Layering: Few Weeks or Phase 1

For all the people saying that Blizzard never promised they’d remove layering after a few weeks

Timestamp: 6:00:

We’re going to continue that process over the first few weeks, till eventually we will collapse down, and we promise we will do this a few weeks in, to a single world per realm, no sharding, none of that going forward.

Then the bit that gets the wrong attention.

We know that needs to happen before we do something like turn on the World Bosses for example. When we have Kazzak and Azuregos, there needs to only be one Kazzak ever. If the entire server wants to kill each other and fight over it for five hours, that’s what they should do. The answer can never be “Oh we’ll just have a second Kazzak.”. If we do that, its not Classic.

So, yes, Ion did PROMISE that they would remove layering within the first few weeks.

I look forward to the 90 degree shift from people saying “They never promised” to “We can’t trust them”.


Layering will exist as long as it’s necessary, or until the end of phase 1 (unless they change their minds).

In fact, it is in Blizzard’s self interest to make as few servers as necessary (which is something they have confirmed is their intention) which increases the likelihood of layering lasting for all of phase 1.

Why? Because if layering is still necessary after phase 1, when all the tourists have gone home, Blizzard gets to go to the industry press and brag about how Classic WoW is more successful than they could have possibly imagined! And hold up as proof the fact that they’re making new servers to handle the load since layering won’t work with world bosses.


Where did they say it will extend until the end of Phase 1?

I literally just transcribed the quote you’re relying on.


Realm population will dictate when layering ends.
You really think 60% of a server population is going to quit on week 2 ?
And this would be 60% on each realm.

I don’t see that happening. If anything I can easily see layering lasting all the way up to phase 2 and my concern is what happens if the majority of players do not quit and you still have 9K-10K on a realm at the end of phase 1.

Northdale jumped up on population by 4K when the beta started…folks that didn’t make it.
Total pop there spiked at 14K on Saturday…14K.


I extrapolated it from their guarantee that it will definitely be gone before phase 2.

90% by week 4 actually. I’m expecting a massive turnout from all the retail players to ‘poke their head in’, maybe 2-4 million, dropping down to maybe 400k a month after launch, then slowly starting to creep back up as others come back to the game, and stabilising around maybe 500k-750k.

If I’m wrong great, but the point still stands that Blizzard did not say “By the end of Phase 1” as the goal for removing layering. Ion promised a few weeks, and in lieu of anything else, that’s where we’ll expect it.

what people dont understand is that the integrity of classic as an mmo rests solely on Kazzak’s broad sexy shoulders, layering literally cannot exist in the same universe as a world boss, it is 1000% impossible


Blizzard, and Ion as a lawyer especially, are masters of language.

A few weeks is an indeterminate amount of time. A few weeks could be 3… could be 5… some can get away with 6-7 weeks when compared to the 104 they expect to get out of the game.

When they state a time… Like August 27… THAT is a commitment… a “promise”.


Considering that Phase 1 is likely to be 4 months, there’s no way you can equate 12 weeks with even 6.

If they can kill it off earlier, I’m sure they will. That’s why they aren’t giving a date beyond “a few weeks”.

1 Like

Until they remove it, it’s just their word as it’s always been and how my negative attitude towards the system has always been geared.

Related: They didn’t promise NOT to bring it back later.


Sorry, but yeah, they did. “None of that going forward” is part of the promise.

1 Like

Agree Threemini. They committed to having no layering when phase 2 starts.

“A few” is what they said. Now we can debate how many weeks defines “a few”.

If you say “12”, you’re not debating in good faith.

The definition of “a few” is more than one.

See how opened ended that is ?

If you’re talking reasonable statements, its less than 5.

See how closed off that is?

Still, point stands that they did promise a few weeks.

Just throwing this out there but the english used, especially the term ‘going forward’, is not directly indicative of a promise not to add it in the future, just that it will be collapsed into one with no layering or sharding NOT that it absolutely will not be added later.

1 Like

Always count on you to deliver spoon fed knowledge.

Yet… many statements made before… and always changing

“None of that going forward” is a promise not to use any of “that” (sharding, layering, etc) in the future.

I’m not sure how any reasonable person could read it any other way.

1 Like

Only siths deal in absolutes?