What are the negative impact of layers? I’ve only seen positives from a player perspective?
The negative impact is it doesn’t fit the narrative of the servers that don’t have layers in the first place.
Honestly the best option is to just mass unsubscribe.
Maybe that will open their eyes.
there are little real negatives to layers. everyone gets to log in. nobody has to wait in que, everyone wins. while were at it, lets go ahead and add dungeon finder. that way everyone can save time running to dungeons and forming groups. lets also add hierlooms, that way leveling will be less stressful and time consuming. layers are for retail. a constant, singular world with no invisible alternate realities is classic.
They won’t have any money at all if their HQ burns down. 
1 Like
There were never queues when I played vanilla.
#nochanges
none of those things change the game as much as layering
What the *($^& is wrong with you? This is the third time you have done this with the same result. I had to login 4 hours before my raid and I am still in queue. Turn the layers back on for Arugal.
1 Like
The only issues are pretty much these:
Layering to avoid PvP or layering so you can check for resources if your layer has been cleaned up.
Some people might also not like that if you and a friend are in the same area you might not be able to come across each-other if you are not grouped.
But in my opinion these are very minor issues compared to not being able to log in without a 3 or 4 hour queue.
1 Like
That design goal went out the door when they decided to allow servers with 15k population instead of vanilla’s 3k. You can blame the arugal players but at the same time Blizzard is opening the doors allowing new character creations and transfers to the server.
1st mistake: They only had 1 oceanic PvP server on launch
2nd mistake: They kept allowing more character creations while bandaiding with layers.
3rd mistake: They removed the bandaids without addressing the problem.
3 Likes
Sure there is. The same option that you were given one month in but no one wanted to take it except this time it is not free… transfer to a realm without a population problem.
^ THIS.
This is the crux of the matter.
Nor were any of the vast amount of changes they have implemented in classic.
#Nochanges has long since been dead in the water and anyone using that as an excuse for Blizzard’s lack of sense is quite stupid.
not really. adding more people to a server doesnt make it less vanilla. adding layering does. layering makes the game world have multiple different alternate realities that you can exist in, which is just all kinds of f-ed up. i prefer knowing that i exist in a singular constant game world. its good for my mental health.
Why should the onus lay with the player for adjusting for Blizz’s mistake?
We’re paying THEM for a service. Why should we have to make changes because they failed to fix their own oversight?
Most people would rather quit entirely than leave their guild and community behind. Myself included.
So no, no alternative if they want me to stay as a customer.
3 Likes
Vanilla had a world of resources/world bosses balanced for 3k population.
Layering actually makes the world population more vanilla like.
2 Likes
Then I guess you need to put your money where your mouth is and hope Blizzard cares about 15k subs (assuming every Australian quit).
increasing the population cap has never been a bad thing. more people playing on a server just increases the gold value of resources. but even then, blizzard expected this and introduced dynamic respawn rates to counteract that effect. what we have now are high population servers with minimal gold inflation. all layering did was set the public’s expectation early on that the classic project would bend to the retail mindset.
Blizzard is greedy for sub but they dont want to upgrade their server to allow bigger player pool.
1 Like
Joyson are you a GM? the way you keep defending blizzard.
If you are, GO DO YOUR JOB AND FIX THE QUEUES.
If you are not, than GTFO, you are not even on arugal
2 Likes