I have seen a few suggestions about offering nonlayered/sharded servers but wouldn’t that option just being there mean that their server population would be MORE stable than those who pick the layered ones? I mean even if it’s just in phase 1 that they have layering there, I would imagine that the only people who would even pick that one would be in it for the long haul even if it can be annoying AF at the start.
Tourists would funnel themselves to the layered ones, is there really a down side to this?
That would be true if blizzards hypothesis that people prefer layering over possible que times and crowding is correct. But I have a feeling that more people, when presented with the choice, would choose non-layered realms.
I mean, who really wants their entire world to be sharted on?
I did not say that ALL the people who want layered are tourists, I said that the TOURISTS would be drawn to the layered server. You’re assuming that I meant EVERY person on a layered would be a tourist.
The fact is, blizzard doesn’t know the answer to the question of what is more preferable to more people, and they won’t know unless they try it. Maybe it will even give them valuable data on how to proceed with retail.
That’s exactly how you worded it. Ever hear the saying “mean what you say and say what you mean”? Same thing applies to written and typed word. You literally took an entire group of people and shoe horned them into a set way of thinking.
True, no one knows, so wouldn’t it be smart to offer the option and let the players choose? especially if your player base is fairly split on it, it would literally give players the best of both worlds, those who want to wait and deal with crashes can, and those who are fine with some bugs and exploits can.
It would only be giving the players freedom to choose, if you’re picking one or the other and forcing it on people then I imagine the backlash would be worse as it removes choices.
Ever hear the saying “when you assume you make an ashs* out of u and me?” I said exactly what I meant, it’s not my fault that you inserted the “ALL” modifier to my statement.
As for Ziryus, really? and you can say for certain that every single individual sees that’s queue times and potential crash as worse than a split world/exploited economy? Can you really say that you know for certain the tastes and likes of every single player in the world? Boy you should really go into game design if you’ve got all that on lockdown, you could make a killing with your supreme knowledge of player behavior and universal preferences.
Do people want a cohesive world more than a possible log in que? All good hypothesis are testable, otherwise it’s just some random, ill thought out, idea or opinion. If the hypothesis is testable, and you don’t test it, then it is still an unfounded opinion.
Testing a hypothesis consist of a control group as well as a treatment group;
H1 The alternative hypothesis: This is the research hypothesis. It is the scientist’s speculation/prediction at the heart of the experiment.
H0 The null hypothesis: The is a statement that there is NO significant difference in groups, or more generally, that there is no association between two groups. In other words, it is describing an outcome that is the opposite of the research hypothesis. The original speculation is not supported.
I hope their tests find a way to fix any exploit and keep the community feeling whole, while some may argue one is better than the other I feel like there isn’t a balance between the two and that it just falls to preference in which many seem to have very strong feelings for their own individual side, and there doesn’t seem to be a way to properly test it before the real release, So given that either side will have problems with either set of issue, why not allow the players to choose that that best suites them? Why is it better for the company to assume the preference of all their player base and force them into one that could entirely turn them off? They wont have another chance at launching it really, so why make such a divisive choice for them?
There has been an option thrown around, that basically puts the layering option on the hearthstone cooldown by requiring a specific location to switch shards (layers), like the inn of a major city. While it would limit most exploits, it does nothing about the auto-layering that would happen and break world cohesiveness.
ok, so your argument is that the player, as an individual who knows their own history and preference would be WORSE at deciding what they PERSONALLY would prefer and should instead be decided by the corporation, who knows NOTHING about what the players want? I mean you do realize that blizzards stance on wow classic was “you think you do but you don’t” FOR YEARS! and it took many expansions and how many hundreds of thousands(millions?) of players BEGGING them to release classic, THOSE PEOPLE are the ones who you think will know best for everyone? Really?
![:stuck_out_tongue:](https://d38bqls1q93fod.cloudfront.net/en/wow/images/emoji/twitter/stuck_out_tongue.png?v=6" ":stuck_out_tongue:")