Pardon me.
It’s ok. They use the technologies together so people can sometimes misinterpret what does what.
In Retail, they use CRZ to put everyone into one big bucket, then sharding to split that bucket up into different zone copies.
The biggest failure on that method, is that two people from the same server have no guarantee, or even increased likelihood, of being in the same shard. So you are far more likely to see people from random other servers in your shard.
1 Like
Don’t buy that one bit. I can still have a friends list and still group with the people I played with from the other days.
As long as chats are server wide and not layer wide there will still be server communities.
Following that same logic you won’t have server communities without layering either. Transfers/mergers will happen then you will just have guild communities like in retail.
No…you stating 500,000 and saying Blizzard also said it is “hard” to believe.
You aren’t happy with 1 boot…you found the closet full of them.
3 Likes
^This is why i quit retail for, worst thing that ever happened to WoW.
2 Likes
Strawman. You’re literally intentionally misrepresenting what I said about Blizzard, because you can’t actually argue with the statement.
That statement doesn’t contain a claim that Blizzard said 500,000. If you’re going to lie, at least try to use subtlety.
As a longtime World of Warcraft player, even I don’t know whether Classic servers will be a success. My guess is once the initial wave of tourists dies down, there will only be a small core group of people left. “That’s OK,” Brack assures me. "I don’t think that’s wrong. There will be a core group of people who are really excited, and that’s the game for them and that’s the thing they want to play.
“I think there will be a lot of tourists,” he adds. "But it doesn’t matter what I think because once we’re committed to doing this at a Blizzard level, which we are, whatever happens is going to happen. If millions of people show up and play for years, that’s awesome. And if just tens of people show up and play for years, we’re fine either way. What’s important to us is that we have this Classic experience people can enjoy, that people do have the opportunity to go back to. This is an important game in videogame history and there’s not a way to go back and experience that today. This is also about preserving something that we think is really important.
https://www.pcgamer.com/this-is-how-blizzard-plans-to-finally-bring-back-vanilla-wow-servers/
That’s just one example.
1 Like
This is what you posted and then go on to say “straw man” when I asked you for a citation ?
…“And if you look at it, that’s still 500,000 to a million active players in Classic 1 month in. I expect it to naturally grow again after that point with new players, but yes, it’s my opinion and that of Blizzard”
3 Likes
I was referring to the statement where I said Blizzard believes that the population will boom to millions then die away again.
I never said Blizzard stated 500,000.
You are LITERALLY misquoting it, and its showing badly, because you aren’t actually using the quote function. You’re cutting and pasting because you know your argument doesn’t hold water. The next word in that sentence is “That” indicating that what is my opinion and Blizzards FOLLOWS.
If you can’t English, just stop.
1 Like
See how easy it is if you ignore all context and lie?
Even if you are right, you are embarrassing yourself.
4 Likes
No…I LITERALLY copied and pasted exactly what you wrote.
Next time you spew numbers post a citation to go with it.
4 Likes
And cut the citation off mid-sentence, completely obscuring the context. Intentionally.
Just stop.
2 Likes
My suggestions for resolving the complaints with Layering, if possible and based on my understanding of the process.
World-wide Behavior
World buffs, chat channels, auction houses, and fishing competitions are realm-wide and transcend Layers. Vendor stocks could be Layer dependent or not. Nodes are Layer specific but use different seeds for original spawn placement and random spawn timers.
Layer-wide Behavior
-Layer 1 fills to Threshold C (buffer remains for party transfers in), then Layer 2 begins filling
-Layer 1 empties some, Layer 2 continues filling until it reaches Minimum Threshold A
-Layer 1 begins filling again until Threshold C
-If Layer 1 has space while actively filling, check Layer 2
-If Layer 2 is below Threshold B (less than Threshold A) and Layer 1 has remaining space of Layer 2’s population + X, then collapse Layer 2 into Layer 1 after a warning: 30 seconds until your Layer merges into another / 30 seconds until another Layer merges into yours
Player Specific Behavior
-Players are generally locked into Layer upon entry to server (EK or Kalimdor)
Transferring Layers follows the priority system below:
-If someone groups, transfer layers only if they are in or enter a rested area. Transfer to the group leader’s layer.
-When accepting an invite outside a rested area, pop up: “Your group leader is in another layer. Enter a rested area to join their layer and play with them!”
-If a Layer is full when someone would enter based on party then transfer them to an available server and pop up: “The Layer your group is on is full. Your position in the queue is X. You will be transferred as soon as space becomes available even if outside a rest area.”
-Anyone taking the same portal goes to the same Layer (redundant, should follow the general group rules anyway but! Hypothetical: Player A is the leader, Player B is not. Player B enters portal from EK to Kalimdor and Player A follows, then Player A should first attempt to enter the same Layer as Player B.)
-Anyone taking the same ship/zeppelin goes to the same Layer after first assigning based on group affiliation.
1 Like
I was originally for limited sharding (and then possibly layering) because I understand how incredibly unopular long queues are for players and also how bad dead servers are.
But after seeing several videos of exploits that are still happening in the beta with layering abuse, I think I am of the mindset now to just have massive login queues and let that sort out over time.
3 Likes
ok my child
You’ve done nothing but praise Actiblizz for months by defending a system that is anti-Classic, easily exploited and corrosive to the community while putting on a mask of concerned acceptance of their solution. At this point I actually believe you’re a paid PR guy to try and sway debate into supporting sharding.
4 Likes
Corrosive to the community?!?! Lmao
These are the types of overstatements im talking about when it comes to layering.
Pretty hilarious that anybody can defend this system and still say stupid arrogant crap like, “You will still play anyway.” Sad state of affairs, but by all means keep shilling for this anti-consumer company that allows exploits like this that ruins the game. Private servers are free and have no layering whatsoever.
2 Likes
Also have lots of inaccuracies. So… go play them.
It’s a good point, what exactly is the plan if server pops DON’T die out substantially?
I don’t understand why it’s seen as a guarantee like classic is just another expansion launch. I hate to be so blunt, but the reason you see a massive drop post expansion is because, if I am to be as painfully honest based on the people I know and have asked as well as my own personal experience, newer expansions draw in old players just to see them leave when they realize it’s just another post cata expansion and it’s still only really gotten worse since (or at least drastically more different and uninvolved). The reality is that, yes some servers will slow down a little post launch but larger servers are going to stay really big, what happens when you need that layering to keep them somewhat reasonable? Perhaps the solution is NOT to split individual servers into several sub-servers but instead to just have reasonably population capped servers in a higher quantity. Yes it means some servers may die off later but it also means we don’t end up stuck with a bad system because we tried to predict the future, which is something human beings have proven to be remarkably bad it.
1 Like