Yep - but if they are going to tinker with vanilla, the OPs suggestion is better than what we have been pitched.
2 Likes
I suggest you figure out where they are going to play, and plan accordingly.
1 Like
This is silly though. The whole point of layering is that it dynamically adjusts to load. All you’ve done is create another static server list.
1 Like
Why not just turn Mannoroth1 into Mannoroth, Mannorth2 into Kil’Jaeden, and so on?
Y’know… like realms? If you’re just going to suggest layers be solely like realms and merged into a single layer at the end, why not just make them realms in the first place?
Ironically it is its biggest problem too.
4 Likes
could load balance at character creation thusly:
give them a questionnaire before the server selection screen that asks if they want pvp or normal, with a brief explanation of how they differ and then whether they want quick create or manual select. explain that quick creation will try to place them on a server layer with the best chances of avoiding login queues. and that manual selection may result in long login queues.
with quick creation, the system could survey where the population was needed the most and least, and place the player accordingly, thus load balancing.
2 Likes
Agreed, and it’s a technology/coder solution which in my experience almost always compromise gameplay. The only “solution” is to create static servers, stick to them, and encourage players to join less populated servers.
Any form of instancing - and I mean any form even or maybe especially boss dungeons - is total crap. Keep it all open world (that’s not vanilla in the case of WoW so it doesn’t apply, but as a general rule it holds true).
4 Likes
No.
/10char
Unfortunately, Blizzard thinks people value no ques and access to their quests over an organic world.
3 Likes
the ones that are going to merge, need to share the same name database so there’s no conflict for naming.
The thing that layers are somehow session bound, where you will only be phased if you join a group is total crap.
You can’t have dynamic entrance (through invites) without having dynamic exit (through kick out to another layer). It’s impossible for players to join groups without someone else to be phased out to compensate in full layer.
No such thing as somewhat dynamic.
1 Like
So… battlegroups?
i guess? my idea is do what the op said but add the questionnaire i mentioned below, and let the system balance load and population from those players who just want to play and dont particularly care what server as long as its either pvp or normal
Look, if layering is temporary, then this doesn’t matter.
If it’s permanent, then it basically amounts to having super realms.
Either way, your idea is just bad from a technical standpoint.
So you’d just have ghost town layers instead. If they’re going to function exactly like realms, why even try to maintain the pretense that they’re different?
Your solution is basically realm merges, except don’t call them realms, call them layers. Granted, I don’t really mind that.
Have a group of realms you know will be merged together eventually. Share name reservations between those servers. Easy.
2 Likes
with the quick creation idea i mentioned, new players that selected quick creation, would be placed on low pop layers, resolving the issue of low pop.
once you show the player the server list, they start selecting based on things like… .oh what a cool name or my favorite lore character or my dog is named that, or look how popular/unpopular that server is. but if you ask first and can get them to select quick create, you bypass that whole issue
merging realms is a dirty word because people do not like it, because its a massive disruption to economy and community.
hence your solution is to replace dynamic layers, which possibly can be abused to negligible harm to the server and minimal disruption to immersion, with massive disruption to economy and community…
I think layering is the better solution.
Why on Earth would they hire you after you post that?
They’ve been…uh, already thinking of exactly that.
they are going to merge them at the end of phase 1. its happening . and if a layer still has too many people, ion says it’ll be pulled out and made into its own server. same problem. the op’s solution is better, and then just add my quick create vs. manual selection idea to resolve population imbalance.
They are dynamic and merge as necessary except they do not have distinct economies that are all gonna get thrown together causing massive disruption.
Also that IF a layer has too many people is a BIG IF… the drop off is gonna be huge.
The OP’s solution is worse in pretty much every way which is why it has been thought of and discarded in favor of better solutions.