I just fixed Layering. Hire me Blizz

looking for it now.

Just curious but do people think layering won’t rear it’s head again after phase two? Can their currents servers actually withstand having several guilds duking it out in blackrock mountain?

If the system architects are to be believed, of which i have no reason to not believe technical people of that nature. There is something with the spell interactions in BFA that makes it far more expensive and as people go up the cost and processing increases. Where in classic has less going on simply because there is less overall.

Does that mean the server wont crash if 5 guilds show up to BRM to do MC or BWL? Though it seems that if it happens its going to happen since they want us to belive there should only be one version of the server as it relates to outside bosses.

Personally i am skeptical over the AQ Opening event but 15 years of better tech might not have the whole server die. I would prefer if they tested in one of the stress tests though as i think it would be a good way to see what would happen when you cram everyone into a zone for a special event of that nature then suddenly spawn in a bunch of mobs.

1 Like

at the end of phase 1, layering is being removed. so lets say a server has 4 layers and only 3 of them are small enough to merge, the 4th one would be pulled out and made into a server in its own right. just searching for the quote. its ion who said it in response to a question regarding what happens if a layer is still too populated to merge at the end of phase 1

This is fundamentally not how layering works. It is not some self contained server as part of a greater whole of the server. It is a channel in a server that players can by way of destroying sessions or groups, move between. Thus, there is no merit to the idea any layer is going to more populous over time than any other.

The goal would be to spread population of a server evenly across all layers while players group to one to make it more populated other players log in and move to the lower populated layer. Thus the entire server population is taken into account for how layering is looked at.

Reguardless of what happens with population, if the stated goal is One World boss in phase 2. They will be collapsed into a single entity. Should that server actually be so overly populated the outcome would be transfers off the server as you could not just take a layer whole sale and move it to another server because of the reasons above.

right but the idea they would have more layers with a higher total population than can be comfortably sustained on a single server by the end of phase 1, is the issue being addressed in the conversation.

Really great idea! This preserves the community while still limiting servers. Hope Blizz considers this.

Why is it bad from a technical standpoint? You don’t state why. This works in the real world, why not here.

1 Like

How about a separate server for those people and no layering for the rest of us?

:stuck_out_tongue_closed_eyes:

2 Likes

So how does adding more layers to a server help in the long run if the system is built to spread the population evenly out among the layers and eventually merge them down into one?

Most of the ideas have been some form of server merges in a attempt to make it sound like Layers. For example the popular one at the moment is the Mega Server Shard.

‚ÄúWell we can just have all the names be taken on the Mega server then roll them up when they get lower population‚ÄĚ

Okay so you just want Name controls on a larger level and separate server then merges on low pop.

Overall people just want what we had 15 years ago with better tech where in blizzard wants to make sure we dont have 60 servers with 3k people than need to have communities torn up by transfers and merges. I dont blame them i think that would be fine but blizzard and the players have to be willing to deal with Merges. While i think the players would be fine with it Blizzard on the other hand has not been,

all i have been able to find so far is this. i’ve bookmarked it at the spot where he discusses what ion told him. it doesnt say new server, just that even if it means a login queue, the merges will happen at the end of phase 1

i think they believe enough people will leave by then that the server layers will be easily merged. the problem i see with that is, some servers are never going to lose their popularity, they’ll be like the classic version of stormrage or area52…always full. and if one too many layers are created with that in mind, they’re gonna have a layer thats not dropped enough to merge.

the reason i’m discussing them like they are individual servers is that this is how they are designed. you have semi-permanence in your session layer. its tagged to you till you either switch layers to play with a friend, relog or dc.

That’s the priority that Blizzard needs to have :+1:
They say this game is a love letter to the community that brought it about. Keeping them in mind first and foremost by giving them the non layered game would be on board with that!
Those who want something else other than Vanilla/Classic, as in a more modern, convenient game during the first few weeks or months, could have their layered experience in the separate server.
I know what I’d recommend my friends to play though, if they wanted the best time in the game.

1 Like

Thanks for looking for it. That was what i expected from the other interviews i saw. My honest hope is that Classic is that successful that we NEED trasfers to new servers as the population didnt slow down at all.

This is true and comes with its own problems. For example if i never logged out i would only know my own layer. Still, should i go to the AH i am part of that greater whole of the server as i deal with everyone on it.

That being said i want everyone to have a good launch and not deal with the issues that we see in the beta. I think there are things that could be done but overall i do not think that going though a new system, at this point is the answer to that issue. I also dont see a whole sale pulling of the system just because. While i could be wrong on that and would be fine with it either way as my goal is to just play the game. My major hope is that players dont lose sight of the longer term outlook of the game over something that in every interview has shown us will be limited. However, we seemed to be getting bogged down in the systems, though i mean there’s not much to talk about unless you are in the beta.

They need layering to ensure healthy population. If you cap the servers now, then a lot of people leave, we need to expect new people to migrate in and refill the void. Otherwise you get left with deserted servers. If, on the other hand, you have one server x 4 layers of healthy population, you can squish those down to one layer and have a full realm weeks or even months after launch. That is the real issue layering is aimed to alleviate, not overcrowding at launch.

You realize there were generally more than 3,000 people on high pop servers right? The cap means 3,000 at a time, not total. The odds of a population of 6000-8000 all trying to login at once (other than launch week) is very slim. It’s more likely that xxxx will play during the day, while xxxx play in the evening, very few will no life it.

So you can keep server caps, because they are just the amount of people allowed online at any given time. Caps do not represent the entire player base of a server.

Problem not solved.

By locking players into a layer, what happens if that layers pop is full? Queues.

By allowing layers to be dynamic, they are avoiding the majority of the problems they seek to resolve on launch day.

People prefer instant queues and access to whatever stuff your selling, yes. This was one reason behind xrealm bgs.

Hello Guild Wars 1. Yes that’s exactly how Arenanet did it.

Where do I sign up?

2 Likes