Having sharding in classic will destroy this franchise

WoW Classic WoW Classic General Discussion
367

shards are multiple versions of the same zone on one server. a temporary split of the population. completely invisible to each other.

:confused: do you not know what you are arguing for? while being pro sharding?

1 Like
368

Then he said valley of trials and elwynn forest, those are geographical points, meaning that only those places will have sharding and few weeks means less than four since then he could have said a month.

You want to play the literal game?.

369

Show us where he actually said sharding would be limited to the starting zones or for four weeks?

He NEVER actually set ANY limits. At best, he vaguely implied that there might be limits.

Go back and actually listen to what Ion actually said and not what you want to hear. Go back and read what Lore actually wrote and not just what you want to see.

1 Like
370

We all know what sharding is.

What we don’t know is how you jump to “Kazzak will only be in one shard” when that’s clearly not what he said.

At this point, you’re either insane or trolling. Either way, help required.

1 Like
371

Show us where Ion said that world bosses would not be sharded.

He was very careful to use vague terms and NEVER actually say that world bosses would not be shared.

Sanguineous is correct. Having only one of a particular world boss up does not poreclude the possibility of sharding with some of those shards not having that world boss up.

372

Oh great. Convenience Police is back.

Ion said that there can only be one Kazzak, and that players will have to compete. That doesn’t happen if one group get sharded off away from the “one Kazzak”.

Jebus. The mental gymnastics to justify your tinfoil conspiracy is … well… impressive.

3 Likes
373

First, I don’t remember Ion actually saying that players will have to compete.

He said there needs to be only one Kazaak.

Even if you want to interpret a vague possible implication as a promise of having to compete, that competition could be as simple as the first group to get to Kazaak gets him, the other groups get sharded.

374

The other half of that statement is “racing to defeat him”. That’s a competition. Duh. You’re making yourself look less intelligent by arguing points you know are invalid.

375

that doesn’t happen if one group get sharded off away from the “one Kazzak”.

when the guy makes your argument for you. then calls you a tinfoil hatter. :crazy_face:

sharding is load balance. nothing more. if your waiting for an ore/herb/boss and you get moved to a shard that doesnt have it. is just one example. hell sometimes you can even see it disappear as you approach… must be the aliens stealing your ores :crazy_face:

376

… and none of that will happen. Again, specifically inverting the actual statement from Watcher, that when you’re competing for notes you can’t have sharding.

Sharding prevents limited resources.

377

Thank you for making my point.

“Racing to defeat him.”

I guess that couldn’t possibly mean that “winner” of that race (first group to reach him) gets the shard in which he is up, while the “losers” find themselves in different shards.

378

Only in a twisted mind working itself into knots to prove that Blizzard is secretly dangling sharding in everything they say.

2 Likes
379

its why this is in the sentence before the one you posted. “We understand that, and I understand completely, that sharding is antithetical to a cohesive Classic community, where you’re competing over limited resources .”

:crazy_face:

380

Yes. Sharding is antithetical to the game long term. Totally agree, Ion was saying that, and also saying that in all the examples he gave, there can’t be sharding.

I’m not the one arguing that Watcher wants to shard Kazzak.

381

I’m saying that they have not actually set ANY limits or promised anything with regards to sharding.

If you can points to ANY Blizzard statement that sets clearly defined, definitive geographical or chronological limits, please do do.

If you cannot, then admit that you are only speculating as to what limits may apply to sharding.

382

You’re not doing that though. You’re intentionally misinterpreting statements to claim that they are implying sharding will be used beyond starters.

I didn’t call you crazy when you said they haven’t made any official statements. They haven’t. But when you intentionally misrepresent their stated intentions and philosophy to push this tinfoil conspiracy, that’s when you look crazy.

If you believe what they’re saying, they will not shard beyond the launch period.

You cannot claim that they’re saying they will, and if you’re not, you’re backing up Sanguinous who is specifically claiming they are saying that, so tarred with the same brush.

Yes, they haven’t made a definitive statement. But they are clearly indicating they have no intention of using sharding beyond the starters. Anything else is an intentional misinterpretation for the purpose of argument.

1 Like
383

use the example given(kazzak). tinfoil conspiracy :crazy_face:

launch = endgame boss? :crazy_face:

1 Like
384

What’s that? They never specified a geographical or chronological limit?

…“That is sharding. There’s a lot of concern and discussion around it on the internet…we understand”

"That being said, the first FEW WEEKS when everyone is packed into Valley of Trials, when everyone is packed into Elwynn we can use sharding THERE in a limited TIME LIMITED way to solve launch day load problems "

source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-GobXQTf6w

385

You’re not using the example. If you were, it would be to show that they’re not sharding the Blasted Lands.

You’re rewriting the text in your own head to justify a conspiracy.

386

They also previously stated just as clearly that they did not intend to shard. Or, does Brack’s statement regarding the tenets of Classic including not having sharding not count?

You are speculating as to what limits may be applied to sharding. You may be basing that speculation on a vague implication made by Ion, but that is it.