They should use it to solve the problem.
They should not use it any more or less just for the sake of making people feel better about it.
So what happens if because sharding is used at your behest from 1 to 20, they make it to 20+. Do we then kick sharding in for 20 to 30?
Less is more with sharding.
1 Like
If I care about the game I’d just do a queue and be done with it. You say that you can’t do something that will get you fired, but if that gets you fired, you’re working for the wrong company.
If I don’t care about the game then I implement sharding, CRZ, queues, increase max servers size and do it globally permanently. That’s more likely to get me fired than the first option though.
I completely get what you are saying - but your argument is an “out” than can be used for sharding forever. “What happens if there are X people in booty bay…” “what happens if there are Y people in this end zone, or that end zone”. It might never end
1 Like
Exactly right. Sharding is not a solution to overpopulation ‘problems’. It’s a band-aid, and one I’m worried will be used for any such scenario.
My original idea had clear end points for sharding, and I noted that beyond that it should absolutely never be used under any circumstance even if it means queues and over-crowding.
20 is just the point chosen where the tourists should be dropped off. If they keep playing past that, they’re not really a tourist.
Sure you can “what if they use it past that?”, but what if Blizzard changes their mind on insert literally anything here?
We can “what if” until the end of time. It’s not a terribly good argument.
I can’t see Blizzard doing this. They want people trying the game out, and if people hit queues for several days straight, that’s going to be a pretty serious deterrent.
Hell, I want more people trying it out, because I think we’re going to be finding plenty of current players that are surprised to be enjoying it far more than they expected.
The easy answer to this question, is that unlike the 1-6 areas specifically, any given player has plenty of options of places to go once they’re out in the larger world. Don’t like the congestion? Check some other zones out.
Exactly - sufficient servers rapidly deployed once true interest is shown is the way. Otherwise they will say “everyone is enjoying the game WITH sharding - keep it as its what we do in retail and it works for us”
1 Like
Sharding is fine if it really is only early zones and for a few weeks. Its something to worry about if its all zones and goes towards end game
1 Like
Oh yeah I 100% hope so and it goes quickly, so they can remove it. But I’ve just accepted it’ll be a part of the early leveling experience haha, and hope it will help preserve long term server health.
If you care about the game, if you care about the game longer than 6 months, then you embrace sharding. It’s a much better problem for Blizzard to slowly add new realms later if population pressures remain than to have to deal with dead servers later. Dead servers are an anathema, and Classic has no options to resolve a dead server problem now, or even long term. No good options.
Better to suffer through sharding now in the short term than dead servers in the mid to long term.
2 Likes
If sharding is limited to the “starting zones”, how would that affect “farming level 48’s”?
2 Likes
Pservers show a much larger amount of Undead and Human characters, than the rest.