A Formal Request Thread for Fresh/New TBC Servers

[Michaeas-remulos]

@Lunaseeker-atiesh

Again… 333 > 202.

LoL!! I did try to warn you. Logic and rhetoric are useless tools against fanaticism and fallacy.

Nice try though. Interesting to see someone actually try to dispute mathematics. That’s taking fanaticism to new levels!!

Thanks.

[Piper-shadowsong]

@Lunaseeker-atiesh

Again… 333 > 202

Again… 355 > 333

Stop thinking “both” ONLY caters to “fresh” because it doesn’t. It caters to Progression, as well. Progression Only has 202, and Both (which caters to progression, as well) is 153. So, 202 + 153 = 355. It beats “fresh”, end of story.

@Lunaseeker-atiesh

Blizz is ALREADY creating a massive amount of redundant servers by allowing all current servers to have a Classic ‘Vanilla’ era copy

IK that, doesn’t mean we should continue to add more redundant servers.

@Lunaseeker-atiesh

Creating a few more isn’t going to cause any more harm than Blizz already intends to do

Doesn’t mean you’re helping the situation, either. Just being as problematic.

@Lunaseeker-atiesh

At some point Blizz will have to merge or connect realms because the populations simply won’t warrant the number of servers we currently have forever.

I prefer Server Merges but considering Blizz’s history in NOT doing that, they’re going to Connect Realm us making us ALL lose Server Identity which is one (there are many, but this is one of them) of the reasons why I like Classic over the Standard Game is Server Identity. This is something I’ve mentioned and created a thread about, too:
https://us.forums.blizzard.com/en/wow/t/overlooked-possibility-keyword-that-nobody-generalization-is-really-talking-about/884567
I’d rather play on a Dead Server than be Connected Realmed. But, IK for a FACT that I’m in the minority pool, on that one. But, I’m trying so hard to stop it and find better solutions to retain Server Identity. Including listing some “tolerable” (IMO, anyway) changes, to keep that from happening:
https://us.forums.blizzard.com/en/wow/t/new-survey-news-on-wowhead/893221/11
So, I just want to be clear, that what you’re saying is, you don’t mind Connected Realms happening on Perma Servers (including BC ones) and Server Identity to be lost? You’d prefer it over “dead realms”? At least tell me that, and I’ll happily move on.

@Lunaseeker-atiesh

I do actually support seasonal servers. I just think that should be implemented after we have gone through the initial cycle of the period of WoW Classic. For example, 6 months to a year after TBCC comes out, in my opinion, would be a great time to introduce season vanilla servers

I prefer them over NEW Servers.

@Michaeas-remulos

LoL!! I did try to warn you. Logic and rhetoric are useless tools against fanaticism and fallacy.

All you do is Fallacy Fallacy and Ad Hominems. You don’t provide anything constructive to the conservation.

@Michaeas-remulos

Nice try though. Interesting to see someone actually try to dispute mathematics. That’s taking fanaticism to new levels!!

I respect them more because they’re not using cowardly (again, not calling you a coward, only the act of what you’re doing) tactics to get their point across. They’re actually having a conversation. Unlike you.

@Michaeas-remulos

Thanks

You’re welcome!

EDIT: If Blizz won’t Connect Realm, I’d be in favor for NEW Servers. Have as many as NEW Servers, as you’d like. But because they are is why I’m against it. It’s not hard!

[Melphina-bloodsail-buccaneers]

@Piper-shadowsong

I understand that, but you’re trying to claim that they were thriving in popularity, when they clearly did not. It’s obviously a minority vocal group and not a majority one. I’ve been saying this, and you people keep proving me right. How are you not seeing this?

I didnt claim that just that those were options people asked for and were given by blizzard.

@Piper-shadowsong

I’ve been around, and only one person suggested an “optional” “fresh” concept, and that participant wasn’t going to play on it, anyway. There were no threads created demanding for “optional” “fresh” servers until this announcement came out. The only threads that existed were demanding EVERYONE to go “fresh”.

I like many other people believed that blizzard would give the Fresh New Server option to people because its such a low bar to make people happy and get in some fence sitters that how could you NOT do that. For whatever reason it would seem blizzard is not talking about it at the moment. So threads like this poped up to convince them to do something for that group of people.

Personally i think a New Server for TBC would do quite well.

@Piper-shadowsong

What you lot don’t understand is your lack of foresight, and the long term affects it’s going to have by the time Perma Servers happen.

What i think is going to happen to perma servers is going to end up being a holding ground for characters as the game cycles though its Phases of Fresh (version here). Until its not really proftiable for blizzard anymore.

Overall the perma servers are going to get stuck footing the bill for whatever the future holds for the different version and “Classic+” of the game. The only way to fix that problem would be separate servers for Pure game and New Game +. But then you start splitting people again.

[Lunaseeker-atiesh]

Connected realms are Blizz’s PR positive way of saying ‘merge’.

And, one more time, the both option on the server does not indicate support for progression only… the progression only option does. To select both, means the player would play on both a progression server AND a fresh server… which they couldn’t do if fresh servers were not a thing… so 333 > 202.

[Piper-shadowsong]

@Melphina-bloodsail-buccaneers

@Piper-shadowsong

I understand that, but you’re trying to claim that they were thriving in popularity, when they clearly did not. It’s obviously a minority vocal group and not a majority one. I’ve been saying this, and you people keep proving me right. How are you not seeing this?

I didnt claim that just that those were options people asked for and were given by blizzard.

You did though:

@Melphina-bloodsail-buccaneers

You can argue that its a minority but if we continue with that logic we wouldnt have Classic at all, RP servers, Language servers. All things that blizzard said would not be popular and … well seem to be fairly popular.

If you misspoke, than you misspoke.

@Melphina-bloodsail-buccaneers

I like many other people believed that blizzard would give the Fresh New Server option to people because its such a low bar to make people happy and get in some fence sitters that how could you NOT do that

Because they’re the minority and majority wins? That would just be me, personally, if I ran a business, cater to the Majority and cut my losses with the Minority. It makes sense why they wouldn’t do that.

@Melphina-bloodsail-buccaneers

For whatever reason it would seem blizzard is not talking about it at the moment

True, but it’s not hard to figure out. “Fresh” is in the minority, and their priority is the majority, and as a business, the majority gets catered to, first

@Melphina-bloodsail-buccaneers

So threads like this poped up to convince them to do something for that group of people

IK how it works which is why I said threads like these don’t pop up until after the fact which is why having the conversations beforehand and being more proactive about is better than being reactive. This is all nothing but reactive jargon.

@Melphina-bloodsail-buccaneers

Personally i think a New Server for TBC would do quite well

I don’t say one way or the other, I really don’t care how successful nor unsuccessful it’ll be. That doesn’t matter to me, at all. What matters is its redundancy by the time Perma Servers hit.

@Melphina-bloodsail-buccaneers

What i think is going to happen to perma servers is going to end up being a holding ground for characters as the game cycles though its Phases of Fresh (version here). Until its not really proftiable for blizzard anymore

I agree with you which is why I don’t want extra redundant servers to make this reality approach us faster. But, I’m (also) worried about the latest survey, and what it’ll do to ALL Perma Servers not just Classic. This includes BC, too.

@Melphina-bloodsail-buccaneers

Overall the perma servers are going to get stuck footing the bill for whatever the future holds for the different version and “Classic+” of the game. The only way to fix that problem would be separate servers for Pure game and New Game +. But then you start splitting people again

Which is why it’s important NOT to have all of these NEW Server things. Consolidate, as best as we can, or Blizz can actually Server Merge instead of Connect Realm.

@Lunaseeker-atiesh

Connected realms are Blizz’s PR positive way of saying ‘merge’.

IK, but Server Identities are still lost with Connected Realms. It’s not the same, just like you people saying Seasonal is not the same as NEW Server. Connected Realm is not the same thing as actual Server Merges.

@Lunaseeker-atiesh

And, one more time, the both option on the server does not indicate support for progression only… the progression only option does

And, it doesn’t support for “fresh only”, either.

@Lunaseeker-atiesh

To select both, means the player would play on both a progression server AND a fresh server… which they couldn’t do if fresh servers were not a thing

And, they can’t play Progression if Progression was not a thing and only “fresh”.

@Lunaseeker-atiesh

so 333 > 202

355 > 333

You can repeat this to me, over and over again, “fresh” loses, everytime.

[Michaeas-remulos]

@Lunaseeker-atiesh

Connected realms are Blizz’s PR positive way of saying ‘merge’.

While I absolutely despise connected realms, in Blizzard’s defense, they do help with issues like duplicate guild names and character names (which have to be unique on each realm) and would cause a bit of player pain if they simply merged many servers into one. I personally prefer to get to know the people playing on my server in an MMORPG and connected realms make that nigh implausible, but I do see how their solution does help players and guilds who would otherwise have to change their character and/or guild names with a direct server merge.

To be clear, I am not a fan. But to give credit where credit is due, it was a well intentioned solution to the issue of unique ID’s in a server environment.

Thanks.

[Piper-shadowsong]

@Michaeas-remulos

While I absolutely despise connected realms, in Blizzard’s defense, they do help with issues like duplicate guild names and character names (which have to be unique on each realm) and would cause a bit of player pain if they simply merged many servers into one. I personally prefer to get to know the people playing on my server in an MMORPG and connected realms make that nigh implausible, but I do see how their solution does help players and guilds who would otherwise have to change their character and/or guild names with a direct server merge.

To be clear, I am not a fan. But to give credit where credit is due, it was a well intentioned solution to the issue of unique ID’s in a server environment.

And see, I agree with you! See! I can be cordial!

But, I still would like a better solution than Connected Realms, this time around. Anything to protect Server Identity. How can we make that happen?

@Michaeas-remulos

Thanks.

You’re welcome!

EDIT: Again, if we can retain Server Identity, I’m all for NEW Servers. Have as many NEW Servers, as you’d like. But, how can we retain Server Identity? Until, that can get answered, you’re never going to sway me into supporting NEW Servers. I’ll only support Seasonal Servers.

[Lunaseeker-atiesh]

I agree. They do connected realms because mergers would cause player issues like those you mentioned.

I’m not a huge fan either, but it will have to be done at some point. Especially if they aren’t going to simply create a limited number of era servers.

Not sure why someone would want to merge vs connected realms though…the community would be in an uproar if people lost their names and guild names.

[Piper-shadowsong]

@Lunaseeker-atiesh

Not sure why someone would want to merge vs connected realms though…the community would be in an uproar if people lost their names and guild names

Then, I will ask what’s more important? Server Identity or keeping our names? I’d change my Character and Guild names, in a heartbeat, if it means retaining Server Identities.

[Lunaseeker-atiesh]

How does a merge retain server identity more so than connected realms?

If they merge two realms, they would probably give it a brand new name.

[Piper-shadowsong]

@Lunaseeker-atiesh

How does a merge retain server identity more so than connected realms?

If they merge two realms, they would probably give it a brand new name

Server Identity is just you and your server. No other servers connected, at all. I don’t quite understand how CRZ and Connected Realms differ, but I enjoy running into the same people, over and over, again. That’s ecstatic, for me.

[Lunaseeker-atiesh]

CRZ is where people pop in and out as they go from different zones / phases of quests etc.

Connected realms is just where Blizz merges two or more realms and people keep their names and guild names.

Connected Realms are a set of two or more realms that have been permanently and seamlessly “linked.” When you play on a Connected Realm:

• The Auction House is shared between your realm and the realms connected to it
• You can join a guild created on the realm connected to yours
• You can trade and exchange mail with players on the realm connected to yours
• You can party for Mythic dungeons and Mythic raids with players on the realm connected to yours

—from Blizz’s site

[Melphina-bloodsail-buccaneers]

@Piper-shadowsong

Because they’re the minority and majority wins? That would just be me, personally, if I ran a business, cater to the Majority and cut my losses with the Minority. It makes sense why they wouldn’t do that.

Plenty of business have died on that idea of following the majority as they lead them to a dead end. In times like this where you can afford to do so because Server costs are so low especially for a company like blizzard having options is better.

If you want to talk how this effects server pops we can have that conversation

@Piper-shadowsong

If you misspoke, than you misspoke.

I can go with misspoke. They are alive compared to some of the really dead servers you see on PvP.

@Piper-shadowsong

True, but it’s not hard to figure out. “Fresh” is in the minority, and their priority is the majority, and as a business, the majority gets catered to, first

As a business Customers get catered to. You start with plans that effect the most then create more to satisfy as many as possible to maxmize profits. I would argue that a fresh server would still be profitable as people will buy boosts as soon as they are able.

@Piper-shadowsong

What matters is its redundancy by the time Perma Servers hit.

Than why are you so vested in your points if you dont care?

@Piper-shadowsong

Which is why it’s important NOT to have all of these NEW Server things. Consolidate, as best as we can, or Blizz can actually Server Merge instead of Connect Realm.

The thing they have never done in the history of the game. Though i think they should have at MANY points in the past.

[Michaeas-remulos]

I believe it is one of those, “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” issues.

No one wants to play on a “dead” server or one they perceive as dead. No one to group with for dungeons or raids or other end-game content (PvP BGs, Arenas, etc.) By the same measure, many people do not like the connected realms nor do they like the idea of merging their server with another. I believe the issue is more problematic with Classic (or Vanilla) than it is with the expansions simply due to the 40-man raids in the original version of WoW. Bringing that number down to 15 and 25 was one of the better decisions that Blizzard implemented in its expansion models.

However, a low population server can have other issues even if you have your 25 people and a good guild to do your end-game content with. I believe offering server transfers helps, but again you have the issue of leaving a guild behind on a server and/or having to change your character’s name when moving over.

One of the better things that many MMORPGs I have played have done is to incorporate last names and/or multiple names when naming your character. Making multiple names mandatory allows for more variety and allows people to keep their creative names. Many people can have the same first name as long as their last name is different and vice versa.

I don’t really have a solution for the guild’s names, but since they are already allowed multiple words it would be a real synchronicity if there were two guilds with the exact same name on two different servers. It could happen yes, but as they say, “there is no such thing as a perfect system.”

Thanks.

[Lunaseeker-atiesh]

I agree, it’s definitely a lose / lose situation.

If it were my decision, I’d rather ‘lose’ for something I did (implement connected realms) than something I didn’t do (not implement them).

As for the last name issue, I think that would be a cool thing to do, especially for RP servers.

[Piper-shadowsong]

@Lunaseeker-atiesh

CRZ is where people pop in and out as they go from different zones / phases of quests etc.

Connected realms is just where Blizz merges two or more realms and people keep their names and guild names.

Connected Realms are a set of two or more realms that have been permanently and seamlessly “linked.” When you play on a Connected Realm:

• The Auction House is shared between your realm and the realms connected to it
• You can join a guild created on the realm connected to yours
• You can trade and exchange mail with players on the realm connected to yours
• You can party for Mythic dungeons and Mythic raids with players on the realm connected to yours

I hear ya and everything, for me (personally), Connected Realms does nothing but makes me resent (and, I try not to) the “other” Servers. Having the Server Name slapped next to the our names just doesn’t feel like one cohesive server, to me. I can only speak for myself. I’d think I’d be cool with Connected Realms (kind of), if CRZ wasn’t in the picture. I like seeing my fellow Server Members out in the world. CRZ doesn’t give us that.

@Melphina-bloodsail-buccaneers

Plenty of business have died on that idea of following the majority as they lead them to a dead end. In times like this where you can afford to do so because Server costs are so low especially for a company like blizzard having options is better.

Again, I understand what you’re saying, but that still doesn’t change the fact, that Blizz is possibly catering to the Majority, here, and that the Majority is not “fresh”. I’ve been saying this, over and over, again.

@Melphina-bloodsail-buccaneers

If you want to talk how this effects server pops we can have that conversation

I’ve been saying the same thing, over and over, again. I have not changed my stance on it.

@Melphina-bloodsail-buccaneers

I can go with misspoke. They are alive compared to some of the really dead servers you see on PvP

I don’t play on PvP Servers, so I have no other point of reference, other than your word.

@Melphina-bloodsail-buccaneers

As a business Customers get catered to. You start with plans that effect the most then create more to satisfy as many as possible to maxmize profits. I would argue that a fresh server would still be profitable as people will buy boosts as soon as they are able

And, I think that’s what they’re doing because their answer fits what you just said.

@Melphina-bloodsail-buccaneers

Than why are you so vested in your points if you dont care

I didn’t say that. I said IDC if NEW Servers are successful or not, it only matters how they affect Perma Servers. I’m standing my ground against points trying to tell me that “I’m wrong”, when IK I’m right (about certain things, ofc).

First, people wanted me to prove that “fresh” is in the minority, yet somebody else did that for me. The success of “fresh” has no barring on that subject matter nor anything else I’m even talking about.

Second of all, not once did I ever argue if “fresh” would “succeed” or “fail”. That was never my argument. Which is why I said “IDC” about that particular point because I was never arguing it, to begin with nor is it relevant to what I’m saying.

@Melphina-bloodsail-buccaneers

The thing they have never done in the history of the game

IK that. That’s why they’re going to Connect Realm, and I’ve BEEN saying this, and I don’t want that. That nor CRZ.

@Melphina-bloodsail-buccaneers

Though i think they should have at MANY points in the past

We actually agree, here. I (too) have wanted this, as well. And, it’s why I don’t want an abundance amount of Servers, to add more into the problem. It’s not that hard to understand

@Michaeas-remulos

No one wants to play on a “dead” server or one they perceive as dead

That’s not true. I CLEARLY stated that I would. And, IK a few others that would, as well. BUT, I will say, that the MAJORITY doesn’t want to play nor be on a Dead Server, either

@Michaeas-remulos

I believe the issue is more problematic with Classic (or Vanilla) than it is with the expansions simply due to the 40-man raids in the original version of WoW. Bringing that number down to 15 and 25 was one of the better decisions that Blizzard implemented in its expansion models

That is a fair argument, but Perma BC isn’t going to escape this scenario, either.

@Michaeas-remulos

One of the better things that many MMORPGs I have played have done is to incorporate last names and/or multiple names when naming your character. Making multiple names mandatory allows for more variety and allows people to keep their creative names. Many people can have the same first name as long as their last name is different and vice versa

I’m down!
https://i.imgur.com/3hvBo0n.gif

See, we’re finally getting somewhere!

@Michaeas-remulos

I don’t really have a solution for the guild’s names, but since they are already allowed multiple words it would be a real synchronicity if there were two guilds with the exact same name on two different servers. It could happen yes, but as they say, “there is no such thing as a perfect system.”

'Tis true.

@Michaeas-remulos

Thanks

You’re welcome!

@Lunaseeker-atiesh

I agree, it’s definitely a lose / lose situation

Agreed.

@Lunaseeker-atiesh

If it were my decision, I’d rather ‘lose’ for something I did (implement connected realms) than something I didn’t do (not implement them)

Sorry, could you re-word that for me, please? Not quite computing.

@Lunaseeker-atiesh

As for the last name issue, I think that would be a cool thing to do, especially for RP servers

Definitely agree.

See, we’re getting somewhere, people!

Again, I’d be down for supporting NEW Servers, if we can retain Server Identity

[Lunaseeker-atiesh]

Your definition of server identity is going to be lost no matter what. Blizz has already (based on the interviews and their comments) indicated they will implement connected realms.

So, it doesn’t really matter if they connect 2 realms or 10. Therefore, adding new servers does nothing to hurt server identity, by your definition, it’s looking doomed as it is.

And I agree with you about server identity, I do. But asking Blizz to NOT give players something because it harms server identity… doesn’t really apply… they are already doomed.

Unless Blizz suddenly decides to let servers die, server identity, by your definition is doomed. Your argument shouldn’t be no fresh servers, it should be no TBC, or any other expansions, as those will be the nail in the coffin for your server identity.

[Piper-shadowsong]

@Lunaseeker-atiesh

Your definition of server identity is going to be lost no matter what. Blizz has already (based on the interviews and their comments) indicated they will implement connected realms

They did say “might”, they haven’t actually come out and said “we’re turning on Connected Realms”…yet.

@Lunaseeker-atiesh

So, it doesn’t really matter if they connect 2 realms or 10. Therefore, adding new servers does nothing to hurt server identity, by your definition, it’s looking doomed as it is.

Adding NEW Servers doesn’t solve the problem. Adding NEW Servers adds more into the problem.

@Lunaseeker-atiesh

And I agree with you about server identity, I do. But asking Blizz to NOT give players something because it harms server identity… doesn’t really apply… they are already doomed

Not true, yet.

@Lunaseeker-atiesh

Unless Blizz suddenly decides to let servers die, server identity, by your definition is doomed

No, it’s not. Even if it’s just me and one other person, that is still our Server Identity. Or, even just me, for that matter. It’s still a Server Identity. I’d rather be on a dead realm that retains its Server Identity than to be Connected Realmed/CRZ and lose that. But, IK (and, I’ve said this already), that I’m in the Minority on that one.

Which is why I ask, what’s more important? Server Identity or protecting your name?

@Lunaseeker-atiesh

Your argument shouldn’t be no fresh servers, it should be no TBC, or any other expansions, as those will be the nail in the coffin for your server identity

No, only NEW Servers. Because BC is not the same as Classic which is why I advocated for “fresh” BC instead of a progressed one because that’s how I view it. Ofc, I got shut down, for even saying that by the Majority.

[Melphina-bloodsail-buccaneers]

@Piper-shadowsong

Again, I understand what you’re saying, but that still doesn’t change the fact, that Blizz is possibly catering to the Majority, here, and that the Majority is not “fresh”. I’ve been saying this, over and over, again.

You act like a buisness cant cater to small groups, but they can and thats my point. They told the majority plans and now people are asking for some options. Its not hard or a bad thing to ask.

@Piper-shadowsong

I don’t play on PvP Servers, so I have no other point of reference, other than your word.

Feel free to go look it up. Theres a few different ways the data is looked at. For example theres something like 1400 logs of raiders on RP server last time i looked and some pvp servers in the hundreds.

@Piper-shadowsong

We actually agree, here.

We probably agree on more things just not how Blizzard should do buisness with people asking for things. I would like to see Perma servers not affected and for blizzard to leave there changes to there new realms. People wanted there Phase 6 only (not me) but i will never tell other people how they should enjoy the game they play.

[Lunaseeker-atiesh]

Having a few dozen classic vanilla era servers means there server identities, by your definition, are doomed. At least as likely as not (50% probability or greater) these servers will be connected. Therefore, by your definition of server identity, the server identity of the classic vanilla realms are doomed.