Layering vs. No Layering (Post Stress-Test) - Which is Better?

WoW Classic WoW Classic General Discussion
25

except it’s not.
US servers=in the US.
Pvp servers= won’t be able to group up with pve servers.
Rp servers= won’t be able to group up with other pve vs pvp servers.

ETC ETC. You suggestion is a solution to a problem blizz believe to have solved.

26

yes i know there are rulesets between the parts of the cloud. and that oceanic has its own cloud. but what i’m saying is there’s not as many individual parts, just individual codes all functioning under the cloud’s ruleset. a server is not a physical thing, it’s a layer of the cloud. everything’s code. the hardware is supporting the whole cloud.

27

Prevents dead realms, tackles lag issues. What’s the potential for screw up in lifespan?

28

completely can break the economy early in the game and lend itself more to PS style gameplay with heavy overuse of flasks for example.

29

You people need to understand they spent last 2 years working on this, adapting it to new client, and you think they’ll keep this layering more than needed for first month, for whichever reason crossed your mind, and risk a failed project? They want this to succeed as much as we all do.

We’ll see how they tackle that, I heard that layers will share the same nod spawns, so maybe they still manage to keep it server-wide and prevent influx of herbs and ores that’s greater than anticipated.

30

I think layering SEEMS fine at first glance, but problems start to arise around the language they use when referring to it - no real certainty, “only the first couple of weeks, maybe a month; DEFINITELY gone by the end of Phase One.”

Based on the flexible terms used before the “definitely gone by end of Phase One”, it fills me with doubt that they will stick to this. As a user above stated, what if populations stay around 10k into Phase Two? then we all get suddenly jarred into the reality of the realms population, which we have been able to artificially avoid.

Without layering, sure we have a few problems at launch for the first few weeks, but we adjust! People realise certain servers are going to be packed forever( à la Blackrock from Vanilla) and start rerolling on other servers before they hit level 20/30. We then end up with healthy server populations, more spread out.

I get that this may not be a problem in the end if half the population go “You know what J, you’re right, I thought I wanted this…” and then never log on again, but this just seems flawed, and not in the spirit of Classic.

We are never going to get rid of all the problems, so let’s just have Vanilla, with all of the Vanilla problems, like the vanilla crusaders have been yearning for.

31

At this point I believe no layering is best.

32

just have both options – servers using layering and servers not using layering. call the ones that dont use layering, hardcore and warn people who select hardcore of the inevitable long login queues and the fact the hardcore server will likely lag behind in server progression as a result.

1 Like
33

No layers = lot of empty and dead realms. Can’t merge because you force renames. Layering is safety for merging layers rather than merging realms. And if there’s a realm that remains at 10k players, no idea what the plan is there, maybe it’ll remain a bigger realm, or have queue.
Also merging realms means you merge with strangers from other realms, while merging layers means you merge with people from your own realm, whether you met them or not, they’re from your realm.

1 Like
34

What they did in the past, Offer free server transfers out of the overpopulated servers into a new one.
Enough people will want to dodge the queue times to come and move willingly.
It’s far easier and less harrowing to unload people from overpopulated servers than merge dead ones forcing some players to change their character names and some guilds change their names.

Like it or not but Layering is the better option and it’s also a short term solution to an issue that would be a long term problem.

2 Likes
35

can merge if the server folder has the same character database for all layers. cause it’ll tell ya nope. name taken. that will take the longest thing to do in character creation - find a name that isnt taken

36

Well that’s the thing with layers, they’re realm-wide, on 1 realm, and realm can have only 1 unique name. So there won’t be anyone with your name in another layer, and when all layers are removed after the first month or so, you won’t be forced to rename of course.

37

True. But that’s not too big a problem, and it is also what happened in Vanilla. As I said, there will be problems no matter what they do - I just feel that making new problems instead of having he Vanilla problems is a risk.

There will be ways of abusing layering and switching from layer to layer with friend invites. That being said, if the “cup” only fills up one and a quarter times, or one and a half times, then layering would be a faultless solution, but thats not the vibe I was getting from listening to some interviews with Blizzard employees talking about it.

1 Like
38

dont have to force people to change their character name if all layers on a server are using the same character database. would just take forever to find a name that wasnt already taken

39

correct! :sunglasses:

40

I don’t know if you remember old vanilla problems, but it wasn’t pretty, dc’s, lag, queues, dead realms. I’ll take layering any day to prevent this in first month and then have no layering for remainder of Classic.

You won’t have 100% vanilla experience first month, as you’ll know there’ll be layers on your realm, but after it’s gone, you won’t have to deal with any of the old problems, and you’ll have no layering or sharding either. Works great tbh.

1 Like
41

With server technology today, I wouldn’t expect DC’s and Lag for the launch, just queues, mob competition and dead realms. But i’m no IT expert

If it is the first month and it goes, then no problems! It’s jsut the uncertainty that they will remove it that I find awkward. If they just said “for 3 weeks” and were definite wit the language, I would be a happy chappy

42

I think they are aiming at around 10000 concurrent with this layering for the launch. 10000 names is not much unless a player wants to be Legolas or Gimli.
Besides they are opening the character creation 1½ weeks in advance.
I think everyone can manage to pick a name in 1½ weeks and if not they got bigger problems than that.

43

So long as it’s temporary I’m fine with layering at the start. It’ll only be active until those who’re just seeing what the fuss is about and have not intention of playing properly quit.

A stable launch experience matters more to me personally.

44

DCs maybe, lag definitely if you had a million people at launch, it’s huge number of people to handle, queues are terrible, you’d sit for hours and wouldn’t be able to get in since to get further in queue, someone needs to log off first, mob competition will still be there, and dead realms don’t happen on start, and it’s not something you can counter, people on some realms will just quit, you can’t prevent that. Except you can, with layering.

If you got no layering, you got bunch of 3k realms, and some realms will lose nearly all population, you’ll be left with 300-400 players, and they’d need to transfer and rename. With layering, you got layers totalling in let’s say 9k per realm, which means even if majority leaves, u got 2.5-4k people left.