful of making any criticisms just in case they "stand out from the rest of the crowd". What I'm saying is that *ALL* that matters is whether or not *YOU* feel you get value for money - if you do, then enjoy it & let those that feel they don't raise a stink about it.

      There is *NO* such thing as a "nice" company or corporation - they *JUST* exist to make money from you and it's the quality of what they deliver to you that is the only important thing.

      --
      Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
    4. Re:Oh please... by PhantomRogue · · Score: 0

      Actually, you think that, and then there will just be more people who will pickup the game at a casual pace and wont care or notice the downtime. (Since those people will be sleeping/logged off after 11 or some other time) And I HIGHLY doubt that Blizzard expected 250,000 subscribers. Thats like saying McDonalds only expects 500 people a day to order some food. Sure they expected 250,000 off the bat, but they KNEW that 1 year down the line the game would be this huge. Its a storied franchise with a large area of interest. Most Internet companies have two or THREE backup ISP's in order to load handle the servers, DNS and other internal hardware. I think it shows a lack of backbone and hardware foresight on Blizzards part more than anything. If I were blizzard, even if I was directly plugged into an OC Backbone, id still have multiple Fiber lines coming in just in case of severe server/bandwidth load. I just dont see how they have so many internal hardware and DB problems when you are bringin in so much revenue (Not saying running 40 Servers is cheap or anything clsoe to it, but there is plenty of monthly money coming in for hardware and bandwidth budgeting).

    5. Re:Oh please... by pandrijeczko · · Score: 1
      And I HIGHLY doubt that Blizzard expected 250,000 subscribers.

      But Blizzard are happy to rake in $15/month (or whatever the subscription charge is) from each player nonetheless...

      Thats like saying McDonalds only expects 500 people a day to order some food.

      McDonald's sells "food"??? Since when???

      But seriously, that's a different analogy anyway. McDonalds doesn't always guarantee to be able to provide you with food - it just guarantees that at the point you hand over money, you will get some food. And if that food doesn't meet your expectations, then you can take it back and get another one or your money back.

      Other than that, until McDonalds hands over burgers that look like the ones in the adverts, they're just another lying corporation anyhow... just like Blizzard selling the "illusion" of fast, always available servers but not delivering on that.

      I think it shows a lack of backbone and hardware foresight on Blizzards part more than anything.

      Possibly true but totally irrelevant. They are not delivering (for many people) what they said they would deliver. That's the problem.

      --
      Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
    6. Re:Oh please... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But then the other argument is that it's people like you, who endure these outages without complaint, who make it bad for everyone else?

      I have been overall happy with WoW. Yes, there have been some issues, but the overall product I subscribe to is by far the most enjoyable MMO experience I've had. I don't think the outages I have experienced are overbearing. I have, for the most part, been able to play when I want to play. I may have some issues with some things, but The server stability or downtime, from my point of view, have been on par with other games I've played... and I've played many at their launch and/or peak.

      Perhaps the uber hard core crowd who plays over 12 hours a day regularly, and who treats missing a raid like the end of the world, have valid complaints from their point of view. Perhaps they want the service to be absolutely available 24/7 at all times.

      There are vocal complainers whine and whine, throw up their own BS speculations about how Blizzard is making a kajillion dollars profit a month, how they hate Blizzard, etc... but never seem to cancel their accounts. It seems to me that if it was really that bad, they'd cancel.

    7. Re:Oh please... by pandrijeczko · · Score: 1
      The server stability or downtime, from my point of view, have been on par with other games I've played

      Yes, but this is precisely my point. It isn't satisfactory to accept something purely because it's "on a par" with everything else. The *only* criteria is whether or not you personally feel you get value for money.

      Perhaps the uber hard core crowd who plays over 12 hours a day regularly, and who treats missing a raid like the end of the world, have valid complaints from their point of view. Perhaps they want the service to be absolutely available 24/7 at all times.

      It simply isn't for me to judge whether playing 12 hours a day or not is right or wrong - but you can be sure that on the back of "Warcraft 3" boxes, Blizzard didn't put on the proviso that "the service given by our online servers may at times be slow or unavailable". Therefore, those who play long hours have every right to feel aggrieved if they feel they were sold a 24x7 service and are not getting that.

      but never seem to cancel their accounts. It seems to me that if it was really that bad, they'd cancel.

      This I agree with - my attitude is that anyone who whines is being a hypocrite if they don't also take direct action.

      --
      Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
    8. Re:Oh please... by mjhacker · · Score: 1

      City of Heroes/Villains has TERRIBLE mapserver disconnects... it was far worse than any problems I ever had with WoW. I'm talking being disconnected every 20-30 minutes for seemingly no reason, though I suspect the game didn't like my ping (I've heard cable modems have comparably high latency). The most stable game I've played has been FFXI. Honestly though, and this is coming from someone who played WoW about 5-6 months ago, I didn't really have much trouble with it. Sure, there were a few times, but (for me) the vast majority of the time was smooth sailing. Maybe it's because I was in a low-population server or I didn't play at the right times, but WoW didn't give me problems.

    9. Re:Oh please... by AutumnLeaf · · Score: 0

      I really can't figure out why you're modded up and some of your respondees are modded down for trolling, but in any case...

      Your last paragraph is alleges that people aren't complaining in a way that hurts Blizzard (via the bottom line) for fear WoW will close its doors due to being unprofitable. That's the only way I can see your sweeping generalization applying to the WoW in particularly. There seems to be a supposition, both in my interpretation and your original text, that people who complain about the service but don't quit can only be doing so because they are afraid of losing access to the game all together and are slaves to marketing.

      This isn't the case, and I think you're more interested in slapping down people who play the game and complain about the quality of service than adding real value to the conversation.

      For one thing, I see almost no marketing for WoW. I've seen more ads for crappy Playstation games selling for $5.00 on the used game rack at my local game shoppe than I've seen ads for WoW. I don't receive mailing lists. I usually learn about upcoming changes through people talking in game than by reading anything.

      I think people complain and don't cancel their accounts because they want to play the game they are paying money to play, and Blizzard's inability to scale their infrastructure and architecture is messing with that. On the surface that may seem like a trivial burden one must bear to enable Blizzard to make things better.

      However, my other post in this thread points out how a downtime by Blizzard has manifested as the state of affairs getting worse. Also, these issues are impacting the ability of people to achieve in-game goals that require working as groups/teams. Lag kills in blackwing lair. The random authentication issues have really played havoc with some guilds even getting their raids off of the ground.

      Lastly, lot of players can't play every night. Rather, they play on a schedule to accommodate the other things in their lives. When Blizzard's systems glitch up and make the game unaccessible or otherwise unplayable, that can effectively be a one week downtime for someone who can only make one night a week.

      Speaking of no longer complaining about things that suck... I stopped complaining about the moderation system on Slashdot because I gave up hope of it ever improving. Not because I'm afraid the site maintainers will take the crappy mod system away from me. :P

    10. Re:Oh please... by pandrijeczko · · Score: 1
      Why do you consider my comments to be a "sweeping generalisation"?

      Whether you're not satisfied with the state of Hollywood movies, the price of CDs, DRM or online gaming, the best way to display that dissatisfaction is to not hand over your money so quickly - if lots of people do that, someone's share prices are going to be affected and they'll need to take some positive action to turn things around and start the money coming in again.

      Unfortunately, you're taking this somewhat personally and not allowing yourself to see my true argument - personally, if it makes you happy, I really don't care how long you play whatever online game you want and if you find no problem with the state of WoW then so be it; go off and enjoy it.

      But *PLEASE* don't think that just sitting there moaning about it will change anything because it won't. Blizzard (or any other company/corporation you may think of) is just interested in crowbarring as much money from you as possible and as long as you continue handing over the cash, they've no reason to give a toss about what you think about their service or even to make it better.

      Fifteen years ago, I was a fanatical "pen and paper" roleplayer (AD&D, Call Of Cthulhu, etc.) and whilst online MMORPG gaming has no appeal to me personally, the people that do play MMORPGs enjoy precisely the same escapism that I used to with squared paper and 20-sided dice - so I can understand why they enjoy playing those games, even to the point of fanatical playing, and therefore have no reason to look down on them for enjoying a "similar" hobby to one I used to enjoy.

      But please stop being a "fanboy" and be a realist - Blizzard (and any other entertainment provider) is there *purely* to serve you by giving you something that you're prepared to pay for rather than you being so glossy-eyed over a "brand name" that you let them treat you like mindless cattle because they've achieved a "cool factor" in your opinion.

      And with regards to your opinions on moderation - take that up with Slashdot because I'm just voicing what I truly believe to be the case - that far too many people are all "gooey-eyed" over certain brand names to the point where they lose all sense of rationalisation and choice.

      --
      Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
    11. Re:Oh please... by snuf23 · · Score: 1

      "City of Heroes/Villains has TERRIBLE mapserver disconnects..."

      At launch and after the first big patch that was true with CoH. Not true for CoV or CoH now for me. So you see just as with WoW there are a certain degree of these problems that are caused by the route between your computer and the server over the Internet. I consider CoH to be one of the stablest and most bug free MMOs I've played and encountered very few problems with lag (I'm also on a cable modem). But I don't doubt that you had problems that I didn't.
      I had quite a bit of problems with lag in WoW although bugs, server crashes/slowdown were more common issues for me than connectivity.

      --
      Sometimes my arms bend back.
    12. Re:Oh please... by snuf23 · · Score: 1

      However, I get a little sick and tired of people treating certain companies as being almost "beyond criticism" on Slashdot - Apple seems to be one of those, Blizzard appears to be another.

      I agree completely. Somehow people get so caught up with something they like that they take any criticism as some sort of personal insult.
      I like a lot of Blizzard's games and enjoyed WoW quite a bit. I quit WoW because of the very real issues (both technical and game play) that it has and that Blizzard has not been able to fix.

      --
      Sometimes my arms bend back.
  27. NSA Agents Hot on the Trail of Horde Terrorists by Anubis333 · · Score: 5, Funny

    It's hard for AT&T to cater to so many millions of users *AND* filter/direct all of their customer data illegally and directly to the NSA.

    1. Re:NSA Agents Hot on the Trail of Horde Terrorists by Gorimek · · Score: 1

      You joke, and in a funny way even, but I often wonder how much all this legal and illegal spying is slowing down the net.

      If every single packet is sent not only to it's intended destination, but to one or even several different spying agencies (who, being ultra secret, naturally do not communicate), that's gotta be noticable. I doubt there is any way to know.

      Clearly, WoW is a worldwide communication channel that has to be monitored, if anything is.

    2. Re:NSA Agents Hot on the Trail of Horde Terrorists by merreborn · · Score: 1

      You laugh now, but I sat through a presentation by Elonka Dunin at mud-dev 2k3 covering the basics of cryptography, including an exploration of the possibility that terrorists may attempt to use MMOs as communications channels.

      "Tell hashmir the Loot will be on the Big Green Goblin at Half Past Morntide"

  28. Re:It seems... by Programmer_In_Traini · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    Looking at your history (http://slashdot.org/~j0nkatz) its obvious you have a way with words.

    I wonder why you bother talking to us, you're way too cool to hang with nerds like us.

    --
    If you look like your passport photo, you're too ill to travel. - Will Kommen
  29. Service Providers In General by pandrijeczko · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Not a direct comment about Blizzard (I don't even play WoW) but I am totally disgusted with the way some service providers treat we general Joe Public customers.

    As an example, I came home from holiday (I'm in the UK) on Sunday evening & I immediately noticed my ADSL connection was down. So I phoned my ISP to report the fault, only to be told that they knew about the problem - a faulty server had been down for 48 hours!!! And when the tech support person could not tell me when the service would be restored, she seemed totally bemused as to why I was angry about the duration of downtime & demanded to speak to her manager.

    The manager was even worse... polite and courteous but did not have a clue as to the cause of the problem or when the ADSL service would be back up. He even admitted that they'd been making some network changes to accomodate a recent merger with another company and that they had no backup server to put in place to at least give some degree of restricted service.

    I may pay (the equivalent of) $30 a month for my ADSL service but am I the only person who expects good service from any company I deal with, whether I spend £3 or £30,000 with that company? I accept that sometimes there are service outages, I'd even view an 8-hour outage a few days a year as being understandable. But 48 hours???

    I've been in the telecoms/computer industry now for about 20 years now and I've seen the whole perception of what is and isn't good customer service change over that time - it seems now that customers are forced to accept worse service because every company has reduced the level of service they give.

    And when it comes to poor Joe Public "peons" like ourselves, who only spend a small amount each month with these companies, we're expected to endure countless menu selections, long delays in call-centre queues and lengthy outages as a matter of course.

    It would be good to see a lot more people complain more and cancel their services with some of these providers - I'm sure this is the only way that they will be forced to offer better service to us.

    --
    Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
    1. Re:Service Providers In General by Viol8 · · Score: 1

      I've had broadband issues with NTL. Thats why I always keep a dialup
      account (with another company I might add) as a backup. Just in case.
      And those cases have so far happened 6 times this year.

    2. Re:Service Providers In General by pandrijeczko · · Score: 1
      I was actually an NTL user until November last year when I moved house to an area they didn't cover. Whilst we had endless arguments with NTL about billing errors and I avoided their tech support like the plague, I actually had a pretty good, fast and reliable cable modem service from them for over 4 years - probably amounting to about 3-4 outages a year for maybe an hour or two at the most. Maybe this was simply the area I lived in (compared to yours) but I would have gone back to them given the choice because I didn't need their tech support and was more concerned about good uptime and speed.

      My current provider is Onetel and their service has been pretty good (over the past 6 months I've used it) until that long outage last weekend. I threatened to cancel my contract with them if the service wasn't restored by Monday morning (I work from home a lot and use VPN to connect to work) but it was restored soon after I phoned them - I think this was pure coincidence as there was nothing else from them in the way of an apology or follow up.

      I just find it difficult to believe that any company would deem a 48 hour outage as acceptable to any customer - and I'm amazed that more people don't complain when this length of service outage happens.

      --
      Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
    3. Re:Service Providers In General by Slime-dogg · · Score: 1

      "Well, then, I'd like to cancel my account."

      "Excuse me? Why do you want to cancel?"

      "There wouldn't be any difference between service when I pay you, and service when I don't pay you, so I might as well not pay you."

      One of the reasons why companies get so smug about not giving good service, is that the consumers are so willing to bend over and take it from behind. Vote with your dollars.

      --
      You need to restart your computer. Hold down the Power button for several seconds or press the Restart button.
    4. Re:Service Providers In General by Tom · · Score: 1

      I may pay (the equivalent of) $30 a month for my ADSL service [...]
      we're expected to endure countless menu selections, long delays in call-centre queues and lengthy outages as a matter of course.


      I agree on the outages. However, the call-center thing is a matter of simple math. At $30 a month - let's be generous and let the phone company's margin be 20%, that's $6 a month in profit. If you keep one call-center agent busy on the phone for 15 minutes, that's about $3-$4 in salary plus overhead - oops, there goes the profit for that month.

      The thing is, you can not expect the same level of customer care for $30 as for $30,000. Just doesn't happen.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    5. Re:Service Providers In General by pandrijeczko · · Score: 1
      The thing is, you can not expect the same level of customer care for $30 as for $30,000. Just doesn't happen.

      Sure, but that's a defeatist attitude. If 999 other people also cancel as well as me, then that's $30,000 they lose, not just my $30.

      Not complaining or cancelling "because no-one else will so why should I" is playing *exactly* into their hands and gives them the justification to treat you even worse as time goes on.

      --
      Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
    6. Re:Service Providers In General by matt_wilts · · Score: 1

      >If you keep one call-center agent busy on the phone for 15 minutes,
      >that's about $3-$4 in salary plus overhead

      Nice idea, but my ISP charges a premium rate for their call centre calls.
      (approx $1 a minute). So they'd probably make money off you.

    7. Re:Service Providers In General by MisterOblivious · · Score: 1

      It does happen, but you need to choose an isp with more "$30,000" clients than "$30" clients. Sure, for my $20 a month I dont get access to their super-secret-special pager number for use during holidays or emergencies. It doesn't really matter though. The only unannounced outage of service I've seen this last year was for under an hour, was due to the line provider, and was given a message in the call waiting pool as to what the problem was before I even had to bother asking a human what the problem was. To me, the best part about the package is that their "residential" service is what most isps consider "buisness" packages: only static ips, all ports unblocked, no throttling, usenet, dialup backup. The only complaint most people have had with this isp was the lack of 24/7 tech support, which they started offereing back in March. Take a look at the announcement page, does your isp offer this? Mine does.

    8. Re:Service Providers In General by Constantine+Evans · · Score: 1

      And then what? In many areas, you either have no choice about your service provider, or the choices are all essentially the same.

    9. Re:Service Providers In General by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Speaking as someone who runs a UK service provider, you need to understand that the vast majority of the UK's ISP's use BT's Wholesale broadband service. Which means at the very most, they can only offer what BT offer. And BT's ADSL lines - by default - comes with a 40 working hours fix time. That is 5 days. If that's a problem for you, talk to your ISP about being put onto enhanced care (2 working days). If that's still not good enough for you, you've bought the wrong thing.

      This is specifically why my company has it in it's terms and conditions for it's DSL products that the line has to be down for a full 5 weekdays before we will consider compensation (and no doubt yours will have the same clause). You wouldn't believe the amount of people that (a) are cheap enough to buy a 512Kbps 50:1 ADSL line at $30 a month (b) cram 30 desktops with email/web access onto that line and then (c) whine that they're "loosing thousands of pounds" when it goes down.

      Problems happen, whether it be the line itself or a server exploding. You should be taking it out on yourself for not checking what you were buying. You are talking about a $30 DSL line... not a $7000 leased line. Economies of scale.

  30. Where it really shows by Vicegrip · · Score: 3, Informative

    The problem really is visible when you are adventuring in difficult to beat places. You depend on having your team perform to their best ability. It is then so frustrating to be constantly dealing with part of you team getting disconnected or being lagged to the point of ineffectiveness.

    My guild is doing MC BWL, ZG and AQ20 right now. It is a regular occurence right now to wait 20 minutes to start a fight because of disconnected people, only to then lose that battle because you lost two priests to a disconnect during it.

    The anger may not be at the threshold point yet Blizzard, but it most definitely building fast. The thing about angry customers is that there is a point of no return when they are forever lost. Blizzard has a lot of customers right now, but they would lose them fast if somebody else stepped up with a great game and more reliable game play.

    Blizzard, you executed very very well on game content by effectively removing much of the grind that other games are plagued with, but you have failed with customer interaction. Some of your representatives treat your customers with borderline contempt (Tseric) and you fail miserably at explaining properly the multitude of changes you make to the game.

    Blizzard, your six million customers are waiting; it's your move, take too much time and you could lose them. Start with being public about your server improvement plans, telling people what you're doing and why and how its going to make things better. Not knowing when things are going to get better is really making people angry.

    --
    Do not spread "09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0" over the internet, thank you.
    1. Re:Where it really shows by gad_zuki! · · Score: 1

      Actually its your move, not blizzards. They've shown to be incompetent yet we and millions of others continue to pay them. There are a lot of good games out there and WoW hasn't jumped the shark yet, but if I can't do a planned raid because of network or server issues then the game is useless to me. I haven't played in weeks and will be canceling soon. Not out of spite, but because the game doesnt have anything for me anymore and the downtime is ridiculous. Chronic gamers have nothing to complain about other than addiction, but guys like me who play only a few times a week to do a raid or play an alt and can't even get on because of downtime and network issues is inexcusable.

    2. Re:Where it really shows by Babbster · · Score: 1

      Is it possible that frustrated players leaving is exactly Blizzard's desired result? Given that the issues described in the article have apparently existed (albeit sporadically in more recent months) since the game went online, that would seem to imply fundamental problems with their system. I'm wondering if they've looked at the possibility of addressing these fundamental problems and decided that the expense of doing so is greater than losing, say, 20% of their player base. In that situation, I could see where letting the problems continue could seem better for them in the long run than addressing expensive design issues. And, of course, if their numbers stay consistent despite continuing problems, then they would simply continue pocketing what in their minds may be "bonus" money...

      I may have crossed the line of being "too cynical," though. :)

    3. Re:Where it really shows by Anonymous+Custard · · Score: 1

      Maybe I'm just lucky, but I rarely have game-breaking lag problems. Yes servers are down from early tuesday morning until mid tuesday afternoon, but I'm at work during those hours anyway.

      Yes lag can get bad at times, and big patch days are iffy, but not as often as you'd think from this whole /. thread. Meanwhile, thousands of people have reached max level 60, raided through 40-man dungeons countless times, and have killed nearly every boss in the game. It's not like we're all sitting in login queues for 23 hours each day.

    4. Re:Where it really shows by snuf23 · · Score: 1

      The three reasons I quit:

      1. technical problems on my server
      2. long queues even during non prime time playing hours (30-60 minutes)
      3. lack of anything beyond scheduled raiding after hitting 60 (PVP at 60 is really only viable if your equipment is up to par)

      --
      Sometimes my arms bend back.
    5. Re:Where it really shows by snuf23 · · Score: 1

      "Blizzard, you executed very very well on game content by effectively removing much of the grind that other games are plagued with"

      Definately true up until about lvl 55. From there on out it gets pretty repetitive. After all you'll need to repeat instances over and over to get your tier 0, then do the same in MC etc.
      Also if you want to do any high end crafting you'll need to grind for faction.

      --
      Sometimes my arms bend back.
    6. Re:Where it really shows by The_great_orgazmo · · Score: 1

      Oh my god ?

      Removing much of the grind ? Are we even playing the same game ?

      1. grind xp to lvl 60
      2. grind ubrs/lbrs/strat/dm/scholo for your tier 0 set (or equivalent)
      3. To get any kind of decent crafting gear you, (you guessed it) grind rep for the patterns, then grind materials to craft.
      4. mc/zg/bwl/aq -> grind grind grind for gear/rep
      5. want decent pvp gear ? YAHOOO grind rep in the pvp instances.

      You say they removed grinding, I say that all that WoW is, is a grind fest, cheered up by silly comments from your guild buddies on TS/Vent

    7. Re:Where it really shows by quintesse · · Score: 1

      Playing the same game? I was thinking _exactly_ the same!

      Jeez, the grind start with the first quests you do: kill 5 wolves, kill 10 workers, kill 15 miners, it just goes on and on.

      Make somebody who is not normally into gaming try it, I've had several people say things like "wow! it looks gorgeous. Ok, I killed this wolf, so now what I do? What? 4 more? Ok, no problem. 4 more, that was easy. Ok, run back to that guy. Np. New quest. 10 workers? Really? Same thing, different mob? Hmmm, ok. (10 mobs later) sooo... I run back to this guy again and now I need to kill yet another 15 of those rat-guys? Hmmm.... soooo....why am I actually doing this?" - "Well because it's fun!" - "Uhuh. Ok, shall we go for some beers now or are you staying here behind the computer again?"

      Well, at least something like that :-)

  31. System Administrative Failure by MeanderingMind · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I think there's a common failure of even technologically inclined individuals, including system administrators, to understand exactly what is required of the servers that allow us (usually) to play World of Warcraft. For every player connected to the server, the server has to recieve a packet explaining what the player's current attempted actions are, and send back relevant information regarding the actions of every other player and object in the immediate area. This is a constant process for each and every player!

    The common system that is administered in a corporate environment does not have thousands of users connected at once all requiring huge amounts of bandwidth and processing time 24/7. That is not to say that systems with large wear and tear don't exist, or that systems with such huge numbers of users don't exist, or even both. What I am saying is that Blizzard has to administer two or more dozen server clusters being continually accessed 24/7 by resource intensive users (save for a usually brief repose on Tuesdays). Unless you work for Google (and even then) there's no comparison.

    This isn't to say that we shouldn't raise our eyebrows at the pervasiveness of the problems WoW has. However, I keep seeing the same arguments thrown around about how Blizzard gets $15 x 6million every month (not entirely true because A) there are less pricey payment options and B) something around 1/3 of those players play in China on Asian servers whos subscription plans would hardly be purchasable were they $15 a month), how at 'my company' things work this way, etc. etc.

    Blizzard should be called on to answer for why their servers haven't been made right as rain after a year or more after release, but it should be in the context of legitimate complaint and not any of this throwing around of overused and hardly consequential arguments.

    --
    Thunderclone: ONE MAN ENTERS! TWO MEN LEAVE! ONE MAN ENTERS! TWO MEN LEAVE!
    1. Re:System Administrative Failure by filterban · · Score: 1
      What a fantastic post.

      The people who compare WoW uptime to that of your [Web Server/Database Server/ISP] are one of the following:

      1) Lacking understanding of what it takes to successfully administer a MMORPG like WoW. The sheer amount of data and the ridiculous response time that you need to provide is really, really high. This is different from Phantasy Star Online or Guild Wars, people - there are thousands of users on the same cluster, hammering away at the server. I don't even fully grasp it myself.

      2) Thinking that $15 per month should go farther than it does. People, you can't buy three combo meals at McDonald's for $15.

      3) Whiney. (Just kidding.)

      Seriously though, there definitely are problems in WoW. However, they have gotten noticeably better in the six months I've been playing. Blizzard needs to improve communication on the problems they do have and what they're doing to solve them; I honestly think that will sedate even the most discerning user.

      --
      rm -rf /
    2. Re:System Administrative Failure by grimwell · · Score: 1

      What I am saying is that Blizzard has to administer two or more dozen server clusters being continually accessed 24/7 by resource intensive users (save for a usually brief repose on Tuesdays). Unless you work for Google (and even then) there's no comparison.

      Particle & Nuclear Physics are probably fair comparisons. Massive amounts of data and processing required. Processing typically being done on very large grid clusters and supercomputers(same thing?).

      From the Wikipedia on CERN
      This accelerator will generate vast quantities of computer data, which CERN will stream to laboratories around the world for distributed processing. In April 2005, a trial successfully streamed 600MB per second to seven different sites across the world. If all the data generated by the LHC is to be analysed, then scientists must achieve triple this before 2007.

      Other examples of large data sets would include surveillance networks ran by governments.

      Or look to credit card systems for huge data sets and processing(transactions). Visa alone probably handles a magitude more traffic and processing per day than WoW.

      Large datasets & processing aren't really new and I don't think Blizzard is doing anything very novel. They just lack a commitment to provide a better uptime. The numbers are being met, so the powers that be don't see a reason to spend money to improve/stablize the service.

      --
      If the govt becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law, it invites man to become his own law, it invites anarchy
    3. Re:System Administrative Failure by groundround · · Score: 2, Funny

      I feel much better about their lack of quality service now that I know I'm helping to subsidize disadvantaged WoW players in Asia. Can I at least get a postcard with their picture, telling me how their doing?

      Seriously, one of their biggest failings is communication and there is no excuse for that. It's cheap and easy and would at least keep people hopeful that their lost gaming time is being spent in the pursuit of greater future stability.

    4. Re:System Administrative Failure by lgw · · Score: 1

      Blizzard's problem isn't trivial. But it isn't even close to the difficulty of the problems faced by, for example, Visa (every Visa credit card transaction made the world over cleared in at least 2 datacenters, with a significant audit trail and no downtime ever acceptable). Blizzard's problems are merely non-easy, not some level of difficulty never before solved. And any problem is either in the category of "no one has ever done this before and we're not sure it's possible" or "it's simply a matter of money". Blizzard's problems are the latter.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    5. Re:System Administrative Failure by GnuDiff · · Score: 1

      Or look to credit card systems for huge data sets and processing(transactions). Visa alone probably handles a magitude more traffic and processing per day than WoW.
      --

      Not neccessarily. Yes, the volume of subscribers/sources is much bigger.
      Howevever, each transaction contains only a small dataset.
      In WoW you would not only need to pass along more information, but you would need to pass part of that information to other players who are affected, too. Constantly. For hours.

      The only thing you could compare this with, was if _everybody at the same_ time pulled out their VISA, went to nearest ATM and took out some 2000$ by taking $1 at a time.

    6. Re:System Administrative Failure by grimwell · · Score: 1

      Not neccessarily. Yes, the volume of subscribers/sources is much bigger.
      Howevever, each transaction contains only a small dataset.


      Ok, maybe CC systems were a questionable example. Stock exchanges would have been a better example. The point was to suggest that parent poster broaden his view of the world.

      Blizzard isn't doing anything novel and excusing the downtime on excessive load is a cop out. Others are capable of handling similar and greater loads.

      In WoW you would not only need to pass along more information, but you would need to pass part of that information to other players who are affected, too. Constantly. For hours.

      WoW! They have to pass along information to other players? And they have to do it constantly for hours? That just crazy. I never realized that. Thanks for the enlightenment.

      --
      If the govt becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law, it invites man to become his own law, it invites anarchy
    7. Re:System Administrative Failure by GnuDiff · · Score: 1

      WoW! They have to pass along information to other players? And they have to do it constantly for hours? That just crazy. I never realized that. Thanks for the enlightenment.

      Now that you are enlightened, give me a couple examples of systems that do that, smug guy.

      To reiterate:

      - track data constantly (whenever user moves in game, whenever he attempts to do anything, only interface and macro windows can be processed locally)
      - process it and send results back real-time
      - analyze who of the 100+ other poor buggers are in "vicinity" and should "see" the action too, and send them an update too, also real-time, please
      - multiply it by 10'000 simultaneous connections and try to avoid any cascade effects

    8. Re:System Administrative Failure by grimwell · · Score: 1

      Now that you are enlightened, give me a couple examples of systems that do that, smug guy.

      Lighten up , Francis. 1) this is slashdot, people here(some more than others) have an idea of what's involved and 2) you just regurgitated the parent's comment. Is WoW your first or second MMORPG?

      - track data constantly (whenever user moves in game, whenever he attempts to do anything, only interface and macro windows can be processed locally)
      - process it and send results back real-time
      - analyze who of the 100+ other poor buggers are in "vicinity" and should "see" the action too, and send them an update too, also real-time, please
      - multiply it by 10'000 simultaneous connections and try to avoid any cascade effects


      Excellent job of narrowly defining the scope, only missed the minor requirement of system availability. Ironically system availability happened to be the meat of the article/rant for this thread.

      Other examples which fit your requirements above would be other MMORPGs(EQ, AC, CoH, etc). So again I'll say Blizzard isn't doing anything novel, they simply lack the commitment to improve the system. The revenue numbers are being met, so there is no financial incentive to spend time, money & effort to improve the system.

      Going slightly outside of your "requirements", I can find examples of systems with much better uptimes under just as heavy traffic & processing load...
      Stock exchanges; Nikki, Nasdaq, NYSE, etc.
      PayPal
      Ebay
      Nuclear Physics simulations
      Particle Physics experiments (e.g. CERN)
      Weather Prediction&Modeling
      Japan's Earth Simulator

      10,000 simultaneous connections really isn't very many, I would guess even Blizzard handles more than that. But 10,000 was the threshold you set.

      Cheers

      --
      If the govt becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law, it invites man to become his own law, it invites anarchy
    9. Re:System Administrative Failure by GnuDiff · · Score: 1

      I guess I didn't do a good job at explaining why I think WoW differs slightly, but significantly, from the rest of MMORPGs.

      But first, to point out (hopefully more precisely now) what I think sets out a MMORPG from most of the other examples you restated, is that as far as my understanding goes - please, correct me if I am wrong - only MMORPGs require actual handling of large number of simultaenous connections, which last for hours.
      For the apps you mentioned - there may be a lot of connections and a lot of data/processing, but do they need to be served constantly for hours? If not, then the actual number of connections at any given time would be significantly less, since each connection is served in a matter of seconds or maybe minutes, then closed and that resource is available again.
      That would be a typical situation with webserving, and I am wondering how much would this hold true for the apps you mentioned.

      Secondly, about WoW and other services. I have had a distinct impression that WoW is outnumbering the others by a degree or two at least, in terms of subscribers and actual players.

      What I am speculating is that it may happen that the potential connection congestion as well as other issues arising from the high numbers may require nontrivial solutions.

      After all, unless you've read about the Google's underlying structure, you may well consider it a simple website, nothing that can't be slapped together at home, then duplicated and loadbalanced, when the volume grows, right?

      P.S. As regards myself, I've played UO (was in UO Beta) and some AC before WoW. I might well endure WoW's technical problems, as I like the game, however, happily enough I have next to none on my server, last unscheduled downtime was sometime last summer.

    10. Re:System Administrative Failure by grimwell · · Score: 1

      Secondly, about WoW and other services. I have had a distinct impression that WoW is outnumbering the others by a degree or two at least, in terms of subscribers and actual players.

      Yes, I agree that WoW subscribers currently outnumbers other MMORPGs by quite bit.

      What I am speculating is that it may happen that the potential connection congestion as well as other issues arising from the high numbers may require nontrivial solutions.

      Well, yes & no.

      Trival; multiple connections to the internet thru multiple ISPs or housed in a data center that has multiple feeds. Per the article Blizzard is using AT&T as their sole connectivity provider and has previously blamed outages on their ISP.

      This would be an example of the management deciding not to spend money to improve their service. It is also an example of Blizzard ignoring industry best practices for a high bandwidth, high availability application.

      Non-Trival; would be code fixes and tweaks to improving clustering & reduce transaction overhead. Not to mention bug fixes. Again this is where management makes the call as to what is a priority and what isn't.

      And somewhere in-between would be the in-house network providing connectivity between the boxes making a cluster/shard and the outside world.

      You are defending WoW on the basis that it is a heavily used application. I am arguing that as a heavily used application they have both the revenue and other real-world examples to use & learn from.

      Your counter-point is that they can't learn anything from other heavily used application, they are in virgin terrority. While I agree they are current record holder number of subscribers/users for a MMORPG, they can still learn something from other heavily used application(e.g. connectivity to the internet). Things can be improved and without having to re-invent the wheel.

      cheers

      --
      If the govt becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law, it invites man to become his own law, it invites anarchy
  32. My account expired yesterday... by Osrin · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ... and I don't plan on subscribing again until I can see evidence that they have fixed this. Like many people at the moment I have expressed my discontent in the only manner that Blizzard will hear and voted with my check book.

    I know it is tough for Blizzard, but as a customer I have been the one paying the price for that so far, from now on that cost is Blizzards again. At least for the time being.

    1. Re:My account expired yesterday... by Gojira+Shipi-Taro · · Score: 1

      Filing a complaint with the Better Business Bureau in the locale that there office is located in also has (some) effect. They are at least forced to address the complaint, including measures they have taken to resolve the issue.

      In my case, they mentioned "compensation time for down time" to which my response was "not really much good now that I've cancelled billing on my account, is it?"

      The BBB agreed and left the complaint on file with a note of "resolution unsatisfactory".

      A nice fat stack of those will have some effect eventually. Investment brokers and other financial types do use BBB reports as an indication of how risky a company's income flow is... "is this company likely to have it's customers move to a competitor en masse?"

      A minor influence, perhaps, but it's certainly more satisfying than simply keeping my money and shutting up about it.

      Don't recall what part of California they're in...

      --
      "Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I'm fucked."; ~ Donald J. Trump
  33. Ill communication by Phanatic1a · · Score: 4, Insightful

    A large part of the problem is that Blizzard's communication with the player base sucks, to speak frankly. The login server for their forums seems to be one and the same as the login server for the game itself, so when that goes down the forums tend to shut down as well. There is a "Realm Status" page which purports to show the real-time status of the various servers, but which is frequently unreachable. There is a "Realm Status" forum which *might* contain some acknowledgement of a problem while the problem is still ongoing, but usually doesn't. When you start up the game client, Blizzard can stick up a 'News' window on your screen but, again, the appearance of any news often lags the problem, even severe problems, by a matter of hours. And, of course, Blizzard's chief form of communication with players is Community Managers on the forums, who themselves tend to be given dick in the way of information, are extremely controlled in what they can and cannot say, and who are (honestly, I'm not joking), tasked with yelling at users for stuff posting subject headers that contain excessive capitalization; what an obscene waste of resources.

    Seriously, a little timely information goes a long way. Yes, I agree that the downtime they have is absurd; consider that *every Tuesday* the game goes offline for *six hours* of maintenance. That's *planned, scheduled* downtime, folks, so that *alone* means they aren't even attempting to have greater than 96.4% uptime, and I can't think of another commercial service for which you pay a monthly fee where that would be even remotely acceptable; if your cable or your phone just plain didn't work for 6 hours every Tuesday, heads would roll. Then things just get asinine when you factor in all the spontaneous, freewheeling, unplanned downtime as well.

    But know what? I'd feel a lot better about it if, when something shits the bed, or goes tits-up, or whatever colorful metaphor you'd use to describe a server-killing technical problem, Blizzard would tell us, promptly, as they receive the information themselves:

    1. We know there's a problem.
    2. We know what the proglem is.
    3. Here's what we're doing to fix it.
    4. Here's when we expect it to be fixed.
    5. Update as old information is obsolete.

    They don't do this. A few hours after something happens, you might get some of the above information. Or you might not. Usually, it's the latter.

    1. Re:Ill communication by Tom · · Score: 1

      they aren't even attempting to have greater than 96.4% uptime, [...] if your cable or your phone just plain didn't work for 6 hours every Tuesday, heads would roll.

      Maybe that's because cable and especially phone (911 !) is a little more important than a friggin' online game?

      If you hate it so much, last I checked there were a lot of alternatives on the market.

      Disclaimer: I don't play WoW. I play one of the alternatives.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    2. Re:Ill communication by DeadChobi · · Score: 1

      I remember playing FFXI, and they were a lot worse than WoW is about providing information to their customers. Many times, I'd get some piece of news in my squenix mailbox with such hugely informative details as:

      -There was a server outage somewhere.
      -We are attempting to fix this problem, and would ask you to be patient.
      -That is all.

      I've been very disappointed with the current crop of MMOs because of the sheer lack of information about the internal structure of the game. I'm not asking to see their entire network layout just because I'm a subscriber, but I grew up with MMOs where the design team would write out 2 pages of information on why the server went down, what they did to fix it, how it has impacted players, and what they've done to make it up to us.

      Once in the formative years of Asheron's Call, the development team discovered that the servers werent actually backing up any of the database information because of a bug in the code base that didn't delete old database entries. Essentially, their backup disks filled up and they had to repopulate the database with the latest out of date information and fix the bug. So, they gave their playerbase free experience to compensate.

      Blizzard's explanation of issues and fixes consisted routinely of "There was an issue in which one of our servers was brought down. This has been fixed. Have a nice day." It doesnt matter that we dont need to know this information. It is comforting to know that someone, somewhere, knows what the hell is going on and how to fix it. That instills confidence.

      I'm no longer a customer of Blizzard. I am, however, interested in seeing how D&D Online is as it's a Turbine game--the same house that made Asheron's Call.

      --
      SRSLY.
    3. Re:Ill communication by asdfghjklqwertyuiop · · Score: 1

      Are you a WoW subscriber?

    4. Re:Ill communication by Himring · · Score: 1

      Things are massively better (no pun) now with wow (didn't mean to rhyme there either) than when I played eq1 for some 4 or 5 years several years ago. Brad McQuaid gave himself a 60 ranger -- which he never leveled -- and handed it a fiery avenger (which that class couldn't use). He would log in, gather players around and then kill them -- quite fun I'm sure. And then, the other ops nazi, Abashi, would taunt players on the official message board by basically telling them they were stupid and what they said didn't matter. Sys admins were absent from the game or if there would commonly do things such as pull a group of players into "rooms" to tongue lash them, or spawn them in front of an epic dragon where they were killed over and over.

      Also, some people published things on websites that had nothing to do with EQ or Verant/Sony, and were consequently banned from the game (Mystere and Tweety -- google it).

      To top it all off, you could easily grief people on PvE servers by training mobs onto them, offering a duel to noobs and telling them "type /d for devotion," and exploit tons of other things.

      All of this was backed up by Verant's "Your in our world now," which nicely summed-up the attitude of the ops nazis described above.

      Verant made the game personal and those guys were power-drunken ops nazis as bad as I've ever seen (we've all dealt with 'em in irc channels). In the least, Blizzard and other modern MMOGs are professional and I've received prompt service everytime I've asked for help. The game is well done and runs great and flows nicely in story-line with WC3 (well done Bliz).

      I'm not going to try and answer how they should run their data center (I work with one too), but that game is hammered with players and runs fine when I log in. Yes, the 30 min queues suck, but I figure they'll deal with it. They don't want to lose players and will do whatever it takes in order to keep the bucks. It'll just take a bit of time to catch up to the glut of new accounts....

      WoW is huge

      --
      "All great things are simple & expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope." --Churchill
    5. Re:Ill communication by Phanatic1a · · Score: 1

      Maybe that's because cable and especially phone (911 !) is a little more important than a friggin' online game?

      Really?

      911, sure, but that's a service that's funded by tax dollars, and is required by law to work. If you have a phone, with a line connected to it, dialing 911 is supposed to work. You don't need to subscribe to any phone service. You don't need long-distance service. You don't even need local dialtone. It just has to work.

      So let's drop that from the comparison. Now it doesn't sound so universally important as you make it out to be. Especially cable. Play a friggin' online game, or watch some friggin' Law & Order: Grotesque Ritual Murders Unit, or call friggin' Mabel from work and gossip about that cute guy in the mail room? Seems about equally important to me. And yet two of those things have far, far more than 95% uptime.

    6. Re:Ill communication by crabpeople · · Score: 1

      "The login server for their forums seems to be one and the same as the login server for the game itself, so when that goes down the forums tend to shut down as well."

      I always figured that if the login servers go down, everyone rushes the fourms and takes them down too. Its the slashdot æffect, only with wow. its more resonable than thinking that they use the same server for two vastly different roles.

      --
      I'll just use my special getting high powers one more time...
    7. Re:Ill communication by Himring · · Score: 1

      I meant to say, "WoW is huge." ...Darn html....

      --
      "All great things are simple & expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope." --Churchill
    8. Re:Ill communication by Phanatic1a · · Score: 2, Informative

      I am, however, interested in seeing how D&D Online is as it's a Turbine game

      It's awful. I'm not even sure why they called it D&D, 'cause it's not. Let's just break down some of the problems.

      1st: Leveling is ridiculously slow. In actual D&D, you hit second level after 1000 xp. In Stormreach, it's 10,000xp. Then the discrepancy just grows. To offset this, they give you, basically, minilevels every 20% of the way through each one of your real levels. At each minilevel, you get an action point to spend on some ability that doesn't exist in D&D, arcade-like real-time fighting stuff like a 30% increase to attack speed 5 times a day. But you can only have 4 of these abilities at any given time, so the action points are mostly spent on shuffling around some pretty inconsequential abilities.

      2nd: The slow leveling and inflated xp requirements would be okay, really, especially considering the level cap is only 10 (that, at least, is D&D-like; 10th level is supposed to be pretty powerful), except for the fact that there's no way to gain xp other than completing quests. So you do a quest. Then you repeat it. Then you repeat it some more. Then you repeat it. You do this until you level. Then you keep doing it. It's really quite awful; I can't even imagine what playing an alt would be like. In most MMORPGs, you get a bit bored with your main, you start an alt, and you're *not* sick of the beginning game. In this one, I'm already bored with my 2nd-level main, but the thought of starting an alt and going through the same dungeons over and over again makes me throw up a little in my mouth.

      3rd: Real-time combat is ridiculous. I'm sorry, but D&D combat is planned, regimented, ruled by dice. Why spend all that money on getting a license, and then completely throw out the well-established and popular mechanics of the system? Attacks of opportunity, flanking, sneak attacks, deciding between full-move and other actions, all that wonderful tactical depth is out the window, replaced by mash-the-right-mouse-button-as-fast-as-you-can.

      4th: Given that the importance of things like 'rounds' is out the window due to the above decision, it's silly to stick to them in other contexts, like when my 6-wisdom fighter got hit with a -6 wisdom debuff, and found himself unable to do *anything* until it wore off. Couldn't talk to NPCs. Couldn't open doors. Couldn't even swing his hammer. Yeah, waiting around for *30 minutes* of real-time before I can play the game again is brilliant.

      5th: Spell points? Get the fuck out here with that shit. 1st-level wizards in D&D simply cannot cast 24 magic missiles before they have to rest. If you want wizards who can do that, fine, but then why insist on calling that D&D, when it's not?

      On one hand, I'm curious as to how things play out at higher levels. On the other hand, I'm not curious enough to spend any more money or time to find out.

    9. Re:Ill communication by geniusj · · Score: 1

      While I know it's not an MMO in the traditional sense, I have always felt that the Guild Wars team did a great job of communicating things to its userbase. Downtime is basically nonexistent, so I guess I can't compare on that. But just the information the developers give you in general, how in-depth they'll go on everything. It's great, they don't treat you like you're retarded. They give the reader more credit than he/she probably deserves. I wish more games would take this approach, honestly. I think it goes a long way in customer satisfaction.

    10. Re:Ill communication by brxndxn · · Score: 1

      It seems to me that every established gaming company that starts a new MMO starts off with some lofty level of arrogance. They attempt to have the same kind of company/customer relationship as doctor/clients.. WoW, so far, has been insanely successful and I'd say it's mostly because of how 'smooth' the game has been. For an MMO, there has been relatively few bugs in the launch of WoW.

      But now, when there are bugs, they tell the customer very little. I cannot see how that's a good business model.

      UbiSoft, when they launched Shadowbane, had a very buggy release. Instead of keeping the player base informed of what was going on with the game, UbiSoft chose such responses as 'Some have experienced lag; we are looking into it.' When this happened for almost a month straight of total lag, where the game played half as fast as normal, UbiSoft said very little to the player base. So, the player base left. I think since the initial lag about 3 months after Shadowbane's release, their player base was chopped in half. Since then, Shadowbane has been a 'dying' game.

      Personally, I think one of the biggest reasons so many people played WoW is because of the well-established company, Blizzard, has an image of fierce support of their games. Lose that image, and Blizzard is Ubisoft..

      --
      --- We need more Ron Paul!
    11. Re:Ill communication by jeffasselin · · Score: 1

      Alternatives? No, not really. And they probably know it.

      --
      If he explores all forms and substances Straight homeward to their symbol-essences; He shall not die.
    12. Re:Ill communication by Broken+Bottle · · Score: 2, Insightful

      1. We know there's a problem.
      2. We know what the proglem is.
      3. Here's what we're doing to fix it.
      4. Here's when we expect it to be fixed.
      5. Update as old information is obsolete.


      Many of these are much easier said than done.

      1) Identifying the problem is the first step. Determining that a slow login is on the customer's end or their end is a task in and of itself.

      2) Again, this takes time and is closely associated with #1 above. knowing that you have a problem and pinpoint the cause are 2 different things.

      3) Not really the customer's business and very closely tied to #2. A lot of the time, determining the problem on a network gets you 90% of the way to correcting it.

      4) Same as #3. Determining the problem is the most time consuming part much of the time. If you don't know what the issue is, you don't know how to fix it yet. If you don't know what it's going to take to fix it, logically it's not possible to give an ETA that's worth anything. It's also not really in their interest to say "We'll have the login problem fixed by 8PM" because that just encourages people to pound the servers at 8PM creating a whole new set of issues. Having the infrastructure to support 6M customers is different than having the infra structure to support ^m customers that all want to login in at the same time :)

      5) Yeah, this would be helpful provided that you're not just pushing back ETAs replacing the last inaccurate one with a new inaccurate one. This just gets people frustrated.
    13. Re:Ill communication by dlc3007 · · Score: 1

      You never played Star Wars Galaxies, did you....

    14. Re:Ill communication by WNight · · Score: 0, Troll

      Blizzard lost it LONG ago. I bought WC2 and found out that it wouldn't play in my computer beause I had a CD Burner and the copy "protection" wouldn't let it play. Their response, buy a new CD drive.

      My response, gamecopyworld.com

      Gamer: 1, Blizzard: 0

      The same method worked on their next games, but I downloaded those. No reason not to wish for the bankruptcy of a company to whom my expenses obviously were irrelevant, despite being a direct result of their mistakes.

      I can see the same attitude in WoW, honestly, an MMORPG that crashes that much when everyone raids in small (less than 500) player protected instances was programmed by a moron using VB. I've seen quake servers that offer a better MMORPG feeling. Their customer service takes this to the whole next level of blaming the customer, when they tell them anything.

      Pah. They've simply got a more interesting game than EQ, but they don't have a clue about multiplayer (Look at StarCraft for proof, fun despite them, but buggy as hell even for an 8-player co-op game using sprites!) and they couldn't program a wet-paper bag to crumple if they used heavy rocks.

    15. Re:Ill communication by nuzak · · Score: 1

      911 in most major metropolitan areas is also hardly without downtime and service degradations. It just doesn't happen every single day, and the service scales a lot better. But if as many people who played WoW at once called 911, the service would fall over dead (and presumably so would many callers).

      Not to excuse Blizzard's seemingly ad-hoc approach to MMO management, but E911 is not the paragon of stability many people believe it to be.

      --
      Done with slashdot, done with nerds, getting a life.
    16. Re:Ill communication by theantipop · · Score: 1
      Dead on. I'm playing the 7-day trial and it's barely, BARELY D&D. In my opinion if you really want to play a well-executed D&D licensed game, either play Neverwinter Nights or pick up NWN2, due for release this year. Here's what Neverwinter has that DDO lacks...
      • It implements nearly every 3E rule in the books within a real-time or round-based framework.
      • With 2 expansions released, you can play to level 30 with tens of prestige classes already in the game.
      • There are hundreds of VERY high quality user made mods and persistent communities already in existence.

      I suppose Turbine felt that standard D&D rules weren't enough to keep MMO players paying for months (even though the current game would get old in a couple months at most). So instead of tweaking the existing game framework, they seeminly started from scratch and slapped the Wizards seal of approval on it.

    17. Re:Ill communication by DeadChobi · · Score: 1

      Guess I wont be touching it with a ten-foot pole then. Thanks for sharing man, much appreciated.

      --
      SRSLY.
  34. About ready to cancel my subscription by HaloZero · · Score: 0

    I've been playing since closed beta. Played through that, open beta, and since November 27, 2004 (Retail day).

    It's a miserable, shitty situation when you can't play the game when your time is free. I work for a living, I go to school, and in my sparse free time I get to play WoW. Doesn't help though, when the one-and-a-half to two hours I have available to play are largely sucked up by [Authenticating...]. Such a crock.

    I partially blame the lack of connectivity and stability for the now certain loss of my Guild. 130 characters, about 70 unique people. Maybe eight of us come on with any regularity now. Those that are left over who do trickle in? Stories of issues connecting, frustration, resulting in time spent playing F.E.A.R. or Oblivion instead.

    Another poster said it best; if my systems were down 20% of the time, or if authentication to email or a terminal server or DocuSpank took 15 minutes, I'd be out of a job very fast.

    Listen up, Blizzard! You're driving your customers away! It's impossible to do a 45 minute Baron run because once you get goin- goin- goin- goin- goin- go.. [Disconnected from server]

    --
    Informatus Technologicus
  35. Mod parent up by Oldsmobile · · Score: 0

    I laughed!

    His sig just hits the spot too!

    --
    Some say he is made with ascii, others that he is eyeballed daily by millions. All we know is, he is known as the Sig
  36. Its all a matter of money by cranesan · · Score: 2, Insightful

    WoW is hardly the first online service to be hit by network and server problems. Over the years, services like eBay, Amazon.com and E*Trade have all dealt with various forms of outages.

    Yeah, but the difference with WoW is the money. When eBay, Amazon.com, and E*Trade have outages they are losing money. When WoW has an outage they don't lose a dime. Only thing they lose is the 1 or 2 players who get frustrated and abandon all the 'work' they put into their characters and cancel their accounts. Blizzard still collects your $15 every month, outage or not. No $$$ incentive for them to provide good service. I thought they were a good company, but my opinion of them is changing drastically. Diablo 2 and Warcraft 3 are both Blizzard games you can play online for free, they are more stable then WoW. Something is wrong here!

  37. thank you AT&T! by tidokoro · · Score: 5, Funny

    WOW server downtime is saving my marriage.

    --
    tidokoro
    what turns a man's karma neutral? lust for gold? power? or just a heart born full of neutrality?
    1. Re:thank you AT&T! by DA_MAN_DA_MYTH · · Score: 1

      Partial Edit:

      WOW server downtime has saving my marriage.

      --
      "It takes many nails to build a crib, but one screw to fill it."
    2. Re:thank you AT&T! by DA_MAN_DA_MYTH · · Score: 1

      However, it has not saved my grammar.

      --
      "It takes many nails to build a crib, but one screw to fill it."
  38. Tech Support Staff Bother Me More by pringlis · · Score: 2, Informative

    To be honest, what bothers me more than the lag itself is the distinct lack of interest their support staff give. Tickets submitted to the in-game helpers, Game Masters, result in them telling you to go post on the tech support forum. The tech support forum tell you first of all to uninstall all the addons and to phone your ISP, despite the fact that the problem is occuring to everyone on the server, and then they tell you to contact a Game Master on your server... An in-game friend of mine recently called Blizzard directly to speak to the tech support staff there. After informing him that we were currently in the middle of an Ahn'Qiraj raid where all forty of us were experiencing lag of over 800ms the friendly staff member told him that "Well it may be your ISP". Why yes, we have members located from Britain to Hungary to Russia but we are all having ISP problems at once. If they'd just admit that the servers are over-populated, open more servers and allow migration then this would help alleviate the problems. I'm on the EU-Arathor server which has 12k players, the highest in the EU, but has yet to be offered a migration option. It's a poor show.

  39. WoW never wowed me much by Sqweegee · · Score: 1

    15min waiting in cue to log in? When I gave a freebee 14 day account a try I sometimes had 2-3 hour cues... Main reson I didn't stick around. But random downtime during any MMO raid really kills the fun of playing.

    1. Re:WoW never wowed me much by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Guest pass keeps you at the back of the queue - you don't get on until the queue empties.

  40. They are real issues by elfguy · · Score: 1

    I've been playing since before release, and the issues that WoW is having aren't small nor acceptable.

    Queues are there because each server has a maximum capacity of 3400 players. When there's that number on the server you get to wait in line to log in. This issue first came up in open beta, and back then they said it was a temporary thing. The fact is most servers have a queue at peak time, which can range from a few people to over a thousand per server waiting to play, sometimes for hours, every day, since more than a year and a half.

    Constant lag is an issue that a few servers have to deal with and is indicative to network overload. Having everyone's speed take 10secs before casting in any instance means doing raids is impossible, and doing group quests is tricky at best, and the servers that have this issue cannot play in any decent manner for weeks at a time.

    8 hours a week of schedule maintenance every Tuesday, sometimes more, and random crashes, is indicative to stability problems. Everquest has run for over 5 years and, while it may have extended downtimes during content patches, can run for months without a single second of downtime. There is no valid reason a server should be brought down for 8 hours after 7 days of running.

    All 3 problems are relatively simple to solve with money, mainly by increasing network pipes, getting more redundancy, opening more new servers. And after over a year and a half of the same problems occuring, it isn't too much to ask Blizzard to get their act together.

    Those are the 2

  41. Works For Me (tm) by the_greywolf · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    i rarely, if ever, see the problems i hear everyone complaining about. i get zero lag on my servers (Zuluhed and Destromath), nearly all of the bugs i've run into i can rightly blame on Cedega, and the only downtime i ever experience is when the authentication server crashes.

    then again, i play only a few hours per week (or a few hours per day at most), so my chances of seeing downtime are few and far between.

    IMO, if you're going to complain about downtime, you really ought to look at how often you play - and stop hammering the servers. go do something else when something breaks. i'm tired of hearing everyone bitch about things i never see.

    don't like it? don't play.

    --
    grey wolf
    LET FORTRAN DIE!
    1. Re:Works For Me (tm) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "i'm tired of hearing everyone bitch about things i never see."

      You, sir, clearly deserve the title of "Asshat of the year".

      If something doesn't affect you, then STFU and GBTW.

      "I'm tired of hearing everyone bitch about all the problems in the world that I never see. They don't affect me, so they can't be real - why doesn't everyone just shut up about them?"

      Asshole.

  42. Same Ole Blizzard by robpoe · · Score: 1

    I was flamed in a previous post by people when I first mentioned this: But I have Karma to burn so flame me again!

    This is the SAME Blizzard who couldn't manage the hacks / cheats / dupes / cross-realm bugged items in Diablo II. Sure, Diablo II was a free to play on Battle.net so you get what you pay for, but the mismanagment of the realms / game are now showing through on a service that ISN'T FREE.

    Friends of mine are trying to get me to play WoW, and I refuse. I will _never_ buy or play another Blizzard managed game, due to my experiences with Diablo II.

    Blizzard is good at one thing: Making games

    They are not good at:

    Managing reliable online play experiences.
    Customer service (forums, call center, online chat).
    Timely responses to anything.

    And to even consider $15 a MONTH, for me, is stupid.

    Flame suit firmly snugged up.

    --
    = Grow a brain...
    1. Re:Same Ole Blizzard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Okay, I happen to play various MMORPGs and I can honestly say that of them all WoW is probably the most fun for various reasons. If you would like to see a badly ran MMORPG, please visit Star Wars Galaxies for a little while. Your points are well spoken and honest but all of them are severely overshadowed by Sony Online...

      Managing reliable online play experiences. - Implemented a new expansion, telling customers that it would be great fun to play this, then less than 1 month later altering the way the game is played not just a little bit but by doing a complete and unexpected revamp destroying what was once 26 professions to 9 "iconic" professions, of which three more are being phased out within the next year by adding a WoW like secondary skill tree setting.

      Customer service (forums, call center, online chat). The only way to contact anyone concerning issues with the game is by being logged into the game and sending in a customer service ticket. Most tickets are promptly ignored and closed without any further customer input. There is no call center and the forums are regulated to the point that you cannot say anything negative about the game or your post will be deleted and you will be warned or worse yet banned from posting at all.

      Timely responses to anything. See the above comments.

      Yes WoW has downtime. However it is a game where downtime is to be expected. Of all the options that I have out there right now for online games, WoW is the most viable for multiple reasons. The quests generally are not broken (Galaxies contains hundreds of broken quests), the people are generally friendly with eachother, the PvP can be done at low levels as well as high levels (though twinks are a pain in the rear for the casual gamer). Servers are not laggy if you find one that you are close to and rarely is there a time that I dont see another person walking around within a short distance.

      If youre unhappy with the game though, you have every right to express it vent your anger/frustrations about it. Personally I love with Blizzard has done with WoW... but I will NEVER buy another Sony product again (note I do not limit that to just games, but everything sony does).

    2. Re:Same Ole Blizzard by Mugros · · Score: 1

      Exactly what i am thinking about Blizzard.
      I played lots of Diablo 2 but it was no fun to lose hardcore characters because you get disconnected. I left before LoD was published but i don't think they ever changed this. So surviving a HC character was more luck than skill. It is not really Blizzards fault because connections can break anywhere, but it is their fault that they never took this into account.

      The die-hard Blizzard fans out here are also a funny phenomenon. These fans always protect Blizzard.. "It isn't their fault, they are trying as hard as they can..." No, they are not! They could do better if they want to. But fact is they don't give a crap about their customers. The users are like drug addicts and Blizzard is the dealer.
      Look at D2, technically this game was bad, really bad. Come on, 640x480 resolution? I always wanted higher resolution, but the die hard Blizzard fans said "STFU, it is for fairness reasons, everyone should be able to run the same resolution to not take an advantage of better PCs bla bla bla." Guess, what, later they upped the resolution and every Blizzard fan was shouting "Hoorray, Blizzard gave us higher resolution" Just plain stupid.
      I had a top notch PC when i bought Diablo 2, but still the game was pretty laggy in some situations. As i said, 640x480 resolution and it is a freakin' 2D game. The development took so long, a game with this little eyecandy should run flawlessly. I wanted to play an amazone that shot fire arrows. The fire stayed on screen several seconds and after some shots the fps were like 1 frame per second or worse. Whhoah, nice work there, Blizzard.
      Another masterpiece was the boss monster in the desert level. After entering the cave of the monster there is a rather long delay. And if the connection to the server was slow, the monster could score several hits on you before you even see it on screen. Many people died because Blizzard was to stupid to add a simple room just before the room with the boss monster.

      One day as i was clicking on monsters to kill them trying not to die through drinking potions at the right time i thought "what the hell am i doing here?" I turned off the game, deinstalled it, sold it and never looked back.

    3. Re:Same Ole Blizzard by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      If you would like to see a badly ran MMORPG, please visit Star Wars Galaxies for a little while. Your points are well spoken and honest but all of them are severely overshadowed by Sony Online...

      Who cares? That's like saying that it's okay to get stabbed, because at least you're not getting shot.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  43. Well, duh! by teamhasnoi · · Score: 1
    When the NSA is wiretapping everything going on in WOW, of course it'll be slow! Why else would Blizzard ONLY use At&t?

    I think that's the number one reason to halt all this illegal wiretapping!

    Oh, and maybe the 4th amendment - it seems we're having time-out issues with that as well.

  44. Same problem in Germany by MorteSicura · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If these problem are really related to AT&T, then why do we Germans experience exact the same problem? Over here T-Online is the bad guy. To solve the problem, Blizzard even suggested to alter you MTU-rate for your dsl to 1400. I don't know how many people ever heard of a thing called MTU ever. (the common people, not the nerds here ;-) ) Blizzard should ask themself why the whole IT ifrastructure are haveing problems with there product and if it is really the isp's fault.

    1. Re:Same problem in Germany by Watcher · · Score: 1
      If these problem are really related to AT&T, then why do we Germans experience exact the same problem? Over here T-Online is the bad guy. To solve the problem, Blizzard even suggested to alter you MTU-rate for your dsl to 1400. I don't know how many people ever heard of a thing called MTU ever. (the common people, not the nerds here ;-) ) Blizzard should ask themself why the whole IT ifrastructure are haveing problems with there product and if it is really the isp's fault.

      Ugh. I don't know a damn thing about WoW's networking code (I have enough ways to waste what little free time I have), but I can make some guesses here about what's going on. If their packets have the do not fragment bit set, they could be relying upon a PMTU response packet to determine the maximum packet size to transmit data over the path from client to server (and back again). Some firewalls have a tendency to drop those PMTU response packets (which are just an ICMP destination unreachable). When that occurs, your options are to give up on trying not to fragment (which can be bad from a reliability and performance perspective), or set the MTU low enough on your host system that you slip through without needing the PMTU response. Its possible that they will make maximum packet size a configurable option in the game.

    2. Re:Same problem in Germany by saleenS281 · · Score: 1

      It's a problem for you because AT&T is the endpoint you're trying to get to. If AT&T dies, it doesn't matter how great the connection is on your end, there's nothing for you to connect to.

  45. They Got What They Deserve by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What did they expect using AT&T as a network provider?

  46. Wait a minute... there are free MMO's? by Anxarcule · · Score: 1

    Why don't all of you complainers play a free MMO instead?

    Yes, there are free MMO's, and they're much more stable than what you're describing.

    Try out my favorite one here and discover a game that many people have been playing for years without any fees.

    1. Re:Wait a minute... there are free MMO's? by NewWorldDan · · Score: 1

      I prefer to play Trade Wars over at the Game Castle myself.

    2. Re:Wait a minute... there are free MMO's? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gee wiz, that complete lack of graphics or sound is so much what I was looking for. Some of these games even have 50 people online at once! Truly massive!

  47. One of the reasons why I left by analog_line · · Score: 1

    I finally left around the time of what I recall as The Great Queueing back after the Ahn'Quiraj patch.

    There was a stretch of damn near a month after Christmas where there were queues on all the listed servers save for a single handful. I was so frustrated with waiting through a 1000 person queue on the couple month old server I'd moved to that I went through the entire list checking on whether they had queues. I believe there were three servers that didn't have a queue.

    Even after we'd get in, either Kalimdor or the Eastern Kingdoms would be down, so if you were unlucky enough to have zoned out in the wrong area, sucks to be you.

    I quit not long after for that and some other reasons (playing too much, not having as much fun while playing, and the ridiculously immature WoW "culture" to name a few). I went so far as to throw away the discs so I didn't spend more money on wondering whether things have gotten better, because I really do know the answer: Hell will freeze over before it gets any better.

    1. Re:One of the reasons why I left by Jerry+Rivers · · Score: 1

      Finally someone who didn't just blithely put up with the crappy game play, immature players and poor service. /applaud

      --
      The pursuit of absolute tolerance leads to the most rigorous and ludicrous intolerance. - REX MURPHY
  48. Everyone should know SBC er AT&T is just start by Djestr · · Score: 1

    There deal of "if you want your customers to connect to your service with a good connection..you as the content provider must pay us as well as the customers ISP..and the customers...Mwhuhahahaahah!" I tell ya prices for Online gaming are going to rise fast! You wanna play WoW, you gotta pay..Blizzard has to pay..your ISP has to pay! Soon only rich people like gates will have Internet access, as he will be the only one whom can still afford it! Thats why blizzard is having such connection and problems. Blizzard's servers are fine..it's AT&T causing all the problems! They want more money! =P Have a nice day! The Computer is your friend. Trust the Computer, or you will be terminated.

  49. ...meh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    I play on Dalaran - which was, until recently, one of the worst servers as far as playability goes. The server used to be horribly laggy at the best of times...and at the worst it was just plain unreachable. It wasn't unusual to try for over an hour to connect to the server only to discover that it was unplayably laggy once you did connect.

    We recently received a hardware upgrade, and since then I haven't really noticed any trouble. Sure, there's been an abrupt disconnect or two... But the lag has basically vanished, and I haven't had trouble connecting to the server in weeks. It basically went from completely unplayable to just fine over the course of two days.

    I realize that it's frustrating to get home from a long day at work, sit down to play a relaxing game of WoW, and not be able to log in. I've experienced that myself many, many times. But I think people need to try to keep things in perspective.

    To begin with, nobody could have anticipated how successful WoW would be. Blizzard certainly didn't. Nobody could have anticipated 6 million paying subscribers. I don't know what their projections were...but they completely overshot them in the first week. Blizzard's been racing to catch up to its playerbase since day 1. Considering how overloaded their hardware/bandwidth/staff is, I'm surprised it works as well as it does.

    Yes, we are paying $15 a month...and I do expect to get something for my money. But look around you - a single ticket to a 2 hour (if you're lucky) movie is pushing $10. Games today sell for $50+ for about 10 hours of gameplay. Even if the servers are down for a whole week out of the month, you're still paying literally pennies an hour to play.

    And in the end, it is just a game. Again, I know how frustrating it is when you can't play...but that's just what it is - play. Nobody's life hangs in the balance. The world won't end if you can't grind out a few more XP or farm up some more gold. Life will go on even if you can't get in to MC tonight.

    Ultimately, I just don't think Blizzard's problems are nearly as epic as anyone is making them out to be... At least not for anyone other than Blizzard themselves. I guess if enough folks get frustrated and stop paying then Blizzard will have a problem... But for all the rest of us out there trying to play - it just isn't that important.

    1. Re:...meh... by freedom_surfer · · Score: 1

      Let me put it in perspective for you...I have a new baby....her schedule is her own...I can only squeeze in time to play when she's sleeping (generally on Friday or Saturday nite). Well, its been a little better as of late, but for months I would get on during the only time I could play and it would be unplayable. Now it may be convienent for you to log in at a different times to play, but some of us have predetermined play times. Needless to say, I cancelled my account. I had paid up three months already, so I'm waiting for it to expire still...(hence how I know its gotten a little better)

      I am a sysadmin, so of course I understand that things happen you don't expect, especially during a new rollout....but a Friday or Saturday nite is NOT a special condition. If I told one of my paying customers that during weekends and high traffic times they would just have to accept downtime I would have no customers. It sucks having to plan for peak times and have lots of extra equipment that may sit idle most of the day...but welcome to the real world...(why do you think companies are trying to go to the 30 year old idea of virtual servers...IBM figured this out years ago....virtualizing is the only way to cut down on some of the idle hardware)

      too bad more of you don't use your money power....they would have fixed this months ago...

    2. Re:...meh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Let me put it in perspective for you...I have a new baby....her schedule is her own...I can only squeeze in time to play when she's sleeping (generally on Friday or Saturday nite). Well, its been a little better as of late, but for months I would get on during the only time I could play and it would be unplayable. Now it may be convienent for you to log in at a different times to play, but some of us have predetermined play times. Needless to say, I cancelled my account. I had paid up three months already, so I'm waiting for it to expire still...(hence how I know its gotten a little better)

      No, it is not convenient for me to log in at different times to play. I work long days, and we've just bought a house which means I've got tons of things to do when I get home from work. I'm lucky if I can sqeeze in an hour or two before bed.

      I understand your frustrations, and I understand why you cancelled your account. But the fact remains that it is still just a game. If I can't log in tonight, I'll live. I'll get something productive done, or watch TV, or read a book, or spend time with the wife, or whatever... It's entertainment, and just one of many forms of entertainment available.

    3. Re:...meh... by sh4na · · Score: 1

      And here I thought it was a game that you are *paying* for to have available 24/7. Silly me.

      I can't understand how someone can excuse the lack of service and waste of money that it is to pay for a game that is not available when the person paying needs it by saying that it's "only a game" and that there are other things to do if it's offline. What does it matter if it's a game or not? Could be a massage service for all it matters. It's a *service" that one is *paying* for and not having is return in the form of availability.

      In any other situation, it would be a case of lawsuits or people would quit en masse. In this case, people just bear with it... strange world this is. Smacks of addiction, it does, people who would otherwise not pay a dime or protest loudly if they had to spend money on anything pay through the nose every month not to be able to play or play in bad conditions.

      ---- COH rant mode on -------

      I know, I've been there myself with City of Heroes. In my case it wasnt the server problems (though we've had some, but never this bad, no problems getting in, just lag for a while), it was the constant nerfs to make the game "balanced", effectively destroying the fun out of it by downgrading everyone to the same level. They haven't been able to balance everyone out of course, but they managed to ruin a lot of builds.

      Scrappers are too powerful, look like they can handle anything? Nerf them. Tanks look like they can handle aggro from lots of foes? Nerf them. Controllers have too many pets? Nerf them. Two or three powers can be made permanent by exclusive use of recharge enhancements? Cut down on *all* enhancements. That way no perma-anything anymore. Of course, less damage for everyone, everyone gets tired quicker, less accuracy, less defense, less resistance... but hey, I cannot perma-haste now, cool for me.

      I don't get it why, instead of raising everyone to a level, they lower the powers, take away damage and defense and everything, change permanent powers to toggles, for what? What does it accomplish? Does it satisfy the players? Are we happy about it? Was I happy when my scrapper lost her Instant Healing power, which became a toggle instead, forcing me to respec the char because I just couldn't play like I used to and liked? Was it that hard to find a solution that could maintain it as a perma, raising it's endurance cost if it was too poweful a power, for instance? Was there a need to cut on the aggro of the tank so that it can only aggro 5 foes at a time? When playing on a team of 8 we face groups of 10-15 foes at a time, not counting the ones aggroed from afar by AOEs, and the tank is in the middle watching everyone die helplessly because he can handle damage from 30 but can't aggro more than 5, and the other 5-10 are happily killing of the team. What is a tank good for then? No wonder I don't see any tanks anymore, what's the point?

      Are we paying to have our chars nerfed? Do the devs even listen to what the player base is saying? (believe me, if you look through the coh bulletin boards, you'll see what I mean)... Are the players having fun after all? Are we super-heroes? Or is Paragon City suffering from a strange alien attack that is reducing everyone's powers?

      As a matter of fact, I'm seeing less and less heroes around, especially after the last "update". Where I had to fend off the blind invites and tells and you couldn't search for teammates without getting 1000+ lists, now you're lucky if you get 40 hits. While peeps would send tells to heroes on their level in search of teams, now I, as lvl 48, am getting tells from peeps lvl 30, desperately seeking anyone to team with them. And I have to say no because my team as everyone sidekicked already, because while some are 48, others are 39 and lower on any given day.

      Does this not ring alarm bells somewhere in that remote tower where the Cryptic people are? Don't they notice how there's less diversity? How people are fed up with getting nerfs every other month? Don't they play the game?

      Strange...

      -------- COH rant mode off ----------

      --
      shana
      ......gone crazy, back soon, leave message
    4. Re:...meh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Couple thoughts:

      - SysOps nerf rather than raise stats because they ask themselves whether the characters play as "envisioned". Did they envision one tank being able to hold 35+ monsters? I guess not, so they lowered the number to 30, as you said. They could have raised everyone's stats to match, but again, it isn't what they envisioned.

      Sometimes they fire the technical leads after the roll-out, and there is no one left who sees the "vision" any more. Then it all goes to pot, since the remaining maintence devs only respond to whiny user complaints.

      - From what I've read, people are leaving CoH because there is nothing new. So, CoH is putting out updates, but it's not enough: people are still leaving. So while you see people leaving and draw a conclusion it is due to the updates, most people believe it is due to the lack of updates. All depends on your persective, I guess.

  50. Another thing about their datacenters by LearningHard · · Score: 2, Informative

    I don't have time to look up the post from the forums. But a while back one of the CM's let slip that Blizzard does not manage the WoW datacenter. They actually have contracted every bit of that out to a third party. I sincerely think this is a core part of the problem with connectivity. Of course Blizzard has a time lag between something going wrong and them finding out about it. First a tech at the third-party has to notice it. Then they forward to their superiors and so forth and so on until eventually someone at Blizzard might find out something went wrong. It also doesn't surprise me that the third party providing datacenter hosting is not multi-homed (isn't that the correct term?).

    I think the largest lesson to learn here is that you shouldn't contract out the entire core aspect of your business model.

    1. Re:Another thing about their datacenters by __aasmho4525 · · Score: 1

      i can speculate on what happened here with some authority.

      i happen to be a customer of AT&T's, responsible for something in an AT&T data center that also happens to have a bunch of WoW equipment in it, and it JUST SO HAPPENS that there was emergency maintenance being performed on AT&T's network in this facility on friday night...

      we saw NO OUTAGE WHATSOEVER due to this particular problem in AT&T's network, for two reasons:

      1) AT&T's network itself is dual-homed with multiple sonet rings converging upon the facility from different directions, etc.

      2) OUR OWN UPLINKS to at&t are dual homed to two different AT&T distribution switches (and yes, we had to pay more for that).

      i got the warning about friday night's outages from AT&T, and we were NOT AT ALL IMPACTED because of #2.

      if a given customer of AT&T chooses NOT to dual home their own uplinks, they would most certainly have seen a substantial outage.

      can i say with certainty that this is what caused friday's outage? no. does it seem very reasonable given what i know about how that facility operates? yes.

      who knows where the truth lies...

    2. Re:Another thing about their datacenters by GnuDiff · · Score: 1

      Properly equipped datacenters with tons of broadband are a shitload of investment - they are neither cheap to build nor to maintain. Couple with the fact that as far as I understand US property prices are skyhigh, Blizzard would be taking large risks. I work in a datacenter atm, so I have some idea :)

      I would pretty much imagine the US servers are divided into datacenters by the timezones.
      AFAI've heard about Europe, it's at least 2 datacenters in France and 2 in Germany.

      As I wrote a bit earlier up the thread, I do think we're talking some 600+ physical machines in US alone, more in EU.

  51. Fun with Tags by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Instead of [sarcasm] try [casting line] ..... [/trolling]. [sarcasm] Happy fishing! [/sarcasm].

  52. Why I Quit by stlhawkeye · · Score: 1

    I tolerated this for about three months. After three straight months of being unable to get past Vael, because Blizzard designed a bunch of highly ping-sensitive encounters for their content at the same time that their network couldn't handle the player load, I gave up and cancelled. It was hard to do, because I absolutely loved and adored this game. My wife even misses it, and she hardly ever played it. The other day she said, "I miss hearing about Blackwing Lair. You guys were going so well and you all got so excited about it." But I can't justify paying this money when, month in and month out, the game is unplayable. When it's not lag, it's constant server crashing. I tolerate a LOT of this. A TON. I NEVER complain about server instability. I know what it's like, and having one or two crashes now and then isn't that big of a deal to me. I'm an old MUD admin, my tolerance level is insanely high. But when I arrange my week around my raid schedule, order food, show up, and then sit around for 4 hours waiting for the server to come up, and I do this for 3 months with no end in sight, it's unacceptable. So I called it quits. I hated to do it, but I can't keep paying for nothing.

    --
    "I have never won a debate with an ignorant person." -Ali ibn Abi Talib
    1. Re:Why I Quit by drdewm · · Score: 1

      Same here. Nearly word for word except I played EQ1. It was immensly enjoyable when it was playable but the stress eventually over shadowed the enjoyment so I quit.

  53. Find a new game by MattW · · Score: 1

    Here's my suggestion if WoW is sucking: vote with your damn dollars. City of Heroes never has these problems. If you haven't tried the game, give it a shot, 14 days no strings attached no cc needed:

    http://www.mmorpg.com/cov_trial.cfm?fp=1920,1200,1 145983133843,20060425123853

    I tried WoW, but I'd rather fly (or leap, or superspeed) than walk or take a slow horse. And I'd rather fight and run missions than spend endless hours craftgrinding. And I like playing with my friends and being able to even when we're different levels - "sidekicking" is the best mmo feature EVAR.

    But CoX has basically never had these issues. One or two minor hiccups in 2 years.

    1. Re:Find a new game by Winterblink · · Score: 1

      CoX doesn't have grinding then? That's laughable. You are either grinding NPC gangs or grinding missions. Both of which, you guessed it, involve "grinding". Unless there's some other bit of content there that I'm missing?

      There no story, no crafting system at all, no *nothing* at all other than running/flying/leaping/whatevering to different areas to grind grind grind. Hell, the character generator was probably the best feature of the whole game once you got sick of doing the same things over and over again.

      --
      "I'm a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar."
      -Hoban Washburn
    2. Re:Find a new game by snuf23 · · Score: 1

      I like CoH, but yes your points are valid. It's a pretty simple game and the fun comes from the combat. If you don't like the combat, well better not play because there isn't really anything else.
      I like WoW too but for reasons so many others have gone over in this thread I quit a few months ago.
      I spent a couple months in CoV after leaving WoW and it was refreshing to just log on and bash stuff up. I didn't have a lot of game time due to some big projects at work so I can't say I missed the deeper aspects of the genre.0
      There are other MMOs out there that have a lot more depth however.
      I finally ended up in EQ2 after trying out several trials. The game has changed quite a bit since launch and I've been enjoying it a lot. Crafting certainly has more depth than in WoW and so does the guild structure (i.e. guild levels, banks, status rewards etc.).

      --
      Sometimes my arms bend back.
    3. Re:Find a new game by Winterblink · · Score: 1

      Yeah, EQ2's changed a LOT. There's a lot of beneficial changes, especially to solo play, and a few that I don't agree with in regards to crafting. But overall it's a pretty underrated gem of a game. Not as underrated as DAOC, but... :)

      For depth, nothing compares to EVE Online though. The game's crazy with its complexity.

      --
      "I'm a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar."
      -Hoban Washburn
  54. Nothing New - Same Problems Since Release by mwyner · · Score: 1

    It's amusing to constantly see articles like this, because they've been having network/server issues since the game was released, back in November '04. After putting up with it for 4 months at that point, we canceled our accounts, waiting for the day when it wouldn't be a problem anymore. 6 months later, we reactivated, only to cancel 2 months later for the same reasons. It's honestly disgusting that this is still going on, but as many other people have said, the only way to let them know is to stop paying.

  55. Well... by Svartalf · · Score: 4, Informative

    ...while you're not an idiot, I can understand where they could end up with one supplier for bandwidth.

    1) You need a SLA with each ISP you pull backbone level feed from. You can use InterNAP and hook into the peering points in the US and a few other places, but it's got it's own issues- and if you just use them, you're still with only one ISP; if they fail, you're still up a creek without a paddle.

    2) You'd need to frame the servers into one massive data center with a HUGE honking data-pipe from each ISP with BGP routing on the inbound routers from the ISPs to your DMZ to establish one IP address range for the front-facing servers

                OR

    Come up with some sort of nasty DNS trick to hopefully make the server front-ends transparent to the clients and spread them across multiple IP blocks (Which is what epicRealm did to make their CDN actually completely transparent to client and customer- and to be able to handle dynamic HTTP content...)- but be prepared, because in order for this to work right, you either need to trust the client's state, share state across server pools on different IP blocks, be stateless, or somesuch like the previous.

    There's a bunch more, but those above two and the first item will hopefully show you why someone (a bean counter, most likely...) will make the decision to just simply hold the ISP or Tier-1 host (Which is the most likely case here- they're very probably colocated at an AT&T Tier-1 facility...) to the SLA they promised- because it's cheaper and waaay simpler if everything goes right and they're "not to blame" if things go wrong. If you went an alternate route and had a mishap that wasn't server related, then you'd be to blame and have nobody to point fingers at when it all broke (And you just KNOW it will at some point- it always does... :-)

    --
    I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
    1. Re:Well... by nick+this · · Score: 1

      And I'm thinking $35M a month is enough to buy the expertise, equipment, and facilities to do all that.

    2. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think your arguments are a bit mis-guided. Just about every large content provider and "tier-2" and lower ISP is multihomed to several upstream providers. The IP addressing issues that you allude to simply aren't a problem -- advertise your blocks via BGP to each of the upstreams and let the BGP route selection algorithms work things out (sure, it can get more complicated than this if you need to do more complex traffic engineering, which Blizzard almost certainly would need to do).

      The other points about shared state between different data centers (or even just different servers) are valid points, but are not an argument against multihoming.

      Multihoming is almost no-brainer!

    3. Re:Well... by Svartalf · · Score: 1

      Keep in mind that I didn't talk against multihoming- it's just you're not going to find it easily
      available at the level of bandwidth and latency Blizzard's needing for WoW AND have a datacenter that's going to provide it to you.

      Sprint's Tier-1 facility in Richardson, TX only provides connectivity to Sprint's backbone.
      Ditto for the AT&T Tier-1 facility that resides in Allen, TX.- you get to go ONLY on AT&T's backbone directly from the facility.

      Tier-2 providers go out of their way to be multi-homed to provide redundancy (which is nice), but the Tier-1's don't multihome their facilities unless it's also being a peering point (Why am I bringing in a primary feed from my competitors backbone without a peering arrangement for this facility?!?). But, keep in mind that the Tier-2's typically don't handle enough bandwidth for something like this (It'd swallow the damn thing whole on them if they did it out of the facility... Typically, a Tier-2 doesn't have any more than an OC-3 feed's worth of bandwidth to the backbone(s) for one of their datacenters.). You just don't see that sort of thing unless you're building your own facility or sit on a peering point.

      Just because it's relatively "easy" to multihome (I know, I've helped DO that for a former employer...) doesn't mean you want do it- it's not cheap or practical past the T3/DS3 level of bandwidth unless you actually NEED to set up your own datacenter that way. Basically, Blizzard went down the Tier-1 colo option path to save costs on getting access to backbone bandwidth levels and got bit because their provider couldn't give 'em what they needed 100% of the time (IF Blizzard's claims AT&T caused WoW connectivity problems are at least partly true- since they didn't respond immediately with a denial, there's probably at least some truth to it...).

      --
      I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
  56. Blizzard Fanboism by BurnMage · · Score: 1

    I'm a Blizzard fanboy I'll tell you straight out, and yeah they've had poor uptime since release, at first from usual mmorpg release headaches... and then what?

    I have a conspiracy theory though. I have always respected Blizzard and felt they were very receptive and communicative to their fanbase, and feel that has been somewhat demonstrated even facing the apparently overwhelming popularity 'problems' of WoW, and so them seemed somewhat tight lipped about things in general makes me think it part of their contracts.

    Aren't they using IBM's database for WoW, for example? The DB backend is involved in every aspect of the game, and say there was an undocumented flaw or heck even documented flaw with their DB backend they are grappling with. I would imagine they way they are implementing things isn't exactly old hat either, we haven't had massively popular mmorpgs for aeons in the computer world. If IBM's DBAs and programmers are even having problems resolving the issues, Blizzard can't turn around and say 'Yeah we're doing all we can but our IBM DB sucks, buy IBM.' If it's instead a network issue with AT&T, again I'm sure part of their corporate contracts involve 'not talking about how much their internet sucks ass'

    1. Re:Blizzard Fanboism by GnuDiff · · Score: 1

      I've always liked Blizzard games.
      I am addicted to WoW.

      But regarding WoW, I'd say that they are by far NOT "very receptive and communicative to their fanbase". Then again, I can't expect them to be.
      They are trying to cater to and manage a small country of people by now (Imagine:
      My country has 3x less people than the population of WoW).

      Logic says that people involved with developing the game, otoh, must be a not very large team. Which means that they get either swarmed under the pleas for comments and help etc. or those are being filtered out VERY heavily.

      Regarding servers. There are now 156 realms in US and 174 in Europe. Dunno about the rest - how's Bliz doing in China - are they in Asia at all? Didn't find anything regarding that on Blizzard site, so I will assume the 6 mln. players refer to the 330 US+EU realms. Soo... assuming the players are spaced out evenly among realms (never happens), it gives us a bit above 18'000 players per realm. Not bad.

      Now the speculations: I am betting each realm is served by at least 2-5 servers, maybe more (you need DB, all the calculations - npcs, movements, flight, fight...., perhaps some proxies too). So, we're having like 1500-2000 servers around the globe. Management, organization, all the issues. And ofc Blizz is not doing their own hosting, but renting datacenter space. Frankly, I am surprised they manage to keep the service up much of the time at all.

      P.S. Why "IBM", btw? Might've been Oracle or MSSQL for what's it worth.

  57. AT&T by Intangion · · Score: 1

    we cant blame AT&T, they have to hook up their networks to the NSA so we can be spied on..
    its not their fault its the terrorists!

    World of Warcraft could switch to another provider but then the terrorists would win! dont ya see? playing lag free World of Warcraft supports terrorism!

    1. Re:AT&T by McD!ck · · Score: 1

      I wish I had mod points for you.

      I have a lot of friends that work at AT&T, the stories they tell are a mix of horror and humor.

      --
      People who are against human cloning must be bitter they are not good enough to be cloned.
  58. The goldfish analogy by The+Living+Fractal · · Score: 1

    When you put a goldfish in a tank, what happens, provided you feed it enough and keep the environment healthy for it?

    Well, it grows to the size of its tank.

    When you put a few million people in a MMO, feed them with good content and gameplay, what happens?

    The MMO goldfish grows to the size of its tank. Or in this case, network.

    I promise you that Blizzard has already looked at the costs of increasing their network capacity versus the amount of estimated benefit (i.e. how many more subscribers they'll get) and found that it is prohibitive. So they are doing what any business would do. Trying to find a balance. They've done some things, like replace servers that aren't performing up to par, but that doesn't affect the network performance as a whole which plagues their entire infrastructure.

    Simply put, WoW is gigantic. Too big for itself. Players who can handle it stay. Those who can't, leave. Myself, I have played since the release. I don't consider myself a hardcore player anymore, so it's easier for me to not get all pissed off when I can't login every damn day for hours on end. If it's not happening, I do other things IRL that are just as good, and often more healthy for me than sittin at a computer.

    Right now WoW is in equilibrium with the oppositional forces of a over-crowded network and an abundant player base. I imagine this is how it will be for quite a while, and the expansion is only going to make this worse.

    --
    I do not respond to cowards. Especially anonymous ones.
  59. Now might be that opportunity to try... by cryptomancer · · Score: 1

    While you're fed up with network troubles of your current game, now might be the opporunity to try some of the other MMORPGs. Yes, I *do* play WoW, but for those times when I'm sick of dealing with (fill in the blank), I have City of Heroes & Villains. And out in the last week: AutoAssault, which has satisfied my craving for a vehicles-with-mounted-weapons game.

    Offtopic? Maybe! Proudly so. Come on over, it'd be cool to see some new capes & cars in both games.

    --
    Yes, we understand these tags always apply: fud, dupe, typo, slashdotted, topic name
  60. It's Entertainment People... by aimless · · Score: 2, Interesting
    I like reading about people complaining about their $15 per month and how it is OUTRAGEOUS that Blizzard could treat them this way etc. etc.

    It strikes me as odd that we constantly compare MMOGs to other games or services regardless of the validity of the comparison.

    MMOGs are Entertainment. There are very few other services that one may purchase for "only" $15 per month that will provide the volume and quality (yes, quality) of entertainment that a MMOG will.

    One night at the movies - easily $20 for ~2 hours. A night out drinking/dancing >$40? for 4 hours? Any concert >$40 for a few hours. A date? (I know this is /. just trust me, they are expensive).

    My point is that it's not a waste of time. It's entertainment. We choose to play them. We choose not to watch TV. MMOGs are actually social behavior (we chat and make friends). If you play MMOGs instead of watching cable/direcTV/TiVo you are paying considerably less per month and interacting with more people while you are doing it.

    I consider myself a casual gamer (maybe an hour or two every-other day, more on the weekends) and per-hour I pay about 20 cents/hour to play WoW. If I was hard-core, it would be considerably less.

    Relax, and let the silent majority have their fun.

    -A

    1. Re:It's Entertainment People... by pandrijeczko · · Score: 1
      MMOGs are Entertainment. There are very few other services that one may purchase for "only" $15 per month that will provide the volume and quality (yes, quality) of entertainment that a MMOG will.

      Rubbish. The monetary value of the service or product has *NOTHING* to do with it - it is *SIMPLY* about whether you feel you got value for money from it.

      One night at the movies - easily $20 for ~2 hours. A night out drinking/dancing >$40? for 4 hours? Any concert >$40 for a few hours. A date? (I know this is /. just trust me, they are expensive).

      Again, rubbish. Selling in a capitalist society is about charging as much as you can get away with for a product, nothing more. If no-one paid $20 for a cinema ticket, they'd have to reduce the price to $15...

      My point is that it's not a waste of time. It's entertainment.

      Precisely. And it's *SOLD* to you as something you can go do 24x7 whenever you want. If you can't do that then you've been ripped off. It has *NOTHING* to do with criticising people who play these games so please don't get defensive about it.

      Relax, and let the silent majority have their fun.

      Yes, and maybe a lot of that majority are perfectly happy with their gaming service - but how many of those people aren't happy and just can't be bothered to complain or are too scared to?

      --
      Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
    2. Re:It's Entertainment People... by datdjrobp · · Score: 1

      You make some valid valuation points, but try and scale things fairly. Imagine if two minutes of the movie you were watching weren't there, or if the sound went out for 10 minutes at the concert you were seeing. Sure the game is cheap and per minute costs are extremely low, but that's one of the main reasons Blizzard should have been on top of things from the start. It's not like they didn't do the math ahead of time to realize they would need X thousand users to keep their books in the black (and if they didn't expect to progress to X million users, they should all be beaten with sticks) It's really not the consumer's fault that Blizz set the price point at $15. Sure, my $15 wouldn't buy a sysadmin's time for 10 minutes, but 6 million times $15 sure would and I think that's where the frustration comes from.

    3. Re:It's Entertainment People... by Digital+Vomit · · Score: 1
      A date? (I know this is /. just trust me, they are expensive).

      I've had some before. I think they're, like, three bucks per container or so.

      --
      Modern copyright is theft of culture from everyone and it retards the progress of the useful arts and sciences.
    4. Re:It's Entertainment People... by Slimcea · · Score: 1

      The problem with your analogy simply is that different forms of entertainment provide different forms of value, and that it's only fair to compare within the TYPE of entertainment itself.

      If we were to simply go by cost/hour as you mentioned, then no one would ever go for expensive dinners at a glitzy restaurant, or fly overseas for a holiday. Instead, they'd be cooped up at home watching Cable all day long.

      Quite clearly, different forms of entertainment have different values on them, and comparing within the form itself (in this case, MMORPGs), WoW falls short on multiple levels. The high downtimes for WoW make it an adverse value proposition compared to other MMORPGs (e.g. FFXI, CoH/CoV, Guild Wars, EQ2, Eve Online etc), and the lag factor seriously hampers having fun, further reducing the quality of gameplay when its actually available.

    5. Re:It's Entertainment People... by stienman · · Score: 1

      It strikes me as odd that we constantly compare MMOGs to other games or services regardless of the validity of the comparison.

      So what you're saying, essentially, is that my economic perspective is wrong, and yours is right, and since your perspective is that Blizzard is providing adequate entertainment for a fair fee, then I have no reason to complain?

      Wow, you really believe the world does revolve around you.

      If you are happy about the service you are getting, then it seems odd that you'd take time to complain about the complainers. Why don't you stop complaining and, like the silent majority, relax? If this isn't your fight then why are you so keen to weigh in on the matter?

      As for my part, I play perhaps 10-20 hours a month. I have a lot of other things on my plate right now, so I have to schedule my play time.

      Out of the last 10 times I have attempted to play, I could not login 4 of those times at all during the 4 hours I scheduled and was disconnected 2 times and was not able to log back on for the remaining time I had scheduled. When I have been able to play uninterrupted it has not been without frustrating problems (pauses in game play, etc).

      I would accept these problems if Blizzard simply gave immediate notice of a problem, a time frame for the problem to be fixed, and stopped them from recurring. As it is they don't talk about a problem until after 2-4 hours after it starts, and they don't give a time frame for repair.

      This isn't a waiting-queue issue. And apparantly it isn't temporary growing pains. This has been going on for over a month now.

      I'm glad you're happy with your service - lots of people are, including my wife who doesn't have such a difficult schedule for play time. I'm not happy. Don't tell me that I don't deserve better service. Yes, if this issue doesn't clear up by the time my subscription comes due then I'm not re-subscribing.

      -Adam

  61. Re:AT&T have a right to provide poor service t by sharkey · · Score: 1

    What does the President have to do with this topic? Is there oil for the taking in WoW?

    --

    --
    "Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
  62. What other options for Apple users ? by Builder · · Score: 1

    What other MMORPGS are there for Mac users? My wife and I both play WoW, and I'd be interested in looking at other options.

    We have G5's so bootcamp and then Windows isn't an option for us.

  63. ffxi by eulalie · · Score: 1

    WoW should be able to handle it. I play FFXI. Even on the 25th when everyone got the new expansion and were installing like mad and EVERYONE and their mule was boarding the ferry to Aht Urghan Whitegate and doing the same new quests and fighting for the same new items, it was bareable. No one was unexpectedly kicked off. No unplanned maintenance. There was lag, but the devout players scoffed in it's presence! If SE can do it.. Blizzard should be able to too.. WoW players should boycott!

  64. I'm Glad I quit WOW. by Deathlizard · · Score: 1

    last month, I cancelled my WOW account before the new patch hit and went back to City of Villains/Heroes, and I'm glad I did. Sounds like the same old stuff over there.

    WOW was just a grind fest to me. in COH/V it's kill anything that looks like you can kill it. You don't have to worry about 10 things to grind once you kill something. COH/V doesn't have the WOW storyline depth, but it's just more fun to me.

    1. Re:I'm Glad I quit WOW. by Winlin · · Score: 1

      I have a similar situation here; I have been getting frustrated and bored on WoW. I'm getting excited about the new server being talked about on Everquest, though. Sounds like it will start out with just the original world, then move through the expansions as certain mobs are killed. So I'll be giving SOE my money again and clubbing polar bears and spiders in Everfrost:)

  65. 6Million basement dwelling shut-ins can't be wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Truth!

  66. Blizzard is listening by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Blizzard is aware of the issues and has been working feverishly the past few months to rectify the issue. All I can say specifically is that ATT really does blow donkey nuts and, for the most part, the blame falls squarely on their shoulders. Did you know WoW is ATTENS' largest customer *by far*? A realm in every datacenter...

  67. Downtime by rsmith-mac · · Score: 1
    Seriously, a little timely information goes a long way. Yes, I agree that the downtime they have is absurd; consider that *every Tuesday* the game goes offline for *six hours* of maintenance. That's *planned, scheduled* downtime, folks, so that *alone* means they aren't even attempting to have greater than 96.4% uptime, and I can't think of another commercial service for which you pay a monthly fee where that would be even remotely acceptable; if your cable or your phone just plain didn't work for 6 hours every Tuesday, heads would roll. Then things just get asinine when you factor in all the spontaneous, freewheeling, unplanned downtime as well.

    I disagree and agree with you on this point. I agree in that having a 6hour+ scheduled window for maintenance is not acceptable, but I disagree that all maintenance is unacceptable. Rather, it's how they go about it that's the problem.

    With a large window 1 day a week, Blizzard interrupts practically everyone no matter the time zone to do the work, and when they run over it's after the service has already been offline for 1/4 of a day. The problem here is that a large irregular window tends to cause problems because the player base only has to put up with it one day a week, and are already irate when it runs over.

    The solution is that Blizzard needs to move to more regular maintenance windows broken up over smaller chunks of time, like other MMOs do. The first thing that pops in to my mind with this kind of system is EVE Online, which has 1 hour window every day of the week, where it often doesn't even take the full hour.

    By using such a schedule, the EVE player base is accustomed to the server going down at the same time every day, and naturally plan their daily schedules around it, so that they don't have to do anything any different on any given day. Along the same lines, when the server does take a little longer to come up, while additional minutes are as a percentage much higher against a 1 hour window than a 6 hour window(a 1 hour delay is 100% of the former, 16% of the latter), it also means that when an operation goes terribly wrong and takes twice as long as planned it has only consumed another hour, and not an entire extended gaming session for the player base.

    Of course, this means that the overall uptime of the system is lower(95.8%), but a daily schedule still reaps more benefits in the end both through social engineering of the player base, and through the technical benefits of getting to do maintenance every single day of the week instead of holding it off.

    1. Re:Downtime by GnuDiff · · Score: 1

      6 hours every Tuesday early morning IS regular. Regular - occuring at predictable intervals for predictable amounts of time. I've had no problems accustomising myself to it, after all WoW DOES go down at the same time every week. Regularly.

      We don't really know the type of maintanance that needs to be done weekly.

      If I had to administer servers for Blizz, as a sysadmin I would beg for 6h every day (*grin*), but failing that, some longer maintanance once a week would sound prudent.

    2. Re:Downtime by Phanatic1a · · Score: 1

      And I'd be okay with even that, assuming that for the rest of the week, it. Just. Worked.

      It doesn't. The fact that they can't keep their shit up for even the time between regular maintenance intervals is pretty damning.

      I can't even come up with what you'd need to take the entire system down for 6 hours at a time for, it not regular rebuilds of the database on the backend; hardware doesn't fail that much or that regularly.

    3. Re:Downtime by GnuDiff · · Score: 1

      I can but sympathize.
      Luckily, I haven't had any such problems with WoW for more than half a year already.

  68. Great game by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've played: EQ, DAoC, Eve, Shadowbane, SWG, EQ2, and WoW. WoW is by far the highest quality game from a technology perspective out of all of them. Yes, they have some stuff to learn, but when I first started playing the game I was impressed by the quality, and I'm still impressed by the quality. They deserve all of their subscriptions, and I for one will not be cancelling due to some temporary problems.

    All MMORPGs get a huge number of whining assholes, who complain about every little problem like its the end of the world, who write the same bull "I cancelled last month", etc, etc. WoW is no different, and this whole non-event is a good demonstration of that.

  69. Real reason the servers are down... by kublikhan · · Score: 1

    I bet the real reason the servers are down is because all those blizzard employees refused to have an RFID chip implanted and now they can't get in the data center :/

  70. Would you say that the.... by gatkinso · · Score: 1

    ....network was ganked? hawhawhawhawhawhawhaw

    Oh well.

    --
    I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
    1. Re:Would you say that the.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A donkey laugh for Blizzard's donkey punch! heehaw...

  71. Actually, waiting is the solution by romeo_in_blk_jeans · · Score: 1

    When the next big MMORPG comes out with game play on par with WoW, the only factor to consider will be server stability. When Company X comes out with a good MMORPG and offers server stability like Blizzard never has, Blizzard will have their collective asses handed to them on a silver platter.

    It won't matter whose fault it is for the server outages, Blizzard will be the ones losing money. Watch how quickly they clean up their act. Mark my words.

    THIS is why competition is a good thing.

  72. Re:AT&T have a right to provide poor service t by samurphy21 · · Score: 1

    What do you think that samophlange is doing? Digging for oranges?

  73. Solution to all your WoW Server problems... by B.+Pascal · · Score: 1

    Hello all:

    I have a solution to your WoW server problems. It's call, "Guild Wars". Size, that's WoW's server woes. The more popular something is, the more traffic it generates, and the more traffic related problems it has. There are two approaches to solve traffic related problems. 1) you wait until the engineers at Blizzard to fix these problems, or 2) you lessen the traffics. Now, looking at real life, it seems that WoW traffic problems are being created faster than the engineers can fix them. So, we should pick the second option: play something else while server is down to lessen the traffics. Eventually, there will be an equilibrium between server problems generated by inflow of people, to outflow of people leaving (temporary) to play out Guild Wars. When this equilibrium is achieved, the software engineers at Blizzard can start to resolve server issues without being flooded by new ones.

    I suggested Guild Wars because it's a pretty good game, without monthly cost.

    As a side note, I think Blizzard realizes that the market for their MMORG is so big, that they can start another MMORG (say, World of Starcraft) in another network and charge two subscriptions instead of one. When players have problem logging into one MMORG, they can just play the other... This way, Blizzard gets paid both ways.

    Cheers.

    B. Pascal.

    1. Re:Solution to all your WoW Server problems... by pandrijeczko · · Score: 1
      So, we should pick the second option: play something else while server is down to lessen the traffics.

      Interesting argument but isn't this like the analogy to the sinking ship? Everyone agrees that to stop the ship sinking so fast, some people need to jump overboard to lessen the weight of the ballast on the ship.

      But when it comes to the question of *who* will jump overboard, everyone will wait for someone else to volunteer...

      --
      Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
    2. Re:Solution to all your WoW Server problems... by B.+Pascal · · Score: 1

      Hello pandrijeczko:

      Thanks for your comments. Yet, I think your analogy of jumping ship is misleading. With jumping ships, those who leave the ship never get back on the ship. In the case of switching to Guild Wars, you can switch between the two at ease. As well, in the case of jumping ships, being off a ship is a... highly detrimental thing. In the case of switching to Guild Wars, you are getting entertained instead of waiting to logon/being frustrated about server shut-downs.

      Mind you, I suggest Guild Wars because it's another MMORG... Everyone is free to do whatever they want while waiting. Go for a run, read a book, study for finals, etc.

      Cheers.

      B. Pascal.

  74. Already state of the art by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So many "backseat" network "professionals" out seem to think bigger hardware will fix everything. This drives me nuts. Blizzard has stated that their servers are already cutting edge technology, the best that money can buy. WoW is the biggest game in the world... 6 Million people play it--almost twice the population of Los Angeles. Comparing it to your experience building websites or large databases just doesnt work. Realtime interactive performance for 6 million people... many of which play for 8+ hours at a time... all of which interact with each other. Your database does not do that. Your website does not do that. WoW is one of the largest technological challenges on the internet... so unless you have experience creating and analyzing huge clusters of prototype state of the art machines and latest generation networking gear in a similar high demand, interactive environment, STFU. /soapbox

    1. Re:Already state of the art by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But I'm sure they've written (copied) a shell script that uses ifconfig so THEy R EXPOERTS SOE U CAAN JSUT GO SHTUUP!!11!

      WHY doesnt bliZZ jsut ovrclok they're CPUEs! 1 bet it'd RUN GRET THAN! HAR! HAR! OMGWTFLOLLLL!!

  75. OP is a Troll by netglen · · Score: 1

    What a useless thread. The OP is just another doom-saying Troll. This thread should not have ever gotten onto these fine forums.

  76. Translated by Danathar · · Score: 3, Funny

    "My crack pipe...My crack pipe!....suck...suck....It's not working right!"

  77. Don't feed the troll... by decepty · · Score: 1
    --
    Be careful! Bears shouldn't consume large furry dogs.
  78. Reason for slowness discovered! by Emetophobe · · Score: 1

    Maybe Blizzard's servers are slow because they have to redirect all their traffic to the NSA.

  79. A ray of light... by GJSchaller · · Score: 1

    I currently play on Dalaran. Up until recently, we had the same problems everyone else did - lag, disconnects, servers down, etc.

    I say recently, because shortly after the release of the 1.10 patch, the server was migrated to new hardware. After a day of hiccups, it started running smoothly... and has been ever since.

    I am on one of the original realms, with a full population, that saw queues of 100+ on a regular basis. Now... no queues, no lag, no loot lag, no AH lag, no Mail lag, etc. Zones load pretty damn fast (as they should on my gaming PC), and I no longer have issues disconnecting in instances.

    The CAN fix their issues. They HAVE done it for at least one server. I am guessing it's just a matter of time to get all the servers onto new hardware, and better maintenance to prevent issues from re-occurring.

    1. Re:A ray of light... by VultureMN · · Score: 1

      Azhol Nerzub (meh. Misspelled) has been smooth since shortly after 1.10, also. Blizz seems to be able to do something about the problems, it just is taking them awhile to get all the realms up to speed.

      My only current complaint is the freakin' auth server. So far, tho, the waiting time has been less than the time it takes me to go outside and have a smoke, so it all works out for me.

      Should the service on my realm regress to where it was 3 months ago, tho, I'll cancel. My patience is thin and the weather is finally getting nice.

  80. 6 million subscribers != 6 million players by billnapier · · Score: 2, Informative

    This is a trick that all service industries (Sat. Radio, directv, etc.) use for subscriber count. The subscriber count is the number of people, over the lifetime of the product, that have subscribed. Not the same as the current number of subscribers. Blizzard is *NOT* collection 6 million * $15 a month in subscription costs!

    1. Re:6 million subscribers != 6 million players by Cuppycake · · Score: 1

      Actually you're wrong. The 6 million number does NOT count expired accounts. From their press release here: http://www.blizzard.com/press/060119.shtml "World of Warcraft's Customer Definition World of Warcraft customers include individuals who have paid a subscription fee or purchased a prepaid card to play World of Warcraft, as well as those who have purchased the installation box bundled with one free month access. Internet Game Room players that have accessed the game over the last seven days are also counted as customers. The above definition excludes all players under free promotional subscriptions, expired or cancelled subscriptions, and expired pre-paid cards. Customers in licensees' territories are defined along the same rules."

    2. Re:6 million subscribers != 6 million players by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but, you're forgetting that many people have multiple accounts. Yes, each account from a single person is still 15.00, but, there's not actually 6M different people playing. There are people that use the multi-accounts to multi-log in so they can overcome certain things alone.

    3. Re:6 million subscribers != 6 million players by Kredal · · Score: 1

      And there's also husband and wife (or parent and child) players who share the same account. So let's just cancel both demographics out and call it even, k?

      --
      Whoever stated that signature sizes should be limited to one hundred and twenty characters can just go ahead and kiss my
  81. Emergency Repairs? by AutumnLeaf · · Score: 1

    I think my favorite outage was the "emergency downtime" to fix the authentication system to prevent "service-outtages" due to the auth-system failing.

    Before that downtime, I never had a problem. Then they were down most of the day because of that issue. And then after that the authentication system has sucked ass. Long timeouts, sometimes repeatedly long timeouts resulting in authentications - just checking an effing username and password - taking 15-30 minutes. Several players in my guild have been on TS but not in game because they can't log in, and have finally given up. Even with our "show up to raids early" policy, people are just barely making it due to the auth system sporadically fritzing out.

    THAT is AWFUL!

  82. Getting what we pay for? by DragonHawk · · Score: 1

    (Kind of playing devil's advocate here.)

    "I've been in the telecoms/computer industry now for about 20 years now and I've seen the whole perception of what is and isn't good customer service change over that time ... "

    Of course, we've also seen the price schedule change drastically over that time, too. It used to be that a dedicated data pipe to the 'net cost you hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars per month. Now it costs less than cable TV in many places.

    This is not a fair, apples to apples comparison, of course. The technology has changed drastically, and with the explosion of consumer high-speed Internet, we're getting economies of scale like never before. And most of all, all big telcos appear to be both evil and technically incompetent (but not incompetent at being evil, alas).

    But even with all those caveats, I can't help but wonder if there isn't some of the "You get what you pay for" principle at work here. With radically reduced rates, perhaps a corresponding reduction in service shouldn't be totally surprising.

    --

    dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
    I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
    1. Re:Getting what we pay for? by pandrijeczko · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Much of what you say is correct.

      When I first joined the industry, telcos (and I speak more of business/PBX providers rather than PSTN service providers) were able to make a lot of their money through custom hardware & the maintenance thereof - now, of course, most of the hardware is standard (Intel) server platforms so it's the software only that generates the income. And, yes, the cost of bandwidth has reduced many times over but I think much of that is as a result of technology enhancements such that you can get "more bits down a piece of wire" now than you could do 20 years ago.

      Likewise, a lot more service can be carried out using remote connectivity now than could be done 20 years ago - in 1986, it was virtually unheard of to do a major software upgrade over a modem or VPN link but now it's commonplace. That means less bodies "on the street" and therefore much lower staffing costs as a result.

      However, this has resulted in customers "feeling" that they are getting lower quality service because they no longer have direct face-to-face contact with the same familiar engineer they're used to dealing with. (There was a time when I was working in the field where I couldn't possibly drink the number of bottles of whisky given to me by my customers at Christmas - those *were* the days!)

      In summary, add that to the fact that just about anyone dealing with a service organisation today *expects* to be queued in a call centre across the other side of the world plus the outsourcing of programmers and a technical person who might not understand your specific needs in the country where you are who is "monitored" by a statistical system that cares only about fault numbers, times to clear, etc. and, you get, in my view, a worse quality of service than was delivered 20 years ago.

      It's simply the fact that *every* organisation now does it this way that the poor customer has no real choice in the matter...

      --
      Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
  83. Super-fascinating problem domain by Spud+Stud · · Score: 1

    The geek in me marvels at the problems the programmers at Blizzard have had to solve. It must be some of the most interesting programming work ever done.

  84. ATT Can lick my.... by TooncesTheCat · · Score: 1

    ATT is the exact reason I left my cable provider. Our local cable loop was provided by ATT and was the shittiest experience I have ever had with latency issues due to a ISP. You can read about the fiasco on the DSLReports.com forums the fact that ATT ignored the problem for 8 months before fixing it and even publically said our area was on the shitlist for repairs.

    ATT can lick my nuts, they are a shitty bandwidth provider.

  85. Simple Question by TrappedByMyself · · Score: 1

    Why are people still have WoW installed?


    "So what are you gonna do tonight Joe?"
    "Oh, I'm leaving work early so I can spend all night not playing World of Warcraft"

    --

    Help me take back Slashdot. When did 'News for Nerds' become 'FUD and Conspiracy Theories for Extremist Nutjobs'?
  86. Quality Assurance? by taernim · · Score: 1

    Really, I think Blizzard's downfall is they have a billion dollar product, as the article says, yet they still treat it like its some fly-by-night operation with cheap, unqualified testers.

    I went to BlizzCon because I am a self-professed WoW-addict. I am, however, also a QA Manager. Out of morbid curiosity, I went and talked to their reps who were telling guests about "How you join the Blizzard team."

    Their testers? Pretty much low $10's range for QA. I inquired about QA management. I was told: "Oh, we don't hire from the outside. Pretty much if you do a good job, then we promote our QA managers from within."

    Ahh, so you pay horrible wages to people and then hire a QA manager out of those people, instead of realizing that someone with 5-10 years experience might actually be MORE useful than someone who has 0 management experience, but happened to have more games testing experience.

    Is it really any wonder that they are having these issues?

    --
    "PC Load Letter? What the $@#% does that mean?!"
  87. Run Away While You CAN by zippthorne · · Score: 1

    WoW is almost as bad of a time burglar as slashdot. and a million billion percent less free. It can ruin your life. By estranging you from real, meaningful interraction with real people. As evidence, I point to a recent episode of one of the wife-swap programs. One of the moms was a MMORPG player (by happenstance it was WoW, but the issues are genrewide). Instead of dealing with the family, she tried to hole up in the immersive simulated enviroment. Fortunately, the family's lack of broadband prevented her from being able to install a year's worth of updates and she was forced to go outside. They tried to take her to museums, parks, various activies around the town, but all she could think of was getting back to that damnable game.

    She couldn't even take a couple weeks off from the addiction to pretend to be normal while she costarred in a creepily invasive game show.

    --
    Can you be Even More Awesome?!
  88. Paging Blizzard: Double the Price! by giafly · · Score: 1
    1. You'll get a few less customers
    2. Which will solve your "Network Issues"
    3. And make all the players happy
    4. Also higher prices mean...
    5. Profit!
    --
    Reduce, reuse, cycle
  89. Problems in WoW and ATT by Dewser · · Score: 1
    Well AT&T is now part of SBC (or the other way around). Currently I haven't had to many issues with them nor have I in the years I've had DSL through them, lets hope this merger does not effect that!

    Onto WoW, I am with Spud Stud on this, I would LOVE to see what is behind the scenes! I can't imagine having to maintain the farms and farms of servers, and its not just the realm servers, I mean each piece of the realm (instances, continents, battlegrounds) are all managed by a server so to speak. By this design they can take down something without effecting other environments. Also unlike other games, WoW has very limited loading. You can cross all of Kalimdor and not see one load screen, where as in FFXI, the continents are broken up into individual zones the require a load each time the border is crossed.

    The other thing they had mentioned was the customer base, hey I am sure they are well aware at how many people will get pissed off if a server goes down. And they are also aware that out of the 6 million subscribers, that server may carry a couple thousand players. That is a very small fraction of the subscribers, you can't please everybody! But in my time of playing WoW on multiple realms, I am happy with the experience. Yeah it sucks not being able to get on sometimes but hey, read a book or dust off an old console game, or pay attention to you wife/husband/significant other.

    I think the negatives will never out-weigh the positives of this game. It is fun for the hardcore gamer as well as the casual player. I love running through the burning steppes and firing an aimed shot on some pesky Alliance who thinks they will get my rich thorium vein!! But the game is all good fun and I think thats why it will always win out over the other MMORPGs out there. So take the problems with a grain a salt, it can be worse. I play RF Online and the game is really not all that exciting to play, its a grind but that is how the Korean market is. But its not even a fun grind.

    And if you get fed up, you can always go fishing :D

    --
    Dewser - all around techy "In the immortal words of Socrates - 'I drank what?'"
  90. hiring by arakis · · Score: 1

    Perhaps this isn't really the proper place, but I feel this needs to be said. Blizzard is actually hiring people to run the realms. Go to http://www.blizzard.com/jobopp/ and see what is there. They have had a senior Oracle guru post up there for over a year. Maybe someone looking at these forums can get a job there and help them suck less.

  91. No zones means lower scalability by throx · · Score: 1

    One of the interesting decisions Blizzard made in developing WoW was to do away with the concept of "zoning", which is prevalent in a lot of other MMOGs. This implicitly limited their scalability as games with "zones" typically split the zones over separate physical machines to balance the load to a manageable level. It also allows a degree of network scalability as you can route different zones along different network paths.

    In making the entire world effectively zoneless, Blizzard made their scalability a lot more difficult as you no longer have the "neat" option of just tossing a few more machines into the rack, giving them their own dedicated bandwidth and migrating zones from overloaded boxes onto the new ones.

    Also, I have to say that catering for the million or so US players (forget how their demographics break down) should have given them a heads up on the need for a whole slew of heavy duty data centers. Like it or not, that's the price you have to pay for a wildly successful game.

    --

    Fear: When you see B8 00 4C CD 21 and know what it means

    1. Re:No zones means lower scalability by GnuDiff · · Score: 1

      huh? what about the diff between the continents? Not to speak of instances, which get their own servers?

    2. Re:No zones means lower scalability by throx · · Score: 1

      Agreed, but when compared to other games (like Everquest) which has the outdoors broken up significantly more granularly then you see where the scalability is hampered.

      --

      Fear: When you see B8 00 4C CD 21 and know what it means

  92. my theory: blizzard asking for it by dino213b · · Score: 2, Interesting

    For programmers, networking is a nightmare. Forget the difficult part of making a complex game. Networking is a nightmare all by itself. There are simply game design limitations attributed to that.

    Being aware of these limitations, Blizzard should have known better. On my webpage criticizing World of Warcraft, http://www.redrival.com/hateown/ I postulated that Blizzard's design team is to blame for network instability. In a graph on that website I've shown my view of Blizzard's design team constantly increasing massive interaction throughout their worlds. I suspect this is the sole reason why they are unable to cope with volume of customers. As more and more people fight a single super-monster, the networking takes a beating. If the monster hits someone in a particular dungeon (aka instance), aside from the obvious the server has to:

    - cycle through 40 players to see if anyone else got hit by splash damage
    - notify each of the 40 players that someone or more people got hit

    furthermore, when a single player whacks at the monster with their sword (or what have you), the server has to notify every other client about it.

    In their design, Blizzard made use of a synchronized clock "aka tick" that is used for synchronizing actions. Good thinking, but it has a breaking point. I believe they are now reaching that point by causing more and more and more players to "chunk". Now, they are dumping the task of making everything better on network admins and scapegoating network issues as opposed to content design issues. It is too late now to take back multiple instances added through patches.

    See website for more complaints or to add your 2c:

    http://www.redrival.com/hateown/

  93. Well, no, but... by mbessey · · Score: 4, Funny

    With proper pipelining, you CAN get one baby after an initial nine-month delay, then a baby a month of throughput until your cache is depleted.

  94. much ado by routerguy666 · · Score: 1

    Want things to change, cancel your subscriptions.

    You know you won't, as does Blizzard, so what's the point in even bringing up service issues.

  95. Why am I am the only person... by ChozSun · · Score: 1

    ... who has no complaints for Blizzard and WoW. (No, I don't work for WoW).

    I think it might be that I only play 5 hours or less per week. I imagine if I played more, I would actually complain more.

    --
    ChozSun
    ChozSun.com
  96. adsl in the uk sucks like that sometimes by petermgreen · · Score: 1

    and afaict there is nothing the ISPs can do about it. BT puts no service level agreement on ADSL lines and can take a long time to fix stuff if theier engineers are busy with something else. and BT won't talk to dsl customers directly

    i guess if you are lucky enough to live in a part of the uk with both dsl and cable and are currently on cable you could threaten the cableco with switching to DSL but like BT theese big companies probablly won't take much notice.

    --
    note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    1. Re:adsl in the uk sucks like that sometimes by pandrijeczko · · Score: 1
      Well, to be fair to BT in this instance, my ADSL router was detecting ADSL carrier (according to it's status screen anyway) but wasn't getting a DHCP IP address so I put the blame on Onetel. (Not only that but I had great difficulty explaining to the "techie" that configuring DNS servers manually on my router makes bugger all difference when you don't have a WAN IP address in the first place!)

      However, you're right about BT not talking to DSL customers directly. I've had a major screaming match at both Onetel and BT because I'm paying Onetel for a 2MB ADSL service but can only get 1MB due to line quality. When trying to find out why I can't get 2MB service, Onetel blame BT for the line quality & BT tell me to get Onetel to put in a request because they won't speak to me directly.

      --
      Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
  97. Whining by Gruneun · · Score: 1

    I don't see the point in having to pay for the privilege to waste my time.

    I pay the $15 a month. I'm no longer a starving student, but $15 is less than what I used to pay for beer and a pizza on any given evening. This covers my gaming for an entire month. It would be nice if the initial cost of the software was free, but it's ~$40 and they include the first month. If the alternative is a contract (think cell phones), I far prefer this model. That aside, $15 is nothing when most players break it down into their hourly gaming rate and the software price is neglible, at best, over the span of a year or more. If I buy a couple DVDs a month and watch them once or twice, I'm nowhere near that return.

    As for it being a waste of your time, it's only a waste if you're not enjoying it. If you're not enjoying something, but you still participate, well... hey, that's on you.

  98. me too by snuf23 · · Score: 1

    I love how you get moderated "flamebait" and "overrated". Some serious Blizzard fanboys out there.
    I played WoW from April of 05 to about Feb 06. During the course of that time I saw the performance (at least on my server) get worse. Last December saw the return of login queues sometimes lasting an hour or more. Given that I have only 2 or 3 hours on most nights to play, I really didn't enjoy the wait. Not to mention that I couldn't play something else while in queue because the WoW login screen was using my 3D card. I had a lvl 60 character, a 43 and a couple near 30. I was in a good guild with great people. Ultimately though I didn't care to revolve my gaming time around end game raids and found there was hardly anything worth doing at level 60 except for those raids. PVP at level 60 was a joke due to epic itemization. Bascially forget about it unless you have time to be in a core group. Spending an hour to log in and then waiting another hour to get into a battleground was hardly appealing either.
    In December I took a break to play City of Villains. My WoW account was still open (3 month play plan) but I found myself logging in less and less.
    About two months ago I started playing EQ2 after trying out the trial. SOE has made a lot of big changes to the game since launch and I'm really enjoying it. In some areas it is way ahead of WoW (i.e. guild system, player housing, crafting). There is a ton of content and the although the player base is smaller there certainly are less dicks, griefers and ego-bloated epenis wavers.
    I noticed that a few replies were the typical "that's because no one plays EQ2" response. Well, before WoW's millions, a couple hundred thousand players was considered a respectable amount for a MMO. Keep in mind that you are also talking about 150+ servers for WoW and something like 10 for EQ2. No it's not as populated as WoW. You won't see a scene like prime time at the Iron Forge AH in EQ2.
    I'm not trying to say "everyone quit and play EQ2" - what I am trying to say is that if you are no longer having fun in WoW - take a look at some other games. There are a lot of great games out and most have some sort of free trial to check them out. I just got sick of being frustrated when I wanted to be entertained and moved on from WoW.

    --
    Sometimes my arms bend back.
  99. Ask Google... by mikelang · · Score: 1

    The fact is: the Google never has problems like this.
    Maybe time for Blizzard to ask Google to provide internet? ;-)

  100. Mod parent UP by Pearson · · Score: 1

    Then Blizzard should not have distributed 6 million copies of the game. They've brought this upon themselves.

    I realize it's difficult to talk about these games without fanboyism creaping in, but it doesn't make any sense to claim that Blizzard was blindsided. They ordered, and paid for, millions of copies of the game. When those ran low, they printed more. They knew exactly what they were doing.

    If they didn't know how big a mistake they had made with their DB and server cluster setup, they definately found out during "open" beta (which they quickly renamed "stress test 2" to explain the abismal performance).

    --
    I...I'm attacking the darkness!
  101. Denial is key by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Posts that suggest server problems and an overall dissatisfactory experience with the game will be deleted and swept under the rug so that they might snare a whole new group of gullible nubs.

  102. Its a DDOS blackmailer right? by rufusdufus · · Score: 1

    I thought it was common knowledge that Blizzard and AT&T are under attack from blackmailers using a DDOS.

    1. Re:Its a DDOS blackmailer right? by {tele}machus_*1 · · Score: 1

      This is almost believable. I wouldn't be surprised if every time Blizzard banned accounts for hacks and cheats, they get hit with a DDoS attack or four.

  103. WoW Performance Chart on Netcraft by miller60 · · Score: 1

    Netcraft has been tracking some of World of Warcraft's recent network problems, and has a performance chart that shows the recent problems.

  104. slight OT: I quit by kn0tw0rk · · Score: 1

    Just a few weeks ago. The technical issues that affect game play were part of it. And also partly it was that the gameplay was hollow and not worth repeating with another character. Also having real life friends playing on separate servers was a pain cause no one wanted to make new characters on the same server to play together when they'd invested so much time getting their main character to 60.

    I had a think and put the whole thing in perspective.
    The time that I'd sunk into my main lvl 60 character was a bit over 20 days.

    I then figured out how much time I spent playing a d&d campaign with friends almost every weekend for about 8 hours a session, and that was over 2 years, before we got burned out and lost enthusiasm. It was approximately 800 hours, give or take. So that would be maybe 33 days. I dont care about the pieces of paper that was my character nor the phat loot that he acquired in all his adventures. It was fun time spent with friends that mattered to me.

    After thinking about it like that, when it came to cancelling my account and deleting my characters from WoW, it was a lot easier for me, and some what cathartic as well.

    --
    See my art -> http://herbevore.deviantart.com
  105. Quit Yesterday by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    After a year of playing, I quit yesterday. It's fun when it works, but I figured out the amount of frustration when it is down isn't worth it.

    For your information, I was informed Blizzard retains player information even after the account is cancelled. Something to think about -- cancelling until they have their act together.

    Either way, my bandwidth is now yours... happy Onxyia slaying!

  106. I won't argue THAT one... by Svartalf · · Score: 1
    Nooo... But, you're looking at the wrong answer here...

    That sum is sufficient (I'd say that what I've described would cost them a burn rate of about
    $3M or so, give or take, per month)- but then you don't factor in that the bean counters are
    the one that made that decision, not the engineers. I can guarantee you they saw something
    that worked in a similar manner, would probably not fail them (whereas this would be nearly
    as fault tolerant as the phone system...) and cost them a HELL of a lot less.

    Also keep in mind that they did NOT expect to rake in $35M/month in revenues off of this service-
    something more along the lines of $4-8M/month is what I would have bet on and planned for. If that
    was the case, $3M just ate a hell of a lot of my profits for redundancy that "wasn't needed".

    "You don't get to do it that way- the Co-Lo option gives us the same bandwidth and latency for
    a lot less money. We're doing it THAT way.


    That, my friend, is why they didn't do it. >:-D
    --
    I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
  107. Theoretical maximum by aqsalter · · Score: 1

    Unfortunately, this is just the theoretical maximum thoughput.
    In real life examples, we have found that it maxes out at around .000001 babies per month. There seems to be a problem with the supply of sufficient resources to keep the women fully productive. The problems with cache depletion rarely affect real life output, this is a phallacy (lol).

    Also the heat generated through lack of insulation is a serious consideration. Cash has been found to be a great insulator. Likewise, many times the failure comes through lack of planning. Cash and regular back-rubs are rarely provided in sufficient quantities to keep the production line running smoothly.

    TQA requires that thorough pre-flight testing be done and though there are many volunteers for this type of testing, though once again planning is the major hurdle. Quality assurance can only achieved if guidelines are diligently followed.

    Correct insertion procedures and lack of follow-through are also seen as major hurdles before we can see real-life throughput in any way approaching the wildest dreams of nerds everywhere.

    1. Re:Theoretical maximum by chrish · · Score: 1
      In real life examples, we have found that it maxes out at around .000001 babies per month. There seems to be a problem with the supply of sufficient resources to keep the women fully productive


      Build more farms!
      --
      - chrish
  108. Re:It seems... by theantipop · · Score: 1

    When you say it like that, and think about the fact that it's roughly 0.1% of the world's population then I think people will start to get the picture.

  109. Solution for Addicts by craznar · · Score: 1

    Do what I'm doing, this Saturday - WoW is quitting me.

    I'm nowhere as addictive to Wow as it is to me ....

    --
    EMail: 0110001101100010010000000110001101110010 0110000101111010011011100110000101110010 0010111001100011011011110110
  110. Re:A typical week on Tichondrius by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's bad every night. The game is unplayable at this point. It's sad when you have to try and coordinate boss kills in BWL with other guilds. Even that doesn't work.

    Blizz is wasting people's time and upsetting their fanboi base.

  111. I quit playing about a month ago by leather_helmet · · Score: 1

    Cancelled my account due to the fact whenever I did log on (I only had one main character, a rogue, that took me approximately 8 months to level to 60), there were queues, random crashes and disconnects

    The final straw came when I was running UBRS with the guildmates, got a really cool blue drop (boots - the boots would have finally given me a full set of blue, with one purple dagger), I got disconnected while looting - when I had reconnected the item was not in my bag, and the corpse no longer had the item

    Filed a complaint to no avail - For a super casual player like me, it really pissed me off since I only put in a few hours during the whole week...

    Anyhoo - it was fun while it lasted I suppose - Now I've had more time to finish a few books instead ;) --

  112. Why wait Why pay? by kafros · · Score: 1

    Just a thought: -?GuildWars?-

    You dont have to wait EVER. You will go straight to the killing being PvE or PvP.

    I would guess that being able to play a game WHENEVER you like should be a given and not a wish.

    I do not want to start a game comparison flamewar BUT....why wait? (well you can play GW at least while you wait in queue :))

  113. well Evgeny Krevets by geekoid · · Score: 1

    when was the last time you ran a system with 6 million people? many of whom need a continous connection 5-16 hours per day?

    Which is a lot different then a web site that gets 6 million hits.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  114. Blame AT&T? by raddan · · Score: 1

    Are you f***ing serious? A billion-dollar game and they're not multihomed?

  115. 48 Hours is nothing for non business by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Try three weeks and still ongoing (well known UK ADSL company with a supposedly good repuatation). It's one heck of a story but I'm not posting a link because it's not over yet (hoping the fault can be finally cleared)...