These two are running around spamming this on every layering post. Report and move on.
6 Likes
Nope. Thatâs reaching and projecting how you think people feel on others. The two arenât even connected. All I said is that it is a successful MMO, because it is, in response to you saying CRZ is game breaking, which itâs not.
None of that translates to all features of retail are great and should be implemented in classic.
Again, nice try though man. Keep going, itâs keeping me entertained at work destroying your arguments.
1 Like
Nah, I am on two posts today talking about it, thatâs it. We should be reporting you for trying to silence positive opinions. AKA fear mongering.
1 Like
Most layering post are fear mongering though?
1 Like
Mom⌠Dad⌠can you at least take it to a hotel please!?
1 Like
General chat=regional zone chat. Global chats like trade and world are server-wide. I played in both stress tests and seem to remember this being the case, but either way itâs the case in Retail and I donât see any reason why Blizz would change how their tech works for Classic when all it is is a modified continent-wide version of sharding.
What you state is an opinion, and one that the mmo genre at large, and WoW in particular, disagrees with. Youâre looking at layering as a convenience mechanic. Youâre flat out saying you should be able to solo your way through the experience.
Did Vanilla have layering to allow that kind of experience? No, players were compelled to group. And they did. And the game grew to 8 million strong. BfA has every convenience in the world and has whatâŚ1-2 million players? If your argument held true those numbers would be reversed.
The fact is mmorpgs are about the players. The players make the game. The players drive the experience. And if you disagree with that, thereâs plenty of current mmos that donât put community at the forefront. Starting with BfA. With the same $15 that gets you access to Classic, you can go play BfA where you can literally level 1-120 and be decked out in full epics without ever once interacting or even seeing another player. But to apply that same philosophy to Classic would be an utter disaster on Blizzardâs part. Classic needs to offer something radically different.
In any event, restrictions on layering are good. But I wonât be happy until itâs removed completely.
4 Likes
Caring about the game and pointing out exploits (at the request of Blizzard) is not âfear mongering.â
4 Likes
Blizzard has said that even with layering, there (likely) will be login queues to get into realms. Presumably theyâll have various threshold conditions setup. Prevailing theory to that statement(made before beta started) is that they would:
- Allow players to log in until they deem âa layer to be full.â
- At which point queuing begins.
- Once âenough peopleâ are in the queue to justify another layer being opened up, a new layer is created.
- Everyone previously queued is then allowed in at the same time.
- Load balancing between the pre-existing layers happens as new players log in until âall available layers are full.â
- Queues come back into being, and things go back to step 3.
So the scenario of 3000 people being in layer 1, and player number 3001 ending up in Layer 2 by their lonesome self isnât going to happen.
Instead they get to sit in queue until presumably a few hundred other players(or whatever threshold Blizzard has designated) join him in line, at which time they get a new layer of their own to invade.
I also doubt the âlaunch dayâ layer settings are going to be capped at 3K to start with, the bar is likely to be initially set at a much lower level. Because dumping 400 people into Northshire Abbey at the same time, at the same exact quest/leveling progression, isnât going to be a fun experience for anybody.
2 Likes
400 people on the same quest, and the same level of progression doesnât work.
Even 40 people in that scenario is a bit daunting to encounter. But yeah, dialing it down all the way to âthere are only 12 people hereâ is overkill. Really, I think the only good solution for âthe Northshire Abbey problemâ is to shard the Abbey, and shift to layering once they leave that specific sub-zone. At least once a player has made it to somewhere around level 5, they can stand a reasonable chance of being able to simply grind mobs in the world at large.
1 Like
Subs are at an all time low. Itâs hard to quantify a game thatâs at itâs lowest point ever as âsuccessful.â Iâd say itâs moving towards failure.
When Iâm fighting a mob or player and randomly get phased into a dozen players from a realm I never heard of, does it really matter what label you put on it? The end result is that subs are in the toilet, and no one cares about your nitpicky semantics.
1 Like
He also specifically said âthere will be 1,000 players in Elwynn Forrestâ in the same layer during launch, which the Stress Testâs have shown to not be a particularly good idea. The hardware appears to be capable of doing that, but the other related game systems make that experience a nightmare for the players.
What happens when you have two layers up and running and the populations of both dip to say 1000 each. Do they combine them?
Please elaborate.
I think that is why they did the layer adjustments during stress test. To figure out what probably feels like a good number.
1 Like
Sure.
If I log out and come back 10 minutes later, and there are multiple layers up, there is no guarantee I am getting back into the same layer I was in.
According to what Iâve read, your layer will be fixed upon character creation.
Regardless, still millions of subs and active players, thus successful MMO. And theyâre working on class fixes for 9.0. People are definitely still interested. And please elaborate and give concrete proof itâs at its lowest point ever.
Itâs not nitpicky just because you donât like facts and truth. Itâs part of the game mechanics, and the game works/people successfully play all day every day, so itâs not broken. I know you donât like facts but that doesnât make you any more correct.
Theyâve only said they have targeted numbers for Phase 1, (which have likely changed since then) but they werenât going to disclose those numbers for various reasons. They did say that their goal is for âVanilla population limitsâ on the realms by the time Phase 2 rolls around. The Vanilla population cap being widely understood to be in the 2,500 to 3,500 player concurrency levels.
Theyâve also said that âeach layer could hold âan entire realmâs worthâ of playersâ on their own. But again, that statement is pre-beta, and while the layer may be able to do that, other considerations may cause limits to be set much lower.
But going back to many speculating that Blizzard is probably targeting for approximately 10K players/realm on launch?
We have the 2010 statment from Mr. Morhaime saying that â70% of all players quit before they reached level 10â in World of Warcraft.
As such, 70% of 10K is 3K, so a 10K realm population cap is a likely target. It could be lower, it could be higher. Obviously Blizzard is keeping those numbers under wraps, and likely wonât ever make them public. (given the âRevolving door effectâ that a 10K player cap allows for, itâs likely to actually be set lower than that, IMO, but thatâs entirely speculation)
Players may be able to infer some of that information after launch, but otherwise itâs entirely speculation until then.
I wish that were the case. But I read that they are trying to make the layer sticky each time you login.
The problem with all of these conversations, is that Blizzard has done a really bad job explaining what their plans are.