I will not play the game if i see any sharding… Or any changes period including loot trading. I will just wait until an MMO is released that doesn’t compromise on its principle design philosophy.
It is your opinion it isn’t
Anything that limits player interaction in a multiplayer game is objectively bad.
For some reason this will not quiote,
“Actually, I’m flagging them as trolls because telling someone to play BfA that obviously does not like BfA is trolling.”
The same can be said for telling someone they can just wait until sharding is turned off.
If you don’t want the cf that is an unsharded launch then you can either wait to play classic or play bfa until it calms down.
7 Likes
You misspelled subjectively.
Also, sharding does not limit player interaction, since you can still interact with everyone in a zone through group chat. That is a fact.
objectively
adverb
in a way that is not influenced by personal beliefs or feelings; fairly:
Sorry used correctly please try again
Only if you know they are even there. If they don’t use general chat you have no idea if they even exist or not. That is fact also
5 Likes
No you didn’t since that is entirely your opinion and not based in fact.
If you speak in General chat, and they don’t speak back, chances are they didn’t want to interact with you in the first place so it isn’t affecting your interaction with them. That is also a fact.
But that’s ok, you do you. You’ll NEVER EVER convince me that sharding harms interaction. But you’re welcome to continue wasting your keystrokes to try.
You might want to look up what the definition of a multiplayer game is.
I do not and have not tried to convince you other wise. You make a statement that I find in error and I point it out. Honestly I could care a less if it impacts your opinion or not.
I understand your philosophy in regards to other players and have even defended your position but that doesn’t mean I agree with it or will stop pointing out what I consider flaws in it just like you will not do that to mine
4 Likes
There were people who didn’t leave the General channel one Chuck Norris joke into original-WoW?
(And no, it didn’t mean I didn’t want to interact with people, as long as those people weren’t acting like random nonsense was supposed to be hilarious.)
mul·ti·play·er
(mŭl′tē-plā′ər, -tī-)
adj.
Of or relating to a game designed to be played by many people at once.
Note: The definition does not say anything about having to interact with all of those people at once.
Meaningless point to an argument.
Functionally false, you have attempted to move the objective by putting things into context of “Chat” when the point we are making is that you indeed damage the connectivity of actual in game events with sharding.
Sharding segregates players into their own little mini-servers or “shards” and in turn you cannot see, interact, or connect with them outside of manual grouping excluding RNG luck that you happen to be in same shard as that person whom you would like to interact with.
Additionally sharding reduces the number of players you see in the world; this is directly negative to the experience of World of WarCraft and artificially reduces the populated feel of the world; something most of us actually enjoy.
The point made by numerous posters telling those asking for sharding to go play BFA is not trolling either, we’re simply giving you the option to accept WoW Classic for what it was or play a different game.
This is not trolling at all, but simply stating a fact that Classic WoW had no sharding and that the mechanical integration of sharding is damaging to the community overall.
THE ONLY PLAYERS WHO LIKE SHARDING are those who like solo play and want all the benefit of a low population realm while garnering all the benefits of a high population realm economy.
No good comes of this, it promotes an un-natural situation that actually damages the overall feel and effect of the game.
You may claim you want sharding only for the first few weeks or days, but I assure you Sharding will not end there if that can of worms is opened up.
4 Likes
I’ll take your assurance with a grain of salt, random stranger on the internet who is not affiliated with Blizzard in any way.
1 Like
just look at blizzards track record with RP realms and sharding for all the proof you need that they wont just stop at 1-2 weeks and only in the starting area.
but hey ignore it if you want.
4 Likes
Did you hear the really loud woosh noise as my post flew straight over your head? ![:slight_smile:](https://d38bqls1q93fod.cloudfront.net/en/wow/images/emoji/twitter/slight_smile.png?v=6" ":slight_smile:")
It’s getting extremely difficulty to respond patiently, to the rhetoric that you and many others like you are doling out daily. For all the time you spend trying to convince people that Classic and BfA are different games, you keep drawing parallels between them.
If you don’t trust Blizzard, stop quoting them where you see fit and ignoring them otherwise. It’s bad form.
1 Like
It’s not bad form, it’s cause for concern. It’s still the same company, is it not?
So I suppose everyone should just ignore extremely similar circumstances from the same exact company? People learn from the past, right? If not, they just keep making the same mistakes over and over.
I for one don’t even intend to play at this point until I know for certain it’s gone from the game permanently never to return. I was there through the CRZ ordeal at the beginning of Legion. I was there and experienced first hand what they promised and then went back on. I was there when they would try to claim it was a bug and then after outcry on the forums they would remove it. Until one day, it was permanent.
Although CRZ and sharding are different, the circumstances of these events are way too similar to simply ignore.
Like the old saying goes: “Fool me once, shame on you, Fool me twice, shame on me.” I’m not holding my breath that they will stick to their word in this scenario anymore than they did regarding the promise of no CRZ in new content.
3 Likes
Galdor and Fallanna are effectively excluding the middle; the only choice is to trust Blizzard implicitly, or dismiss everything they say as meaningless. No room for–for example–“Blizzard will probably try to maintain plausible deniability rather than openly going against what they’ve said, but making resistance to changes clear is still valuable.”
For whatever it’s worth, I have no doubt that if he could think of a way to get away with it, J. Allen “You think you do, but you don’t” Brack would release new Modern servers, label them Classic, and congratulate himself on having tricked us all into playing an objectively superior game.
2 Likes
Blizzard will have all the validation they need to add on and extend sharding when players (like the ones you mentioned) demand it in Classic. They won’t be satisfied with starting areas sharded. They come from a fundamental viewpoint where other players are ‘an obstacle’. That viewpoint won’t change, so any time they feel inconvenienced by the presence of others that will give them an excuse to ask for more sharding. And Blizzard then says “This is what the players want!”
The thing is…those types of players are not who Classic is being built for. The devs have made that very clear. That’s not an exclusionary stance. Everyone is welcome, but accept the game for what it is. And in all other avenues of the game Blizz has stuck to that principle. Sharding is just an exception that hopefully they avoid.
8 Likes
Personally, I’m going to wait to see how many servers they have prepared for launch. That’s going to tell us more about whether or not they truly intend for the sharding to be temporary or if they’re planning to keep using it indefintely.
Fewer servers means sharding will stay.
4 Likes
I would absolutely join the No-Shard server. I don’t mind if the server drops once in a while. That’s just fine I’m used to it and I remember it happening once in a while. A login Queue? I’m used to it. Lag? It happens, I’m used to it. I’d rather play the game seeing all kinds of players instead of feeling lonely and alone.
6 Likes
I would like to try no-sharding to see just how “bad” it would get, tbh, but the way I understand the new cloud database structures that they plan to use for Classic (they are not going back to single-server-per-machine model) is that they are way less flexible and tolerant (compared to Vanilla server structures) of the kinds of stress tests that high populations within zones brings with it if they don’t shard at some level.
The way I understand it, they will shard every zone N = P/X times (rounded up to next integer) such that every shard will have <= X people in it, where P is the total population of the zone and X can be changed on the fly. Even in zones where they say they are not sharding, what they’ll do is just make X in that zone arbitrarily high, like 10,000 or something like that.
So in a sense, they are going to have sharding, it’s just a matter of what value of X is used in every single zone. Would I like to try out a server where X in every zone was set arbitrarily high during launch? Sure – let’s give it a chance and see what happens. I’m actually quite interested to see (1) where it breaks, and (2) if the launch crowd will be big enough to break it.
1 Like
learning from the past and holding blizzard to their word are not in opposition with each other. nor is saying “they said this and thats what should stand” when it comes to people pushing for changes .
its all holding blizzard to their own words and holding everyone else to the stated goal of the project.
it doesnt have to be all or nothing.
2 Likes