https://i.redd.it/xpz3z1ly1dy21.png
At one point we had a painting. It was pristine and unblemished, and the people enjoyed it. Later, a woodchipper was introduced and the painting was torn to shreds. The people who wanted the pristine painting were angry, but there was nothing they could do but admire the scraps.
Then, a painter promised to recreate the old painting with as few blemishes as possible, and the people were ecstatic. However, the painter then proceeded to cut the painting into neat squares. Some of the people justified this, saying that he wasn’t using a woodchipper to cut the painting, so it was fine, and the squares were neat and orderly and there weren’t as many pieces as when the woodchipper was used. This didn’t, however, change the fact that the pristine painting was once again in pieces.
1 Like
- Blizzard originally suggested temporary sharding
- A significant outcry was raised: NO SHARDING
- If I understand layering correctly – I might not – then Blizzard is implementing temporary sharding at the server level, rather than zone/sub-zone level
That is called “compromise”.
2 Likes
But there are vague and unquantifiable differences that make it totally different.
And we’re unhappy with what had to be given up. That’s the starting point of the discussion.
Except, Blizzard can “shard” within a realm without bringing people in from another realm. It’s just very rare it happens to play out that way.
I think layering is a awesome idea vs sharding ok hold on hear me out here’s the example sharding can be abused while gathering any resource just simply go in and out of a area regathering the hard to find nodes but for layering a person would have to log out of the game and back in and hope you got put onto another layer and not the same one its a lot harder to abuse
The flip side is being happy with what was gained (i.e., no zone/sub-zone sharding). Put both sides together, and that is called “compromise”.
Taking blizzards word for anything?
How cute.
1 Like
AS DO OGRES! I learned that from Shrek.
In order for something to be a compromise both sides have to agree to it. We had this info dumped on us with no say in the matter. This is like calling the treaty of Versailles a compromise.
You can switch layers, IF you can find somebody who is in a different layer and they invite you to join their group.
1 Like
Blizzard is just politicians at this point, coining synonymous terms like:
layering and sharding
beta and marketing
summer and fall
the list goes on and on
Correct.
Incidentally im quite curious what’s weong with the orevious solution of queues and mergers…
Well then: Blizzard has offered a compromise. A sub is an agreement. Are you subbing? I am.
They want layering to cram as much people in one realm and once the people that didn’t like classic leaves, you will not end with a dead realm on week one. And the stress test is a way to collect data to know how many potential layers will be on each realm.
On the fence – layering, cross-realm BGs, and 1.12 AV taken together are a hard pill to swallow for me.
It seems like the calls are being made by guys that are trying to recreate the original pve feel of the game – not the original pvp feel.
1 Like
When people are in queue for 6 hours after work before bed, and literally cannot play. That causes a problem. Queues are fine if only like a 5-20 minute line.
Fair point. I was on the fence about bona fide sharding, personally. As far as that goes, I’m now willing to give it a shot.
It is an interesting call for me because it takes a real time sync to get to 60.
Trying to picture the end game pvp - and rapid fire BG queing just isn’t what I want to do.
1 Like