Here’s reality. You’re getting layering whether you want it or not. To the extent we don’t know. Non-layered servers won’t exist at the start of Classic. That bubble you live in was popped a while ago.
2 Likes
The advantages of layered outweigh non-layered.
Which server type is going to give a smoother experience at launch? Layered
Which server type is gonna lead to less servers being made? Layered
Which server type will likely not end up as a dead server which results in wasted investment? Layered
Which server type is easier to plan around? Layered
Which server type is favored with queue times? Layered
Feel free to present advantages that non-layered have over layered servers.
1 Like
They have Live WoW for new content. This is how they retain existing customers and attempt to pull new ones.
Classic is not for new customers, even if they are welcome, it’s for one purpose. The abandonware defense.
Adding new content is bad in this case.
I think it’s fairly safe to say more than 3,000 people would prefer to play on a realm without layering.
If there aren’t queues, then layering isn’t even needed.
I won’t argue this point. There are people that would play on a non-layered server, including myself. Its just not the reality we will get.
1 Like
I’d argue that I’m offering more solutions than blizzard is. there isn’t really an answer to “dead server” as everyone points out this is a temporary solution that doesn’t fix what they’re claiming is the issue. and speaking of ignoring the issue, what exactly was your reason for why this is a bad idea? or the negative effects of it? because picking one or other has MORE negative issues than giving the option for both and letting payers decide.
Explain then.
The end result will be the same. For some reason you think that non layered servers will attract only people who will be long term players. It is far more likely that you will see close to the same spread of players joining both server types. The difference is that when the dust settles, the non layered servers will all be dead. This will result in those left being able to free farm the server which will be far more damaging to the economy than layers. You will then need Blizzard to step in and merge the non layered servers which will destroy what little community each server has built.
2 Likes
Lets say you have 10 customers, 4 of those customers want regular milk and those 4 people hate strawberries, like absolutely loathe strawberry milk for their personal preference, 4 of the 6 remaining want Strawberry milk, they gotta have it, they don’t want regular milk, and the last 2 don’t care they’re fine for either one.
now blizzard has a few pitchers, one jug of milk and a box of strawberry powder, now, what happens if blizzard pours that powder directly into the milk and distribute it to everyone, the strawberry milk isn’t better or worse but it’s going to have those 4 people who wanted regular milk really pissed off, they saw they had the ability to get what they want and it’s actually really easy to do, in fact to not give them that option requires MORE work to take it away in the first place, or flip it and just say no one gets the powder and everyone gets regular milk, same issue the OTHER 4 are still going to be livid they saw they had the option and that to enable it would have been really easy but they didn’t do it.
Now what if I told you, they could pour that milk into 5 pitchers and put the powder in only two of them. even if that powder is only available a limited time and goes away, wouldn’t it have been better to offer the option and avoid the whole drama? Are they willing to risk subs and a pissed off fan base at the launch of their new cash cow? and to be fair if we’re taking in account the internet, you’re not going to have 10 out of 10 pleased, there will always be a small minority that is always pissed, but if you’re trying to argue that less people will be pissed by taking away options, then I have on idea what to say to you because there would be no reason in your argument.
1 Like
That was pretty long winded and a bit too complex. I understand economics when it comes to variety. However, this is a case where variety does not play a part. Layered or non-layered, the game basically functions exactly the same. The difference being given is which is more playable. Which is the standard to be set for all players to experience as to prevent as you put it with the milk analogy. Somebody comes in and has no idea which milk is what. They take one that has the strawberry and utterly dislikes it. God forbid trying another one after that displeasure.
In any case. Keep trying to fight for this. All servers are going to be layered at the beginning. They will adjust the layer cap over the coming weeks. It will be gone by phase 2. If you honestly think layering will break the experience for you (though clearly by communicating so much you will probably play regardless) then just wait til phase 2.
you messed up right there, that argument is that on average the person willing to take the bigger risk on a server that may not be around is someone who on average will stick around through more crap. but even with this said it doesn’t matter, that’s not the argument even being made, the intent behind giving players the option is to pick what aligns more with what they want, because you do not have anything to support your claim or ANYONE’S CLAIM that “”"
and I can say this for certain because there has never been an event you’d be able to make those comparisons with, the closest thing you can make this argument for would probably be OSRS and to my knowledge they didn’t have ANYTHING similar to layering, so you’re saying the massive BILLION dollar company should make the decision to remove player choice and in the process piss off a significant portion of their player base in their new cash cow based on what? Wild speculation? that’s not a very convincing argument to limit players.
That is the only line that needs to really be said. The sentiment given is not one of selflessness. Not one that encapsulates players new, old, and those of Blizzard’s desires as one. But those of players that has nothing but selfish intent believing that pushing there agenda onto others will somehow be the best answer.
But that’s purely subjective, to many, having those exploits in the game is LESS playable because it messes with world pvp and early server farming exploiting the layering as much as possible.
If this was a feature that was apart of the game not something they recently put in ON TOP of the existing game then I could see the argument that it should be in, but it’s not something that was there, it’s not something that can truly be tested on the scale that is needed, but by making that new temporary feature mandatory feels foolish when it really does seem like something they can just turn on and off by the way they describe it. The only way I could be convinced from this position is if someone can give me a reason WHY the hardware just isn’t possible to be used like that? if it was some amalgam of server bits that they frankenstien’d together to make layering work I would drop this in a heart beat, but it feels more like just a console command.
I didn’t mess up at all. There is nothing to support your idea that only hardcore committed players will join these servers.
Wait, what? Are they deleting these servers if they fail?
Neither do you.
I’m not even sure how to respond to this. Mostly because I don’t know what you are trying to say. What does OSRS have to do with layering?
This isn’t about player choice. This is about long term server health. Layering offers a better chance at it. Giving players the choice to play on a server that will die, be able to free farm it, and then get merged or transferred to a server that isn’t being free farmed isn’t a choice that players should have. Layering isn’t going to last that long. If it is such a deal killer you can start playing a month or so after launch. Layering is the least harmful to the economy of all the options that have been suggested.
1 Like
These exploits are minimalistic in the grand scheme of things. Blizz is already working on measures to prevent exploitation when it comes to these various things. They can adjust it further if they see it is not discouraging. They have shown great communication in recreating the Vanilla experience. The only thing they ask of us in return is to give them the comfort that they deserve as a business. I merely stand with Blizzard in what decisions they make. I trust the Classic team for what they have shown thus far.
there you go again you dun effed up, I never said only hardcore committed player will join these servers and to assert this proves you misunderstand the entire point.
layers completely undermine the community driven vanilla experience. putting a few bandaids on the exploits won’t fix that. it’s a shame that most players who join classic will quit before getting the chance to see a replica of the real thing, and instead will get to experience retail with 1.12 balance
In this forum, a tiny microcosm of the expected player base, relatively few participants understand layering. And the OP expects putting layered/nonlayerd as a realm characteristic is going to split the players along some kind of play preference. Players are going to just jump onto the realm that is near the top of the list or is a name they like or a time zone they prefer.
2 Likes
Just conjecture. Classic will replicate the Vanilla Experience. Not the path that Vanilla treaded. They only need to use bandaids when layering has an expiration date put on it. I seriously don’t get why people are ignoring that fact of it only existing for the shortest period of Classic’s lifespan? This is what entitlement looks like.
1 Like
But there is nothing to support that these claims that it will be minimal the level at which those exploits impact people is not for you or I to claim, that being said NOW is that time for feedback, before it’s out, not after, I’m not convinced by a single action on anyone’s part but if blizzard is committed to listening to the players then we should speak out so they can know it does still bother us. That’s why I started this thread asking if there were any real downsides to this approach and it give the best of both worlds, feels simple enough based on how they’ve described everything. So far I have not actually heard any reason not to do a split approach, both sides say ‘oh it’ll be dead after two weeks’ for each other side, but can one provide one legitimate reason why this isn’t the simple solution that satisfies to the most people all while keeping blizzard fairly handoff for the populations. Aside from that the only other point is people claiming this ‘Isn’t an approach that deals with the issue’ but that also feels super silly because laying IS their answer, so if you’re saying incorporating their answer doesn’t answer anything, then why are we putting this divisive feature in the first place?