Just call it what it is, it's sharding


#27

We need a blue post detailing what are their plans for layering and how it will work. I would like it if they make it so you can only loot quest items. Big no for gathering resources or looting rares/chests.


(Swani) #28

To my understanding, that’s not how it will work. You are talking about one massive mega-server, with no actual need for a realm other than by name. We will get realms, and there will be something like up to 3 or 4 layers to a realm max, with each layer capable of holding up to 3000 people. When the tourists leaves and logins becomes more spread out, and concurrent players over a period is vanilla cap like, they will collapse the layers to one single realm. That mean you will be on a realm with something like max 12k players on launch. You will encounter some of the same people during that time, and it sounded like they already had considered putting people on layers where their guild is (No evidence so far though)

That’s how I understand it.


#29

IMO it’s better not to waste time speculating on what layering/sharding/etc. will look like at launch. Video game companies are notorious for saying one thing and delivering another. Remember how they said sharding would work, compared to how they say it will work now? The original plan has already changed.

Maybe layering will be seamless and awesome, or maybe classic will be plagued by people not being able to see each other throughout its existence. We won’t know until the final build is released and everyone is playing it.

Until then, best to not get your hopes up. Remember every “Star Wars” movie that had an awesome trailer and ended up being mediocre. Hype is hype, nothing more.


#30

Depending on the maximum number of player per server I’d probably still prefer a que as opposed to layering; given the info we have currently. I think high pop could be just as damaging as low pop.

This is just speculation…

Guess we’ll find out on release, hope they address this layering issue in depth.


(Swani) #31

You will still get queues though. If 3100 people login to the same realm, it is not like they will make a separate layer for just 100 people.


#32

Sharding and layering have all the same problems, and the most obvious and important problem they share is that they weren’t in vanilla.

Renaming sharding to layering will fool a lot of people. This thread is proof of that, but no matter the subtle differences between them, neither should be in Classic.


(Swani) #33

yea, but that boat probably already sailed. Doesn’t matter at this point, how much we scream and yell. We all have opinions on how Blizzard should run their company, and to a large extent, they have given us what we want. I don’t mind giving them some slack if they deem it necessary to have a perfect launch and healthy realms going forward. On the other hand though, if it isn’t gone before phase 2, I’ll be right there venting and unsubbing.


#34

Blizzard: We want to stress test the servers for population density.
Also Blizzard: We want layering in case of too many players.


#35

You need to know somethings breaking limit so you know how much reinforcement it needs. You realize jets dont actually need 4 engines to carry all that cargo right?


(Mathrenas) #36

I think I’d rather take right-click report, layering for a month, and loot trading in a raid over dyanmic respawns, no regional locks, mafias, and corrupt producers any day.


#37

Sharding/Layering isn’t going to help tell you that limit.


#38

Thats why you do a baseline test. I wouldnt be surprised if the first stress test didnt have any layering at all. Or if it does the player limit would be based off of retail’s limits.


(Mizterdots) #39

ahhhh okay, so layering doesn’t do x realm, it instances people on the same realm. I thought that’s what it was, but wanted clarification on it. Ty for that vid.


#40

It was one of the questions asked by the streamers. BFA has a Nsquared problem on the networking side because of all the “extras” that have been layered on gear, abilities and enchantments. Classic doesn’t have that overhead, it shouldn’t be a problem. But then, that’s why you stress test, so you can verify it isn’t a problem.


(Switzy) #41

What you just described is exactly what I’m saying. CRZ mixes realms such that you’re much less likely to see the same players as you level. Layering randomly logs you into a layer such that your much less likely to see the same players as you level.

Layering may be less impactful than CRZ, and have fewer disappearing players than sharding, but it still has elements of the worst of these two systems.


(Swani) #42

Yes, but layering also ensures all layers shares the same general chat, shares the same AH and so on. Only thing you don’t share between layers, is the world. It is still the same realm.


#43

I’m on and off regarding layers. It’s actually similar to an idea I had about this where instead of sharding we’d just have a bunch of servers with the same name that would be condensed later. (moonguard1, 2, 3) etc. with them all linked from the beginning so the names wouldn’t be shared.

I remember Ironsides posting basically the same thing a while back as well. so this seems to be that similar idea.


(Swani) #44

Yea, you could call a layer a form of mini-server connected with another mini-server. Like an ice-cube tray almost.


(Switzy) #45

Yes, players will be on the same realm, but each layer is essentially its own server. Player interaction takes place on many levels; guild, friends, random encounters, and chatting. Layering has a direct, negative effect on random encounters.


#46

Some of you would complain about the font they use to write blue posts about Classic. It’s going to be what it is, your griping won’t matter, so let it go.