This is the exact sheepful thinking blizzard promotes and wants. Anyone who has an opinion of their own knows blizz makes bad decisions over n over again. The ones that remain and play the abomination that is retail are people like this person

Yes, a “huge” launch considering the limited number of servers they are offering. Look this is simple really… Blizz knows they will turn off far more players with queues than the will with layering. Its just a fact.

The retail crowd is used to dealing with phasing and sharding, won’t bother them. Returning vanilla players are old and don’t have the time to waste sitting in queues. Hardcore #nochanges crowd will play regardless of the cries over layering.

So the only question here is whether or not you griefing other players as a form of protest is going to negatively affect your time in game. Even if we imagine the servers have 28385829 players, do you really believe you solo griefing one group of players at a time will make a difference? :joy:

no, because 25314611 players will also be griefing, because that is the experience having that many players leads to, one where no single player matters at all and can do and get away with anything lost in the flood of players, just like retail.

vanilla was a completely different experience precisely because there were not that many players per server.

Vanilla was different because you relied on players from your server to progress, the amount of players didnt come into it. If we were talking about mega servers hosting millions of players or even hundreds of thousands I could see your argument. If you play up, you will develop a reputation and you will find it harder to progress.

I’ll be rolling heals, same as I did in vanilla. Better believe the first rogue to need on that int mace is copping a blacklist. Will that mean they will never find a group? No. Will it mean I will never group with them again? Yes. Thus my personal gaming experience is safe.

1 Like

layered realms are mega servers. there will be tens of thousands of players on your server.

sure, each individual layer is vanilla sized, but you have access to each and every layer and all the players on them with a simple hop. no, you won’t develop a reputation on a server with that many players.

1 Like

To be clear, Saqe is an unrepentant troll and you fell into his response.

Did he say “i promise”? I totally do not remember hearing that part.


Well that sounds pretty clear and convincing to me. I don’t know why people are still making an issue. He said the right things and people act like he said “you will be layered and you will like it!!”. lol. If it doesn’t happen then I expect to see some well earned raging on the forums. Seems a bit early for that to me.

1 Like

How are we to become friends if we begin our relationship with you calling me a sheep? I may not be able to form an opinion of my own, but there are worse things…like sheep.


1 Like

If they couldn’t panic about this, what is left to panic about? Beta is all but over, and only the Hunters have real cause for concern.


Glad I don’t play hunter. lol. It would be nice to see some happiness around here for a change. :slight_smile:

Again: NO ONE who is going to be playing Classic to have fun is going to be bothered by a short period of overcrowdedness.

It’s not an argument for your ‘solution’ if the argument flies just as easily for ‘the problem’.

Again, you’re the one panicking over early overcrowdedness.

Why do you do everything backwards?


Yeah, to use us as a test bed without harming retail.

Except your statement is a logical mistake.

No-one is going to be playing Classic and having fun because the vast majority all going to be getting frustrated in queues.

Great, because your statement is flawed, therefore mine must be perfect right? That’s how this works?

Define overcrowdedness. Cramming people into quest zones by the thousands is not Vanilla. And we’ve already been told by Blizzard that they won’t accept long queues.

You’re stuck between a rock and a hard place, and you’re demanding that the sea won’t rise.

1 Like



I’ve given Blizzard one month. If layering is still in the game after a month, I’m out. It’s already bad enough that layering will exist in the worst time period for layering, the launch period when everyone is leveling, but extending it beyond a month exceeds my willingness to tolerate it.


For a few weeks at most.

No big deal.

It’s really not that difficult to grasp.

Once again: if Layering is “no problem because it’s only for a few weeks”, then I will argue the exact same thing for early launch overcrowdedness and login issues.

Not in the slightest, and I am not even going to bother to try and untangle that twisted logic you are trying to use.

A lot of people in a zone. Gee, that was hard to define.

It’s a Launch experience. Big, frigging, deal?

Yes, we have.

And I disagree.

What’s your point?

I was only replying to you to point out the ridiculousness of your arguments in favor of Layering.


Don’t bother replying to elolrael he/she/it doesn’t have the basic comprehension required to understand why layering is bad for the game. Unworthy of attention

Nope. If people are stuck in queues, that bulge won’t disperse for far longer, so we might even get a “all of phase 1” long queues, which would be counted by both Blizzard and public perception, as a failure.

The two solutions are not identical nor do they have the same outcome, despite your desire to claim so, in order to validate your position.

Ok, great. You will have what you desire. You’re arguing against something giving you what you want. How hard is this to understand? A layer is designed to give you a 3k player experience, regardless of the number of people on the server. There will be competition. There will be a need to group up. There will not be 1000 players in Elwynn Forest like Mogar wants, because that is not an authentic 3k experience.

So you want to change the game away from Vanilla now? That’s what you’re arguing for if you say you want more people than Vanilla ever had, in each zone.

So… you’re a troll? Got it.