Snowballs have a pretty good chance in Hell right? 
1 Like
100% agree
2 Likes
How is it going to require āmore resourcesā to sprinkle in a few pvp / pve servers in both USA and Euro etc? Why canāt they just use server space they already have to upload a few āNewā servers that players can enjoy Classic launch 2.0?
1 Like
Ahā¦ youāre taking the statement a little out of context. Iām pointing out that if there are no changes made to patch levels, there wouldnāt 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 donāt 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 āfeatureā work or whatever to facilitate customizable servers. Slow phase release.
They already have a way to set server cap that begins āque timesā
Iām not a fan of layering but even that if used at a new launch would not ācostā them anything extra. I am not a computer programmer but I really donāt 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 donāt 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, āHorde is in queue:ā 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. 
1 Like
Iām 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 weeksā¦ 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 āLockedā servers happened because they had to shut down the system that THEY implemented 
Yeah, THAT! I want that feature 
I mean we already have Vanilla with sprinklesā¦ so why not pick and choose what kind of sprinklesā¦ 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 canāt 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
1 Like
Thanks duuude 
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.
3 Likes
Past arguments have been made and quite aggressively when I brought this up that:
- Old players would never transfer off. Too much invested.
- Some would transfer, but youād fracture the population.
#2 two isnāt 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 ā¦ 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!! 
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 āwill my server be TBC or just regular Classic in the future?ā
2 Likes
Youāll 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 thatās the ONLY route to the future content.
1 Like
I completely agree on this point. That is part of the problem with that āleakā of how to do a TBC server launch. Itās becoming a real mess. I am happy to see that there are at least some official posts concerning the āOverpoulationā 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 
1 Like
LOL- itās really early in classics timeline and they just hired Holly from Everquest, give them some time. Side note, I peaked onto Mangler (EQās 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- itās 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 donāt like this game as much, Iāll keep playing it because I trust them more than Daybreak to at least keep things running.