Changes between 1.10s and 1.10

[Aello]

Well, yeah, it can handle 1024 now, but 128 was if I recall correctly the size of the record keeping games in some old version.

don't think so. the problem with only 128 games on a server is that it would never have been cost effective. i think the max concurrent users on the realms (all 6 of them) has at times reached at least 350k. divide by 128 and you get 2735. even if everything were running extremely well and games are very evenly distributed, that would mean you'd need at least 3k servers. at about $5k a pop, plus the continuing charge of rental space (not to mention bandwidth, though bandwidth doesn't factor into the equation for figuring out target games-per-server of course). ugly ugly ugly. especially since it isn't pay-to-play. (which of course it should NOT be, but you can see why optimization is important). so i think it's pretty unlikely that a limit as low as 128 games would ever have even been considered.

Yes, it was partly my faulty memory of an obscure point that I do not need to reference much anyway. Who on their home systems are really going to end up running 128 games of Diablo2 anyway? 

I also did not take into account that the operating systems that would typically be getting used on the servers can typically end running different instances of the state space. In each of these instances the limits would the same as that the typical win98 system or on XP's different signed in users (1024 games each). So yes I can see there being "a lot more than 128 games simultaneously". That just drives home the point that I was trying to make, the speed of the these frequently called routines needs the optimized more than having some of the hooks that do not get used cluttering up the executing code.

:) it's exciting enough to see someone actually defending d2 code for once, i'm not going to complain!