If the current stress test is about

Exactly. So why is layering being added? It is possible to not have layering. Layering is not necessary.

Things like battlenet don’t receive any backlash from the player base because it doesn’t affect gameplay, and its implementation is necessary.

So what? That doesn’t mean the game should be changed.

You did, just inadvertently.

Nah. When you learn to be respectful, I’ll bother addressing your arguments properly. Until then, I’ll treat a troll with all the respect a troll deserves. Grow up.

You must be new here.

It means for the first few weeks, accommodations must be made, so that we have high populations after the tourists leave. That accommodation is layering.

1 Like

No thanks, asking for most of the realms to end up dead realms after a few months is one of the stupid #nochange ideals…

1 Like

Oh, no, son. You came in being disrespectful with your “i know everything” and completely hand-waving what i wrote MULTIPLE times with “so you agree with me”.

So hand-waving, putting words in my mouth, puffing your chest. Yeah I’m not the one that started with being disrespectful. I’m replying in kind, my guy. You don’t want to get none, don’t throw none.

Debate my points because I’ve said multiple times I don’t agree with you. I’d really appreciate if you laid off the children’s “My First Hot Take” instruction guide and talk like an adult.

I made points in direct contradiction to what you wrote and gave detailed reasons why - you just don’t want to address those because you know it’s an argument you can’t win.

How childish.

Don’t, not didn’t. There’s an initial backlash to literally EVERYTHING Blizzard does. No exceptions.

However, when’s the last time you saw a thread complaining about battlenet? Compare that to how frequently you see threads about layering.

It’s because layering is something that actually affects the player base in a significant and noticeable way, for the worse.

Accommodations don’t need to be made, actually. The game is better off without layering, both short term and long term.

Also, I’m not sure Phase 1 is “the first few weeks.” You know Blizzard has evolved their plans for sharding-- sorry, I mean layering, yes? It’s not just “starting zones for the initial launch” anymore.

Unless you think Blizzard saying “it’ll be gone by Phase 2” means “it will be gone before Phase 2,” in which case:

They won’t be dead after a few months.

How could you possibly have large queues AND dead realms once the tourists leave? Do the math.

You sure about that?

When you stop trolling, I will.

Because people stop playing games everyday for millions of different reasons. Classic is also a game that has no fresh content, no updates and will be in permanent maintenance mode with the release of Naxxramas. In a few years, it will be a few steadfast fans, folks returning for a short time to fill a void and some drifters left. It is inevitable, no matter how much one may like the game.

Your first reply to me:

What’s that?

Oh, ok. Yeah. You did that first.

Ball’s in your court, kiddo! Still waiting for you to debate my points that clearly show I don’t agree with you.

Again, if you can’t take any - don’t give any. Easy!

I already proved you pushed that button first.

Back to you, kiddo!

Layering as an annoucement, is barely a month old. Battlenet complaints ran for multiple months.

That’s because you’re listening to the scaremongers because you want to. Ion specifically promised it would be gone within a few weeks. Not Phase 2. You can be as unsure as you like, but they have specifically said a few weeks. They have never said that layering will last all of Phase 1. That’s intentional misrepresentation.

Because you’re making up your own argument to fight? Long queues during the first few weeks, which without layering will stretch into months as people keep trying to get in, vs dead realms once everyone does get in and most decide not to keep playing.

1 Like

But sharding isn’t, and it’s basically the same thing.

Now, with all the beta testing, stress testing, and chances we’ve had to actually see these features, the one still being complained about is layering, not battlenet. Why is that, I wonder?

We’ll see. If it is, I’ll only have to complain about the awful feature for those few weeks.

I suspect, given Blizzard’s history, it will be there until Phase 2.

I actually hadn’t seen that interview. It’s promising. Hopefully Blizzard follows through on that.

Nor did I claim they did, merely that their words left open that possibility. Blizzard has a habit of using weasel words. What was promised is that layering will not happen after Phase 1, i.e. won’t happen in Phase 2.

Or just add a few more realms and deal with the fact that there will be queues during the launch. That’s normal, and will subside.

But yeah yeah, “Blizzard has goals.” Their goals suck. That’s why I want Classic: to be as far away from Blizzard’s goals as I reasonable can while still playing WoW on an official server.

There are countless suggestions people have made to improve upon layering; things that won’t affect gameplay, ruin communities, or cause problems with name overlaps. Yet we’re getting the awful phasing crap.

1 Like

Stubborn refusal by some people to accept reality?

“They never said ‘a few weeks’!” “They did” “I DON"T BELIEVE IT!”

I’m going to stop replying to this one, because you’re literally pretending week in week out to be ignorant, so you can repeat a false point.

1 Like

He believes what he wants and not what actually is just to argue with people and won’t debate actual arguments. Save your breath. He’s a typical troll.

No, because the feature sucks and actually affects them. Battlenet doesn’t.

I never said any of that. Try actually reading my posts.

I have pointed this out in threads you ranted on, a number of times.

1 Like

Unless you replied to me specifically, there’s a slim chance I noticed it, as I don’t scroll through all the hundreds of posts in a thread, especially when I post in dozens of threads a day.

Genuinely, I didn’t know until now. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.

Yep. I searched online for it, and your thread was one of the first results in the search. That’s how I found what you were talking about.

can you link the definition of layering? i’m trying to find an actual explanation but so far i have nothing official so sorry sounds like you don’t know what you’re talking about at all in the slightest even in a tiny bit to guess…

but maybe if you were trying to answer my questions about layering and why it’s even being used, you could answer this very basic very common scenario:

if i’m in one layer and my friend joins the game and is put into layer2, it’s the same problem as sharding lol except now we are completley locked off from eachother in the entire world… and server has to work harder keeping zones open when no body is in them?

I already explained they work similarly, but not directly 1:1.

Players can get separated but join each other if they party up, nobody is locked out for the rest of the world if they party together.

Sharding is used to both increase the player population in low pop zones to fill the world and decrease the population in high pop zones to allow for easier questing. This is so you always see a suitable amount of players in the world. This is zone based.

Layering doesn’t fill dead zones with players nor does it thin out zones when there are too many players. It also isn’t zone based, it is continent based. It’s used to prevent server merges due to low population when the initial wave of tourists leave by instead merging or getting rid of layers after a certain point. If you see BroX one day on the same layer, the next day he is on another layer, eventually you will see him again either on a relog or a few weeks in when layers are removed. Layers are said to each have a pop that is comparable to a max pop Vanilla realm. If a layer is too packed and questing is hard - oh well. That was vanilla, too.

Better? They work similarly in that they provide instances of the realm, but in very different ways with very different objectives and very different implementation.