But Gates was already historically proven to be a server killer just like launch.
Why make exception for one but not the other?
Well he is an idiot. There are also people still advocating for WoW tokens and xmog. You just ignore these people.
You want sharding for the gates event?
Server merges kill a community harder than sharding ever could.
What do you mean by historically exactly? The servers that would crash on city raids with 80 people casting spells in one area? Or do you mean the private servers with almost 20k people online?
Do I want it? No.
Do I think it’ll be needed? Maybe.
I don’t know for sure. We’ll need to launch first and get concrete population numbers before that leap is made.
By “historically” I mean “Go do your own research on the Gates of AQ event and see just what kind of clusterfrak that event really was.”
1 Like
Yeah and there is no event after launch that could produce this organically as the cap for vanill servers are Waaay lower than retail/private servers. Also on almost every vanill server that has been replicated 50% of players online won’t even hit 60
Of course. And by adding sharding, it makes the restoration even less authentic because sharding was NEVER part of legacy WoW and it kills social interaction.
If authenticity is really the goal to restore 2006 WoW as Ion has claimed, how will sharding add to authentic 2006 WoW, when sharding destroys the authentic community and social interaction that was the very HEART and SOUL of original WoW?
I’m not trying to argue for argument’s sake and it sure seems like you are, TBH. I am trying to hold Blizzard accountable to its own goal of authenticity and argue for the authentic restoration of this game I loved - which was built on massively multiplayer social interaction and community - not on sharding or any other convenience tech to reduce queue and spawn times for tourists.
PS - curse that delete button next to the edit button lol!
1 Like
By historically what are you referring to. Retail or private servers. I need to know this so I know which argument to use to tear down yours
That is a good question.
My expectation is that it will be less likely to cause issues with the more updated servers of today but also that I feel we could take a temporary issue like that. Am I saying will Blizzard differentiate the two? No but I would hope that they do.
The largest difference being that launch would be 100% completely unplayable without it for an extended time when everyone is trying to start the game whereas AQ gates will be a massive problem but one that comes in down the road. Not everyone will be trying to start anew and most people will be more understanding and not go “forget this”. Tourists and people testing the waters will more than likely be turned away if the beginning of classic goes this way whereas by then everyone will be more invested and not let it deter them.
Yeah this is why I’m not super worried about it, regardless of whether sharding is enabled globally and permanently it shouldn’t really be actually triggered that often after launch.
Let me say it again so you can maybe understand
I am fine with sharding at launch - if they find during launch they have more players then anticipated open up some extra servers to accommodate those extra players who plan to stick around.
what i am not fine with, is sharding after launch.
if that means high population servers have to deal with queues? so be it.
2 Likes
This is my stance as well.
it shouldn’t be enabled globally or permanently period.
1 Like
No need to insult other players like that. It’s not appreciated or helpful.
Blizzard had a Vanilla solution to this Vanilla problem. It was called server transfers.
Additionally, many people actually wanted to be on dead or low-pop realms. There were podcasts on low pop realms in fact for people who enjoyed being a on a quiet server.
The idea is this. Using sharding for the very beginning for a short period of time, few weeks to a month TOPS, only for the beginning areas 1-10. What this does is this. It eases the Vanilla launch, just the launch. So the initial experience may not be 100% authentic in your first 1-10 levels during the launch but by the time you are out of those zones it will be authentic. And when the temporary period is over it will be gone and authentic.
This is essentially easing into classic. A sort of phase if you will, to allow the servers to be brought up and opened without too much of a problem before they become stable. Once stable and reliable they will be released from the tool and thusly reach the full authenticity of not having sharding. Even during this phase however once you are out of the beginning zones it will cease to be a problem.
It also helps that these zones being 1-10 are the least community demanding ones. The only group quests really being ones like Hogger, and WPVP won’t be a thing at this point as well obviously.
Low pop realms tended to actually be more tight-knit than high-pop realms, if my experience on the now-dead Ravenholdt realm (RIP) is anything to go by.
However, I highly doubt anyone who truly wants to play Classic is going to be willing to wait for months just to see which realms ended up low pop so they don’t log in at launch and accidentally lose the Russian Roulette game where they end up on a high pop server with login qeues.
…And even Ravenholdt had login qeues despite being low pop iirc.
At the heart of all the arguments that fly 'round this forum regularly, this probably sums up many of the feelings of the Classic fans. The DieHard #NoChanges, to the middle ground Vanilla Enthusiast, this is what many of us strive for. The ability to call back to our past times of our 15yrs ago selves. To relive the World of Warcraft and to share that experience with the new generations of gamers that have come along since Vanilla launched. An opportunity to revive the tenets of Old School Gaming, when the Players and Communities mattered more, and people found not just ‘friends’ but ‘family’.
2 Likes
Agreed. This should be the goal.
But you can’t find any of that if you can’t even log in.
1 Like