They are artificially testing the scaling of this methodology on the beta and people are overreacting.
The majority of the community isn’t in the beta btw.
1 Like
I apologize for making a claim that is literally impossible to prove. Although the forums are full of posts everyday on layering, the views on said post average in the thousands and hundreds, and the replies usually in the hundreds, I understand that on the Blizzard forums I need to have much more evidence than mere common sense or sound reasoning based on observation.
I hope you will take it easy on me for this mistake.
-
Layer zones 1-25
-
Offer servers with no-layering
-
Lock the layers until they merge them
-
The OP is still better than what we see on Beta.
1 Like
I didn’t know you worked at Blizzard and knew everything about layering and what exactly they are doing with it. I was under the impression that Blizzard only released a few minutes worth of details on layering over a month ago and has been silent since.
Forgive me, I had no idea.
Just curious why you are surprised they are testing in their test environment.
Once again, the solution is static layers. You pick a layer (Darkspear-1, Darkspear-2, Darkspear-3) on character creation and it functions exactly like a server. You can’t swap layers and the system won’t ever place you in another layer. This removes the CRZ/sharding aspects of layering and ALL of the exploits while keeping the option to merge layers intact.
I don’t think the streamers understand it any better than us. Last night they had two raids running together in Eastern Plaguelands and one of the raids got layered away.
Stress Test 2 is coming up in 5 days, so maybe we’ll be able to learn more about it then.
1 Like
I apologize. Sometimes I separate my paragraphs and this seems to have confused you. This sentence you replied to was not meant to be taken alone.
This is already part of the plan for Phase 1.
There are already PvE/RP/PvP servers. No need to fracture the community further by offering another set of server types. Bad idea.
This isn’t different than layering. Just something that may need to be addressed with layering.
It is still layering, which I am in favor of.
It’s not like there is only going to be one of each type of server, though. All an extra rule-set would do is change how many of each type of server we have.
Assuming we get a concurrent peak population of 500k with 9k capacity servers, we’d need at least 55 servers. Currently that could be 25 PvP, 25 PvE, 5 RP servers, with no layering servers we’d probably see something more like 20 PvP, 20 PvE, 5 layerless PvP, 5 layerless PvE, 5 RP.
The problem is they are bringing layering beyond the starting areas.
True - just way more vanilla like.
This is essentially sharding.
Actually, there’s a 99% chance that if layering works, they’ll use it in Live.
I meant the OP’s suggested architecture.
Blizzard wont adopt this 70 days from release even if it was viable.
Oh sure. Though MS Paint with some squares isn’t exactly a whole pile of work.
The logic doesn’t even work because it would cause high level players to be unable to see and help low level players without grouping.
i don’t see what this solves
He didn’t even align the text. Its hard to look at.
I personally find the layering solution to be great.
Just implement flagging to prevent phase hopping.
I still see the “Rested State Layer Transitions only” method to be the best way to seamlessly control it such that you never feel like there’s layers.
1 Like
Personally, i would make the bottom layer 1-10, get rid of the blue layer. Make the green layer 11-20. The the last layer is everyone else.
So in theory if you are questing in Tanaris, and you see your friend come on and he wants to join you it would require one/both of you to go to an inn on the off chance he logged into a different layer?
Not disagreeing just clarifying ![:slight_smile:](https://d38bqls1q93fod.cloudfront.net/en/wow/images/emoji/twitter/slight_smile.png?v=6" ":slight_smile:")