forcing people to spend money on realm transfers after launch is it imo
1 Like
Actually it’s a well practiced marketing strategy to limit supply even if you can meet the demand. This is how the diamond industry works. Nintendo is also notorious for doing this.
I guess the media can also spin it to make it seem like the company does not have the capability to execute and operate a successful launch causing concern and doubt for shareholders.
Though, I personally think shareholders would see more of a positive in that there is excess and unforeseen demand.
I guess we will see tomorrow how the market reacts.
I can buy the second reason (generate interest with shareholders), the third reason (wait for money from realm transfers to come in) is utter bull. Mainly for 2 reasons:
- If that was the reason, then Blizzard would have added more servers earlier.
- Blizzard did in fact state that they will consider giving free server transfers later. They given them out for select servers before (of course, those were for people going from full servers to new servers).
I suspect bullet point two is most likely the strategy if I’m going to go all conspiracy theorist. It’s probably not intentional but they for sure have some gold teeth shining.
They specifically
Man, if the only the developers had recently answered a bunch of questions about that very subject.
Much in the same way they don’t have too many servers to avoid dead servers in the future, Blizzard doesn’t want to have too many people on one server because the more people they have, the harder it will be to compress to one layer before Phase 2.
I’d also like to note that its pretty great that for three months this forum was screaming “NO LAYERING NO LAYERING” and now its “MORE LAYERS MORE LAYERS MORE LAYERS CAUSE WE’RE IDIOTS WHO DON’T UNDERSTAND WHAT LAYERING IS”
1 Like
Well, then retail players who did not play vanilla should be de-prioritized and placed in queue. Rubber neckers cause traffic jams.
population is gonna drop cuz half the fking ppl cant fking play
1 Like
Nailed it!
- They underestimated how big launch would be.
- It’s a WoW Launch, were you expecting smooth sailing?
- Players will pop off leaving the dedicated Classic players staying.
Thanks. If only I had as much time on my hands as you do to stay on top of every single thing that is said concerning Classic WoW. It is a great thing that we can communicate to help spread understanding. If only people did so from the beginning before belittling others for not know what they do.
I appreciate you citing the source that answers my question and invalidates my idea. I still think that there could have been a better solution put in place to prevent to these absurd queues, but that is not the point of this thread.
Now, back to conspiracies.
They didn’t really answer anything. Why is it so much more expensive for them to spin off another instance of an existing server versus them creating a new one. Like, this is a really common pattern in client-server models and most enterprise solutions or web applications can handle this.
Edit: Never mind I found the relevant answer
Some players have suggested using sharding in low level zones to address launch demand, both because we talked about that at Blizzcon, and because it’s what they’re used to from our modern expansions. Unfortunately, while modern WoW has content designed to work with sharding, WoW Classic does not. The most obvious example of incompatible content is Rexxar’s famously long patrol path, but there are lots of other examples throughout WoW Classic. Since we want all that content to work as it was originally designed, we’ve made sure that every layer is a copy of the entire world, so you can kite Anachronos all the way to Orgrimmar, and you can ride the boat from Ratchet to Booty Bay with the same people alongside you the whole way.
So it really comes down to which annoys you more, the long queues are being placed in a shard that is in a different world state than the one you came from.
We have the same amount of time, but the difference is I spend it trying to learn about the things I care about while you spend it shooting from the hip on conspiracy theories.
Seems to me like you are experiencing difficulty differentiating between the thoughtful conspiracies and the spontaneous layering idea. Two different thought processes occurring at the same time, which you’ve happened to cross.
None of my conspiracies have to do with investing time in research, rather they have to do with creative analysis which I’ve based off of personal experience.
My layering idea was that one that I shot from the hip and could, admittedly, have used more research but thankfully there’s great people like you that are willing to help others understand.
Regardless, thanks again for sharing your knowledge and contributing to this thread.
I feel that they shouldve provided more servers than needed then when population tapers off, provide free server transfers to players and set deadline to shut down empty servers
back during vanilla retail they kept releasing new server after new server, after 2-3 months those servers were ghost towns. Hopefully they are trying to avoid that this time around. These queues wont last forever, a lot of current retail players are just tourists and will be gone soon.
Conspiracy? It’s Acti/Blizz we are talking about. Some pencil pusher provably told them to make “X” amount of servers and not invest money to see an increased EPA next quarter. With these greedy Vampires it’s that simple, follow the money.
1 Like
That, actually.
It makes a lot of sense.
Activision/Blizzard doesn’t believe in Classic as a profit driver. You can’t even buy mounts or character tokens in Classic FFS! Thus they are putting in the minimal effort. I bet each server can’t even handle 10,000 people.
They caved to the vanilla member berry crowd by making classic servers. I use the term CAVED because that is indeed what it is. Be thankful that you even get this.