Exactly. I wouldn’t be surprised if the Pareto Principle applies to WoW population distributions in that 80% of the overcrowding has been on only 20% of the Classic servers due to those being the “cool” ones that many people want to play on.
2 Likes
Some servers are meant to die. That doesn’t mean all of the servers had to be screwed from the get-go.
2 Likes
Wrong ques do not get worse without layering. Layers just prevent the areas in the world from being overpopulated, so to speak, everyone on every layer is on the same server, they all still contribute to the que times.
1 Like
saw a guy on an epic mount today
1 Like
Um… thats not how that works…
blizz can let 15k on a server but they are not gonna and that would be FAR less authentic than layering.
So if they want 3k people per server with layering they can have 5 layers and 15k players on a server but each one feels like it has the correct 3k people.
If they didnt have layers they would just restrict the servers to 3k people and those other 12k players would be put into the queue.
2 Likes
Any data you gather is corrupted and worthless based on one thing, you’re only asking for negatives…if you were genuinely trying to discuss the issues, you would want both sides of the coin, but you clearly just want to make the next layering thread whinepost.
I’ve never had a queue for login, I haven’t noticed it’s impact on my gameplay in the slightest and I can understand the reasons for it like preventing wasteland servers and failed from day 1 servers.
We have tourists from refail and the combined sub to blame for it, perhaps if subs were separated we wouldn’t see wild swings in populations and server numbers would have been more predictable.
None of that can be quantified yet either because the game hasn’t even been released for 1 month. Pretty obvious troll attempt to anyone with basic thought processes unhindered by misguided rage.
2 Likes
Soif this was the route to take, the only fix are server merges. This is what I assume you would think would be the fix and it probably is the only thing that could be done.
But I present you the unfair to some problem they are avoiding with this. Who gets to keep their names that will mostly inevitably be taken by another? And what kind of reputation confusion would this cause with the 2 communities merging and knowing certain names by a certain reputation? This also applies to duplicate guild names.
It may seem like a minor issue to worry about but in vanilla/classic, character identity and server reputation is a huge investment. It wouldn’t be fair to lose your character identity due to arbitrary choices.
1 Like
Absolutely no issues with layering for me and I’m pretty sure it’s almost unnoticeable for the vast majority of players.
I’ve heard some hardcore groups abused the system to get a slight edge in their rep farming or something like that, if that’s the case then sure, that’s gotta be fixed just for the sake of keeping the game fair, but tbh all that has zero impact on my gaming experience, most of us are just enjoying the game, questing normally and running dungeons I don’t see how any of that affects us.
2 Likes
Merging isn’t the only solution. But enough with errrmahgawd mah name. Blizzard could let you choose a sur name, like I could be Reece Kelly and someone else could be Reece Biggerspoons or w/e. No, sur names weren’t in Vanilla, but neither was layering and sur names don’t affect game play.
Likewise guild names would go something like, Gin of Westfall, or, Gin of Bigglesworth. Rift did this 10 years ago and no one got triggered or confused.
Not only did they not have to implement layering, they shouldn’t have. What are they going to do with dead servers in the future?
1 Like
More evidence: https://us.forums.blizzard.com/en/wow/t/blizzard-just-hotfixed-the-ability-to-detect-layers-using-who-command
1 Like
You have no idea what you are talking about.
Or you could just play the game and enjoy yourself.
Sorry I understand how layering works… maybe you should look into it.
How is this coming along? Streamers on Twitch are still abusing layering exploits.
1 Like
I normally run 2 accounts. The two characters are rarely in the same layer unless I group them, which I don’t want to do, as the lower level will lose xp if they are grouped so the higher level can skin her kills.
We all know that layering has negative effects on gameplay. It’s just that these effects are not considered as bad as longer queues or dead servers in 6 months.
2 Likes
This is the most frustrating part about the people who don’t understand why Layering exists. Threads like these prove that a non-trival percentage of the community feels like Blizzard is going to read it and go “Wait… layering has undesired consequences? OH MY GOD. ALL SERVERS GOING DOWN FOR EMERGENCY MAINTENACE.”
Like you said, it’s a calculated change with known benefits and detriments with the end goal of long-term server health. The problem is that, if this is as effective as Blizzard expects it to be, nobody is going to notice/care that layering did its job and only remember that one twitch clip or that one thread that showed someone getting benefit from layering.
1 Like
Layering amd layering exploits absolutely do not have to be hand in hand.
Fix the massive exploits but keep layering until no longer needed.
1 Like
I 100% agree with this, but developers don’t intentionally leave exploits in code. Users find exploits, abuse them and then developers close them.
So as long as Blizzard is on top of fixing them, I think that’s the best we can hope for.
Any update from OP?