My latency is 100-200ms. Why should you have advantage over me?
Retail (and Classic) zones are technically scalable to server-player-cap-size if Blizzard wants, because each zone is a separate instance which could consume an entire server’s resources if necessary.
The zone populations are balanced around having a good number of players (and PvP participation) for gameplay and client-side performance purposes only.
I know how it doesnt have anything to do with my connection directly. Whst i ment is, when i got 400ms ping anyway and you add a batching window of 400ms it might not feel feel so bad, only if i am unlucky and cast a spell in the first few ms of the window and it only triggers at the end of it.
What i am talking about is the ratio between ping and spellbatching window is disproportional today. 2004 it maybe was like 1 to 2, ping to batching. But today, with same batching numbers it might be 1 to 3 or 4.
The ratio is off
You’re still thinking about this wrong.
The ratio is irrelevant because the spell batching poll duration is completely unrelated to any network I/O.
It didn’t matter if you have 30ms, 150ms, 500ms or 2500ms latency the spells were always proceeded in 500ms chunks.
That’s exactly the gameplay they’ve reimplemented.
Yes i know it was always the same way no matter the players connection. Since ppl had slower connections it was less obvious that there was batching at work.
I dont take blizzards statements as 100% facts. Just beacuse they said this used to work a certain way back in 2004 and that it has been recreated just as it was i dont believe it.
I think blizzard thinks that spell batching is accurate. But in reallity its not.
Doesn’t matter that it was “less obvious” it was there, a concrete gameplay mechanic that could be analysed and had to be played around.
Blizzard has painstakingly recreated that mechanic exactly like everyone said they wanted.
Maybe we should gather some high res video proof from late vanilla.
Do you have anything substantial to back this up?
They have a literal server from 2005 running the source code from 2005 against the client from 2005.
I think they are in a much better place to measure if it’s accurate than you with your 2019 “feely feels”.
I never really noticed it in Vanilla but I ran wow on a Potato so the server was probably batching my input before I even pressed them :P.
But it does feel like annoying artificial lag on Classic. Someone brought up looting which is probably the most prominent display. I’ve already ran off before it tells me what I’ve looted etc. It’s slow and clunky and pvp feels slow and clunky. Reaction times don’t matter within the batch time window is pretty funny in a way? Especially for us slightly slower peeps.
Perfectly Classic, as all things should be.
yeah if they dont fix this i dont see myself playng for to long.
I don’t mind this spell batching. People saying “this wasnt like this back then” is very little proof to nothing as you probably were younger back then, game was revolutionarily new and you couldnt compare it to todays private servers or retail alike gaming experiences.
It doesn’t need fixing, it’s exactly how it’s supposed to be.
So you think you did but you didn’t?
I like how Blizz intentionally broke the game to appease the “Nochanges” crowd. I’m actually surprised there arent many threads asking blizz to bring back Vanilla bugs because, well, “nochanges”, right?
I would be much happier without it.
Except that this isn’t a bug, it’s a very specific gameplay mechanic which has a huge influence on how some classes behave in PvP.
So you admit you thought you did, but you didn’t.
I honestly couldn’t give less of a damn if it was in the game 15 years ago, I’d be happy to see it go.
Going with the “everything needs to be exactly the same” logic, one could say that they should actually implement additional ping and cap the framerate at 25 FPS. After all, nobody was getting today’s performance back then.
So you think you did but you don’t.
Internet speed and frame rates were not a game play mechanism designed into the client/system, your Strawman doesn’t apply.