It’s completely relevant because it’s what layering is designed to solve.
With layer there is a buffer when the population drops off before you start dropping from high population down to mid, low, or even basically a ghost town.
Without laying if a single server does lose 80% of its population, it drops down to 600 total players from 3000. With layering if you had 15000 players on the server to begin with, you drop down to 3000.
So what do you do in that scenario where you end up with a server where you have that little people?
Why do we keep going back to an A) or B) scenario?
If you don’t like Live that is fine. But to lump all live players in with that is not fair. Nor fairer than if we lump someone against Live as a law-breaking pserver shill.
There can be a combination. Growth and retention. Its presumptuous to assume everyone who plays BFA will leave because they play BFA. There will be attrition, and we can’t speculate those numbers to the T… Blizzard has better data and they can’t nail it down. That’s why adjustments and systems like Layering are in.
You’re invested in BfA but you’re ready to give it all up for Classic? Sounds less like a BfA player and more like a Classic player killing time until August…
Funny how “Hah I found a single example” can’t kill a generalization.
No, they are not fine for the modern day. People have busy schedules and want to play. The numbers are larger than you can fathom who want to cram into the shoe. And those crazy people who want to go for world firsts would def disagree with you.
TBC had a population of 10 million and that queue was on literally opening day. For your math to check out there would have to be 100 million people trying to play Classic. The BfA servers are tiny and everyone piles onto 3 or 4 specific ones. It’s different for Vanilla.
Honestly what blizzard is doing is 200 IQ. Getting all the whiny entitled retail players to move on from classic ASAP so population management becomes easier.