FRESH Classic Server Launch with No Transfers! No Layering! and a Population Cap!

Snowballs have a pretty good chance in Hell right? :thinking:

1 Like

100% agree


How is it going to require ‘more resources’ to sprinkle in a few pvp / pve servers in both USA and Euro etc? Why can’t they just use server space they already have to upload a few ‘New’ servers that players can enjoy Classic launch 2.0?

1 Like

Ah… you’re taking the statement a little out of context. I’m pointing out that if there are no changes made to patch levels, there wouldn’t be the same resource cost, with regards to development resources to design, specify, develop, test, and deploy feature work to facilitate a new patch release cycle (or a different one on some servers), as well as faction specific queue times, etc.

Ah ok, well yeah I don’t want to misconstrue what you were saying for sure. Absolutely though they are already expending resources to figure out overpopulation and making a real mess. I feel that Blizzard owes it to us to provide an actual solution to this mess. so Yes they do need to deploy ‘feature’ work or whatever to facilitate customizable servers. Slow phase release.

They already have a way to set server cap that begins ‘que times’
I’m not a fan of layering but even that if used at a new launch would not ‘cost’ them anything extra. I am not a computer programmer but I really don’t see what about my suggestions would be that costly or even time consuming.

as always Frosto I greatly appreciate your comments and insights in this thread.

1 Like

They seem to have decided to use Layering to resolve the queue times for a couple of reasons:

  • it was already developed, thus would not cost any additional development resources
  • the problem is temporary, and expected to go away when the quarantines end

So, I don’t think anyone is particularly actively working on a solution to this relatively solved, temporary problem.

The faction-specific queue or any sort of feature that leads to balance would require some work. Work to determine what precisely needs to be done, to design that, to specify it, then to have it developed in terms of adjusting any UI elements such as even a pop up that says, “Horde is in queue:” etc. and the coding that would support it. It would also require work to test.

Depending on what needs to be optimized for and how a feature should be implemented, there are potentially varying levels of additional resources required.

In any case, none of it is impossible. :slight_smile:

1 Like

I’m referring to the overall overpopulation of servers. Bliz has made many moves recently in shifting players from a high pop server to a lower pop server (with total disregard for faction balance) my example is Earthfury. Look up some statistics on that server for example. it went from 1.2k end game raiders to 4k in just a few weeks… the population of horde raiders (and resource gatherers multiplied by 4!!) what was once a 65% Alliance server with 2k end game raiders quickly became a 65% Horde server. this kind of thing is extremely delicate esp on PvP servers. All these “Locked” servers happened because they had to shut down the system that THEY implemented :frowning:

Yeah, THAT! I want that feature :smiley:
I mean we already have Vanilla with sprinkles… so why not pick and choose what kind of sprinkles… this could be done with polling with a few options that the community at large wants. They could really save face if they take these suggestions seriously. Sure some extra computing needed but I can’t see that it is a super complicated suggestion to make

1 Like

What I think they could do is experiment with features by rolling out fresh servers that you are unable to transfer to, and have a disclaimer that the server may not be supported indefinitely.

For example, if they try a feature and it is not popular, or somehow ends up being a dead end, they can decide to End-of-Life that server, and potentially offer free transfers to a lower pop server.

Perhaps there would be a guarantee of 6 months or 1 year of support for that feature. Longer, if it requires more time, or is deemed successful, and they may even decide to roll out the new feature sets into the mainstream servers at some point.

Some people have asked about older versions of AV for example, or server-only BG queues. Others have asked about same-faction versus same-faction BGs, or merc mode, or balance changes to maps, flipping the maps, etc. etc.

Of course it would be fun (in my opinion) to be able to experiment with various features. I do not have a particularly compelling argument to take to the the board and convince them that it is worth doing though :slight_smile:

1 Like

Thanks duuude :heart_eyes:

Also make it vanila only server. These servers wont have the option to transfer characters over to TBC. Get all the people that want to stay with vanilla playing together now on F R E S H servers, instead of being stuck on dead servers when most people move to TBC.


Past arguments have been made and quite aggressively when I brought this up that:

  1. Old players would never transfer off. Too much invested.
  2. Some would transfer, but you’d fracture the population.

#2 two isn’t a bad outcome for fresh, if Blizz sets population cap back to Vanilla levels.

1 Like

on the servers that have reportedly 76,000 players and 18,000 end game raiders … that is the idea is to siphon off (maybe not fracture) those unplayable servers to a more manageable number of active people VOLUNTARILY leaving and starting over.

1 Like

Yes!! :v: lol

1 Like

I completely agree with you Isu. Great post!

1 Like

IF they launch new servers, they should ALL be this way, so there is ZERO confusion, and allow free transfers from ALL other realms onto those. That will solve the problem of “will my server be TBC or just regular Classic in the future?”


You’ll get more people to move if they KNOW the new servers WILL 100% be the TBC servers.

Trust me. Some people will be stubborn if they WANT to only play Vanilla/Classic, but still want to stay on their realm. TBC ASSURED realms will get MORE transfers if they think that’s the ONLY route to the future content.

1 Like

I completely agree on this point. That is part of the problem with that ‘leak’ of how to do a TBC server launch. It’s becoming a real mess. I am happy to see that there are at least some official posts concerning the ‘Overpoulation’ issues on these mega servers.

1 Like

Fresh servers are one of the things I loved about Everquest TLP servers.

The differing rulesets, having some change expansions in 3 months, some in 1 month, some PvP.

Every new server was a major deal and brought excitement with it. So many people than fighting for new world firsts.

But yeah Blizzard is just a small startup, it could never do what Daybreak does with Everquest.

I see what you did there :joy:

1 Like

LOL- it’s really early in classics timeline and they just hired Holly from Everquest, give them some time. Side note, I peaked onto Mangler (EQ’s current newest server) the other day, and it is a train wreck of lag/resets.

I actually prefer Everquest by a wide margin but their product is AWFUL right now. For all the complaints blizzard gets, imagine every server crashing 1-2x a day (resetting 2-4 hours of progress, trades, skills, farming etc), and then nothing being done about it. Players are starting instanced raids with 1 week lockouts, getting 30 min in with a crash, and then being locked out for a week with no recourse. Gms literally refuse to reset their timers, levels or items lost- it’s an absolute joke.

As much hate as Blizzard gets on these boards, and they are far from perfect, their product is leaps and bounds ahead of some of their competition. While I literally don’t like this game as much, I’ll keep playing it because I trust them more than Daybreak to at least keep things running.