Layer Hopping now has Internal Cooldown

WoW Classic WoW Classic General Discussion
617

You can get the benefits of layering/sharding without it bleeding into the higher level zones where people like to pvp. This also solves the issue of people layer hoping for high level nodes too.

1 Like
618

Indeed, and those weren’t merges, but “connections” So you’d have ‘Balanor-Maelstrom’ and ‘Balanor-Lightninghoof.’

619

True, it wouldn’t have been necessary to merge servers during that time. They were making more.

620

Exploits: They are actively working to limit the exploits.

Bosses: As to world bosses, those won’t be present til phase 2 and layering will be gone.

Abundance of Resources: Layers act like servers. Whether those servers are together or separate still results in 1 to 1 ratio of players to resources.

Screwed up Auction House: Same 1 to 1 ratio on supply and demand.

1 Like
621

Making more indeed, not to great effect though. People typically join the already established, healthy, high populated servers. Most of the additional servers never took off in terms of population, and plenty more started waning by WotLK. Players congregate on as few servers as possible, so it’s best to minimize how many servers you have to create.

3 Likes
622

Hahahaha. I like your style. Oh yes the alliance blood, tears, and salt will flow like the Trident river.
Noob :tea: anyone?

1 Like
623

Yes, and Free Character Migrations off of over-populated realms also was a very Vanilla thing. They happened long before the paid migrations were available.

And oddly, Layering is designed to reduce the chances of a (non-vanilla) Realm-merge being needed sooner rather than later
 By making it more likely a (very vanilla) free character migration may be needed instead. I wonder
 :slight_smile:

3 Likes
624

Doesn’t stop you from hopping layers till you find one where there is a lower density of people farming the same area. Yes if fixes the single node farm but doesn’t fix you using it to avoid competition of resources.

Same as above

Doesn’t prevent you using it to get around being camped.

Great so now they don’t have to fight over the resource. This will have negative effects on the economy.

same as devilsaur

A 1hr cooldown would have little to no effect here. The only reason you need to transfer layers when playing with friends is to group up. Once a group is formed new friends can just use their cooldown as they log in to join you. again this is the only valid reason to hop layers period.

As I stated people keep telling us to treat layering like another server. Why does a PVP evcent on another server matter? Great arguement for why we just shouldn’t have layers in the first place though.

2 Likes
625

Why do we need layering in Alterac, Arathi, Desolace, STV and beyond?

626

Because it is still people that you will be playing with by time layering is gone. Its hard to keep passive-aggressive on these topics. I accept there are people that just don’t want layering to be in the game. But at the same time, those that don’t want layering have to accept that Blizz is not gonna change there mind on making use of Layering. You either take it for what it is worth or wait til phase 2 to play. Let’s be honest though, to argue so hard about it. You are gonna end up playing it with or without layering =P

2 Likes
627

Has nothing to do with the point’s I’m trying to make. My point is more about resources and consequences than anything else. Having little to no timer means there is little consequence to using server hops
 When you allow people to just move layers easily it allows them to avoid competing over resources. While on paper everyone having ready access to resources may sound like a good idea what end’s up happening in the end it you completely throw off the economy. That will have a long lasting negative impact. I want the game to remain healthy through all of the phases. A healthy economy is essential for that and competition is essential for a healthy economy.

Huh? Who is being passive aggressive?

Fair point but that is all the more reason to argue the points of HOW to make it more acceptable and less destructive. All the more reason to be more vocal about them.

628

I was. Typically the form of speech that is best to use when communicating differential views and trying to be convincing. But sometimes it just feels like you hit a wall cause people don’t want to budge. I can’t be upset at people for sticking to there opinions. Its just frustrating.

629

The only people I’ve seen say that are the people who don’t want layering.

630

I have used the comparison as well, but to a less literal sense. I meant it more as the layers contain the amount of players you would see on a Vanilla server in the past. But instead people see it as if they are like servers, then they should be servers. I mean 3,000 people on multiple servers will end up dwindling pretty dang quickly for that authentic Vanilla experience. But that doesn’t seem to be the actual view/goal of those opposing layering.

1 Like
631

I hope they actually try to concentrate all of the higher-level characters onto a single layer and make it near impossible for them to leave it. IE: Anybody who groups with them joins their(the higher leveled toons) layer, not the other way around–and “fall” back to another layer if they’re “a lowbie,” are no longer grouped with a high-leveled toon, and join a group with another lowbie.

632

Ahh. I will have to disagree with you on that one. I’m more of a lay all the ideas out and sort through them with till understanding is achieved with no regard for the amount of effort or time required to do so personality. To do that one must be blunt and dispassionate.

1 Like
633

It is actually likely that this will happen naturally anyways. Guilds will get locked to a layer as is. Eventually it is more likely guilds will merge into the same layer. So you naturally move towards this without there being a layer set for it.

634

me too. level 54 druid. level 49 cleric. 44 chanter. 30 something bard. 19 necro. 17 mage

635

I’ve seen many people saying similar things as an argument of why layers are different than shards so those of us who view them as similar and equally destructive are incorrect.

For myself and those that think like myself it’s more about them not being discreet layers. Instead their playerbase and thus resources malleable and linked. If layering was “Hey we have 4 layers for this server and once you join one you are stuck on it till the merge with the only exception being joining a group will temporarily move one of you at random to the other persons layer untill you leave group. All action houses are layer dependent and cannot be used by people not native to the layer. In addition only items found while in the group can be traded to other group members.” then I would have very little problem with it.

636

You’re making it more complicated than it needs to be.