Good thing nobody cares what you think.
1 Like
heres something else i think
its funny when people get so mad over petty stuff like this
1 Like
Promising and authentic classic and then announcing one of the most hated retail features is not a petty thing.
7 Likes
they had to do something about servers, im not really for or against layers. personally i would have liked fewer realms, but make them big
If Blizzard implemented my requirement to get to a rested zone before layer changes, then they’d have to run all the way back to Booty Bay praying someone didn’t take the chest on the next layer before they got there.
3 Likes
I’ll just agree to disagree at that point then; to use your verbiage I’d say that the idea that ignoring exploits because its inconvenient to remove them by design is a “terrible idea.”
They announced it as soon as they promised it. Literally the same day they announced Classic they announced sharding in classic. Not like this is a new development.
Think about the layers as if they are their own servers, because thats really what they are.
Population is managed by the system to keep things QOL playable (not lag reasons).
However instead of a single server with a single player pool its several servers woth a shared player pool, shared chat, and shared AH.
The servers (layers and by name) are virtual servers, they do not have their own dedicated hardware, instead its allocated by need by the system.
Its actually very elegant.
The idea of requiring a major city is actually a very interesting idea that could work.
They have the tech!
1 Like
You sure?
I thought they did the whole “some people like Vanilla” routine in 2017, and snuck the sharding in for the demo a year later. Then rebranded it a few months later after everyone got mad.
They talked about it in the interviews the same year as announced.
Tho back then it was sharding like in modern wow, and that is way worse.
Actually they didn’t, so I was off. At least not in any interview I could find anyways. You find one send it my way please cause I could’ve sworn I read it in one. Actually in one interview J. Allen Brack states that they wouldn’t use any cross-server or sharding options available.
So Abigaiil appears to be right. 2017 announcement no mention of sharding, 2018 sharding announced.
You can easily fix this by creating an internal cd for nodes (the cd is on the player) that don’t share a layer, but share the same id (prevents the pc from interacting with or seeing nodes with the same id after already looting the node : the icd would be exactly the same length as the respawn of the node in question).
This isn’t even a problem. I could fix this in minutes.
I mean, people would still complain because you’re basically allowing several layers worth of nodes to exist on the same realm. But, I wouldn’t know how good or bad that is on the outset.
Beta =/= classic live
There arent that manny players per layer on beta, on classic there will be manny more. Do u think non of those will try the same thing?
Hopefully they won’t be removing arena master until later patches because of this.
Confirmed layering worse then sharding starting area 2 weeks.
Well blizzard would of done server wide sharding even if people didn’t complained.
FWIW, I started a list of exploits and problems caused by Layering (and started with the OP’s video) in case anyone has more video examples that they would like to add to the list. Thanks.
3 Likes
Good work.
The No. 1 problem with layering, is that it wasn’t in vanilla.
3 Likes
i love your solution, BUT it also should apply in starting areas, and inns, like goldshire and human starting area (which are the areas that need layering the most)