i don’t think it will be a dead wasteland, i think it would just have increased que times for around that amount of time, and then those would go away, instead of damaging the quality of the game
You must be pretty pessimistic about the popularity of Classic then. Many of us expect 2-3 million players at launch. If they only open 30 servers, that’s queues of 97,000 people.
i don’t think that many people will end up leaving to the point where they’d have to implement layering, if the players are dedicated to the point where they’d stick around through phase 1 then they’re probably not tourists and are worth buying servers for as paying customers
Layering is not something they’d implement later. It’s to handle the known entity at launch. Once layers are removed a few weeks in, they will not return. And servers will be free of layering long before the end of Phase 1.
If the game grows after the initial population crash at launch, they will add more servers. They have said so.
it handles a problem but it handles it in a way that detracts from inherent qualities of the game, and there’s no gurantee it’l be removed before phase 1, they only promised by the end of phase 1
sigh
This is like the 5th time today… They promised it would be gone within the first few weeks. References to phase 1 were because people asked if it would affect world bosses which are added in Phase 2.
It does not detract from the inherent qualities of the game, because for any given player, they are in a 3k limited world within the realm. All the congestion of Vanilla will be there, and more than enough random strangers to make friendships with, while avoiding the need for long queues and ensuring that there are enough long term players packed into each server that the realm population doesn’t die after the tourists leave.
Come up with a better solution that doesn’t involve long queues or adding more realms at launch (resulting in dead realms later), and you might have a job at Blizzard.
i think that it does result in a detraction of quality in the game, shifting of layers is something that can very often happen in the game, you aren’t guranteed to be in the same layer each time you log in, i may log in see someone while questing, log back in the next day and not see him even if he’s in the same zone, since he’s in a different layer than me, even if it effects the whole world, it still remains that you can shift in and out of existence of this world and this will happen each time upon login, in order to retain a sense of community the world must be consistent, community was an important part of vanilla wow and a big reason people wanted it, it also detracts from authenticity, if you saw something in vanilla wow, it was real, it added weight to the things of the world and helped people take it seriously, if you have people or creatures phasing in and out constantly it detracts from this sense of consistent realness vanilla had to it, reminding you you’re only playing a video game with developers driving the experience, instead of being in a threatening world, this was another big aspect of vanilla that retail design ruined
i think a better solution is to just have long que times, because at least you’re waiting to play the most authentic version of the game, they could also do dynamic respawns because this is what was done in the original vanilla
That’s a bug.
And if you think the first three weeks of the game will destroy the experience, you mustn’t be planning on staying long…
You won’t.
It isn’t.
No it wasn’t.
1 Like
shifting of layers will happen whenever you join the group/party of someone else in a different layer, you aren’t guranteed to be in the same layer each time you log in either, in the context of what i was talking about in terms of establishing a sense of community for the game that’s often enough to do that
again it’s not necessarily for the first 3 weeks, it could last for up to a month or to
when they feel things have stabilized to the point where they can get rid of it, if the number of tourists they were expecting is significantly lower than what they were originally planning they would have to keep it on for longer than as they anticipated, communities also deal with a big part of human behavior, they need to develop naturally, so even if layering itself lasts for only the first 3 weeks (although it could last longer), long terms effects of it would last longer and are internal amongst players, we have less inclinations towards socialization, we see things phasing in/out the world loses part of it’s meaning and we care less towards it (the end result of this can be seen in retail wow), it has an effect on player immersion/attitude, different from other fundamental game mechanics implemented merely through programming, these have an internal aspect of permanence to them, for classic to be classic it’s important that these are maintained, because that’s what the game was good at
you will if you get invited to parties, even seeing it a few times is enough to detract from the sense of realness or authenticity to the world
it is (in my opinion), because you’ll be waiting longer but you’ll be playing the best version of the game, simply saying it isn’t isn’t a counterargument
that is what i have heard at least, although i might be wrong
overall i don’t think short layering is a dealbreaking kind of thing for me, but i don’t think it helps the game either
And that’s why people who are actually attempting to improve the system are discussing ways to limit layer changes for things like a cooldown and only doing it in rested zones.
Instead of throwing the baby out with the bathwater, which will never happen. Blizzard is implementing layers, and nothing we can say will change that. We can give feedback to tweak elements of it, but removal is off the table.
Yes it is. When have they ever said they intend to have it persist past a few weeks? You like to state Phase 1, but you have zero evidence for it. As opposed to clear, on-the-record statements from the WoW Game Director that he promises it will be gone within a few weeks of launch. You have no proof, but you discount the concrete evidence provided to you.
Then I am glad you didn’t come up with the perfect alternate solution and got a job at Blizzard, because you would have damaged the long term life of the game for a short term demand.
1 Like
well cooldowns on layer changes will help but you’re still shifting layers, and from what i’ve heard it’s to prevent things such as exploitations through layering with resources/other things, but it would still affect the other things i was talking about, it’s possible that if blizzard receives the enough feedback for it to not be in the game they won’t include it anymore
here it says one month, so i don’t know what to think, logically speaking, if the player population doesn’t go down as they anticipated within that ~3 week time period, then they’d have to keep layering on, or otherwise take it off and deal with high que times (the point of implementing layering in the first place), it feels to me they’re going to gauge when the time is right and then choose to drop it rather than providing a set date, the question is when that time would come
what i want to do is the exact opposite, i want the game’s long term authenticity and sense of community to be as pure as possible, even if it means the short term sacrifice of having people wait in a que time for a while longer for the initial launch, i described this in my reply, layering has long(er) term effects of community or game authenticity than que times do, again i feel like the alternate solution here is just que times
Unless we’re living in fantasy land, the queues would not be significant.
In the first week, the queues will be in the tens of thousands, and maybe even hitting hundreds of thousands on some servers. That’s a far cry from “Position 473” in Vanilla.
People really dont understand the concepy of layering.
Its not about ques.
Its about preventing dead servers later on while keeping ques manageable
1 Like
i mean it in the sense that the population doesn’t taper off as expected, then they would have to get rid of it to keep their promise, but if it’s not tapering off then they would be large
if the que times are really that high i don’t think all those people will be tourists but legitament customers wanting to play vanilla, if there really are a lot of tourists, then that number will eventually taper off as more people leave, but i think it should be as high as it needs to be as long as it means you’re playing the truest version of the game
There will be tapering off. Guaranteed, 100%, no possibility of not tapering off. If a server peaks at 9000 people and tapers off to 6000, then a 3000 person queue is quite acceptable at that point since its less than we had in TBC. Over time people will smooth out, or accept realm transfers to new realms.
The queues will only be bad in the first few weeks, after that it’ll be fine even if it doesn’t come down quite as much as they think.
Elo won’t understand this perspective, they’re a raid finder kiddie.
well that’s part of why i want que times instead of layering eventually it will reach a point where it’s ok and the population will remain stable, until then they can hold off and not damage the integrity of the game, but what i mean is they want to lower que times to a certain level through layering, wait for tourists/nondedicated players to leave, and then get rid of layering, but if they underestimate the number of tourists who actually plan to stay with the game, they’ll be left with a big server of people, they’d get rid of layering, and then it’ll get long que times they wanted to avoid because not that many people actually left, for example, they underestimated that people had a demand for classic to begin with
It also eliminates economy and community damage that comes from merges. Those things don’t exist though do they guys? The only things that damages economies and communities is layering right?
According to what I’ve been told they know that it’s just not a realistic possibility.
Unlike layering, your method will do so but making people quit the game without ever trying it, instead of trying it and deciding they don’t like it.
One of those methods will be well received by the general playerbase and the media. The other will not. I’ll let you guess which they’ll prefer.
I guarantee 100% that a 12k server will be down to 6k at most by the first few weeks, and 99% sure it’ll be down to around 4k. Why? Because that’s the playerbase that will initially be playing.
You’re basically taking the worst case scenario and planning around it, instead of realistically looking at the situation.