12 servers, yeah layering will be temporary. What if there are 1.2 million NA players, that’s 100k players per server. They won’t be able to get rid of layering at that point the servers will be a complete mess.
Honestly it was our fault. We demanded server names to predict where we were gonna play in big groups of players. Looks like through out the 15 years of WoW people have made a lot of new friends and explained to them how great the game was back in the day. So many people want to try it out or at least see how it compares.
I think if we didn’t know the server names until release we would have had guilds seperated in to different servers and not all packed into Herod. Server discussions allowed everyone to figure out where they wanted to go exactly. Picking on the fly usually spreads things out a lot more evenly.
Early access to things always hurts the outcome. I also think blizzard could have made more servers and just kept it to the 3-8k population no layering but it was already decided they were going to do that so that amount of servers including Stalagg is quiet okay to what they said they planned on doing.
Plus there really isn’t anything to blame. NOthing has happened yet. NOTHING. Things are projected to have issues. Blizzard just added Stalagg so we will see what happens. Give it time. Sometimes when things look like badluck or unfair you realize it was perfect for you to miss that chance to find something better.
Wait til something actually is a problem before complaining. They obviously are looking into solutions by adding another server. Let them work and do there thing.
Could Blizz have done a better job to project the Classic player population?
Could Blizz communicate more often?
Could Blizz have made the name reservation go smoother?
I’m not complaining. I’m challenging. You know the difference between the two.
I did not have a problem; however, I realize I was lucky as a couple of my guildies did experience those issues (we were all making our reses at the same time, in chat together).
I’m not convinced that we’re not going to get a quality product on launch day. The name reservations were meh, yes. In the end, though, it will be much worse for the health of this game to have a lot of dead servers in a few months than to have people wait in queue for the first few days after launch.
1 Like
That’s not how reality works.
4 Likes
This is true. The problem is, how can Blizzard balance that? Assume 1.2 million of their customers that quit and HATE Blizzard are coming back? They’ve given lots of opportunity for people to show interest and subscribe ahead of time to help with this problem but so many feel so scorned by Blizz that they are waiting til launch day to sub.
What happens if they open 30 servers, and 10 of them have healthy population and the other 20 are thin? Legit question, I’m not arguing.
2 Likes
Another person stating it was complaining. The intent is not to complain. The intent is to point things out and challenge. Disagreeing on whether is satisfactory or unsatisfactory is another thing. I want a good launch and there have been things so far that make me feel a smooth launch will not happen.
Everything has happened so far. Everything. Bread crumbs, my friend.
Worst case scenario, best thing I think they could do on launch is lock up the servers whose populations are rising out of control and spin up new servers based on the population in the queues.
If we have multiple servers that are at a stand still and say upward 20,30,40k queues, I’d say purposely boot them off so they can see the servers been locked but theres are now a few new server options.
1 Like
Lot of people here who are happy with mediocre. Not me.
1 Like
Seeing complaints like warms my heart. It reminds me that 90% of the people saying “remove layering, I’m fine with queues” are full of crap.
4 Likes
100% agree, but I will add that they erred on the side of caution too much.
Look on the server login screen, though. Stalagg is still at low pop.
If Stalagg fills up to Full between now and launch, then they’ll likely think about opening one more. But to my mind, this is 100% the way to handle it. Let servers fill up first, then consider opening more.
6 Likes
Be a slayer, go with Layers!
Want the blues, sit in a queue!
The biggest variable is, how many are waiting til launch to subscribe.
2 Likes
Stalagg will fill up prior to launch. I feel strong about this.
Should they lock full servers? People can still make chars on the full servers. Isn’t that going to increase the problem?
1 Like
Yep.
That’s a delicate balance they’ll have to strike, IMO.
2 Likes
True, and how many false server player creations were made. i.e. people making chars on 2 different servers, but only going to play on 1.
Locking the server isn’t really the solution in my opinion. A lot of those players may relocate or play on a different server at launch due to login ques. Giving everyone the option of being on the “busiest” server is fine, and will be one I pass on.
The Equifax data breach we all heard about a couple years ago happened because of a vulnerability that was left unpatched for months, even though the fix existed. Equifax is a 7.2 billion dollar company.
Incompetent people get hired to large corporations all the time.
True. Also the people that attempted to reserve names in order to extort coin/money from other players.