Hopefully they don’t like it, and don’t play.
Don’t need terrible private server players that will do nothing but gritch that the content isn’t “hard” enough because the private servers had it wrong.
you wouldn’t have your classic if it wasn’t for those “terrible private server players”
At least give credit where credit is due.
2 Likes
[citation needed]
Maybe you should have kept up with the news…you never heard of the petition and the Nost team being invited to Irvine with a metting with Blizzard execs ?
2 Likes
That can easily be discounted since it was easy to sign it multiple times, and easy to sign it fraudulently.
A PR stunt, nothing more.
Yeah but you’re ignoring the fact that yes, whilst it’s good that they’re fixing issues with a system, it’s a system that the majority (and there’s been polls) of people have voiced opposition to lol. So yay, they’re fixing it, boo, most of us don’t want it anyway.
2 Likes
Still, best thing, if possible, trying to make the option of both layered and non-layered servers. Both groups win. People need to quit trying to screw over the others’ view and just try to push for allowing both options. If non-layered is so bad and people think it’ll go downhill without the layering, that’s on those who choose that type of server.
Why is this not the answer we should be trying to get. Does each side really have to try and screw the other with the “my way or the highway” mentality instead of trying to get options.
1 Like
ROFL. Head buried in sand for a few years?
2 Likes
Which realms has Blizzard closed since they were launched? I could only find Connected Realms. Dead servers limped along despite transfer abilities, until MoP when they introduced Connected Realms, and then later Coalesced Realms (CRZ)
I don’t remember any dead realms by June 2005, except for new ones they opened which hadn’t taken a big population yet. I remember people talking about dead realms in TBC, but as far as I can see, Blizzard has never closed a realm.
Closing =/= dead. Do you really think they only offered migrations and transfers to lower pop on the high pop realms? Couldn’t possibly be to also increase pop on dead realms.
You can look at it any way you want but there were dead realms in vanilla which is partially why they offered migrations from specific high pop realms to specific low pop (read:dead) realms.
If it was just about reducing pop on the high pop realms they would have offered them to any realm that wasn’t high pop. They didn’t though. It was just from x realm to y realm. Or from x realm to y and z realm.
2 Likes
By your original statement referring to mine, I interpreted that as offering transfers off low pop realms.
Yes, high pop transfers had specific targets which were low pop realms.
Low pop and “dead or dying” are different though. The transfers were to low pop realms to increase their population, generally because they were new. No launch opening server was “dead or dying” by the end of Vanilla. People naturally wanted to play with friends, so they rolled on existing servers and there were a far smaller number of “fresh players” with no existing ties.
Low pop servers never died. They struggled for a while before raising in population. There may have been claims of dead servers, but those servers never were alive by that logic, until later.
My server was not new. It was also one of/if not the first to receive such transfers. It was basically dead. Population dwindling and no one new rolling there.
Iirc most the realms receiving them were actually not new but basically in the same state. The new player tag on the server list didn’t help much and nobody new was joining those realms. They were low pop and only getting lower. They were as dead as could be for a vanilla realm in that period.
Which server specifically?
I know that Blizzard added a glut of new servers at one point, and that it took them many months to populate, but that by TBC most of the Vanilla servers had a medium population.
I agree some struggled to get started, but after the AQ event, fresh servers became a popular thing, and enough people stayed long enough to establish communities.
Stonemaul. Was out by early-mid dec when I started and transfers hit around bg release.
Server wasn’t a ghost town (people were active, just not a lot of em) but it definitely wasn’t growing. Migrations helped but I don’t know if they solved it.
From my memories, I remember a number of servers claiming to be dead and asking for transfers off dead realms, but none ever happened to take them off. AFAICR most of the crying stopped in later periods as the announcement of TBC brought new players.
I understand your frustration, OP. If I didn’t have a guild to think of, I might feel the same way.
2 Likes
Pretty sure stonemaul ended Vanilla as medium pop but was low from launch (of server) until I don’t even know when cause I quote shortly after transfers and came back around ZG.
So that’s my point. Low servers were called dead, before they ever “came to life”. But they did eventually rise as more unaligned players joined the game and were directed to low servers.
It’s not Blizzard’s fault that people refused to go to low pop servers and preferred to wait in lines.
Had an idea of how to perhaps find an alternative approach.
Layers could act like sub realms. You pick a layer and it works just like a realm, except they share names and such so they can be merged easily when needed, but are not exactly merges because they are connected through having to share the pool of names, avoiding the “omg server merges ze game is DYING!!11” PR BS. (which btw, i think the complete opposite will happen, where there will be way more players than they anticipate now)
The cluster of permanent, locked layers could be called “realm groups” or so.
For example, you could have 1 realm Group, the “Dragonflights”.
- Within that group is Bronze Dragonflight , Blue Dragonflight, Red Dragonflight. (3 realms, each with a normal vanilla realm pop cap)
All of them are basically their own realms, except they share name options. There could be a “warning” that because it’s a realm group, names are shared, and if absolutely necessary, these realms would be merged/connected together.
They still can counteract the tourist dropoff in case it’s necessary like this, stabilizing realms as needed while everyone gets to keep their name.
During launch, they could see the hotspots for realm groups, and open up more realms where needed adding them to the groups of realms just in case.
They could even very early on start merging realms together where there are big signs of tourist dropoff, to minimize the negative effect of a merge on the community since they do it early on.
All the while, unlike layering, allowing each community to form on their respective realms and have the vanilla experience.
Wow I check back just to see if any updates about removing layering a week or so later and this post blew up.
Last year I leveled 3 toons to 60 on a private server. The word Fresh will never mean the same thing to me again.
I did this to prepare for classic because I started in BC and just wanted to refresh my memory of things because the last time I subbed to retail was in 2015…
You can say what you want, but I have listed my reasons to why this is bad.
If it is in the game at all there is no point for me to play because then it is not really classic. I can deal with some changes, I am mainly a no changes man, but somethings are ok to change. But MINOR things, like the clock on mini map, button to land on flight path vs logging etc. Not layering.
Layering will not do a damn thing to solve the bottle neck in the starting zones.
Anyways, I read to about post 200 and then said screw it, some people were nice and others were exactly what I expect from blizzard sheep.
Have fun in Not Classic.
p.s. Also the pc crowd these days will screw over classic. I heard people getting banned for saying Naga? LOL, cant wait for the bans to come from gen chat…
This is my list I have posted in a few posts. It is not perfect nor do I care. But you tell me how you feel about how this changes “classic”
Some key points about layering, you choose if good or bad for the authentic Vanilla experience. :
- When you come to a new questing zone and you see the opposing faction making life hard, change layers and continue a long your journey.
- When farming materials and there are none to be found , change layers and continue a long your journey.
- When hunting chests, rare spawns etc, HOP LAYERS AND CONTINUE a long your journey.
- When getting camped because you are a noob, HOP LAYERS, and continue a long your journey.
- When big world events happen, many layers will be dead. Some might not want to participate in this or might not be in the know and are thus forced to be on a dead layer.
- When general chat or world chat is going on about alliance coming to org to defeat Thrall and you want in on the fun only to find out when you run there it was all a joke because there is NO ONE AROUND. Oh wait ! INVITE ME TO RAID LAYER!!.. again ZERO immersion. I should be able to LEERROOY into the fight and not ask for an invite to a specific layer.
- I have seen this on a stream. When you are solo questing and you finally get to the named mob that you have been working towards for what seems like for ever, only to see someone else who is there that needs help too. You party up and the mob VANISHES. “layering”
- A smooth launch with higher than expected server populations due to the real popularity of Vanilla wow. Causing layering to not go away or for there to be super long ques to log on and or forced server transfers.
- When the known bridge ganker is doing their normal stuff, change layers and avoid him…
- When your friend is getting ganked but you are already in a group but are near by and decide to help. Only to find out they are in another layer. “immersion”
- When the new meta is having layer spies to know where your rival opposing faction guild is at so you can avoid the raid fights entering raids… “immersion”
- Layer hoping to to get world buffs vs just being in town and getting them. Again “immersion” I would assume this can be stomped out by just making any dropped world buffs go through every layer regardless which layer it was dropped on. But probably has not been thought of.
- Did I say smooth launch? Cuz I mean, smooth launch amiright?
- What happens when you think you do, but you don’t backfires in your face and you are stuck with servers that have over 10k active daily players? force 5+k ques and wait for people to log off or force whole ream transfers? Because you promised to remove layering and these are your only two options to avoid changing the core code to help that over population, spawns, nodes, etc.
I have made many edits adding to this, I might add more but this seems to be good enough to make a point.
- Screw it ! When a big event happens and the majority of the server hops to one layer, How does this get fixed? Through logging? What if no one logs for 8 hours? Many are screwed and forced to play on dead layers?
5 Likes