Remove layering for the sake of WoW

[Mogar-stormrage (Mogar)]

What you’re forgetting is how many accounts were made compared to how many accounts stayed. If you have 100 million total accounts made in a given time period but 12 million was the peak (and that obviously doesnt even take into account that say the 11 million in subs were the same people). Those 3 iterations of the game certainly either lost a lot of people or failed to entice lots of people to play them. That doesn’t mean it wasn’t a good game, but dont prop it up to be something its not.

I wasn’t aware stating factual numbers was propping up something. Were those numbers inaccurate? Did Vanilla not grow to 7-8 million subs? Did TBC not raise it to 11 million subs? Did it not get to 12 million subs in Wrath? Was Cataclysm not the first expansion that ended with less active subs than it began with?

[Ôwns-proudmoore (Ôwns)]

I wasn’t aware stating factual numbers was propping up something. Were those numbers inaccurate? Did Vanilla not grow to 7-8 million subs? Did TBC not raise it to 11 million subs? Did it not get to 12 million subs in Wrath? Was Cataclysm not the first expansion that ended with less active subs than it began with?

Another factual number is that 80 million+ left the game when it was new or in its prime. Meaning more people thought it sucked (even in vanilla) than thought it was good. This will likely be the same exact thing that happens in classic, you’re gonna have a huge launch and then people are gonna realize its an acquired playstyle and most will think it sucks, cause a lot of it does.

[Mogar-stormrage (Mogar)]

Another factual number is that 80 million+ left the game when it was new or in its prime. Meaning more people thought it sucked (even in vanilla) than thought it was good. This will likely be the same exact thing that happens in classic, you’re gonna have a huge launch and then people are gonna realize its an acquired playstyle and most will think it sucks, cause a lot of it does.

It’s irrelevant how many leave. As long as the number of those who stay + new players is greater than those who left something amazing happens: the playerbase goes up. And that’s exactly what happened.

And if ‘the exact same thing happens in Classic’ as you say, then thanks for agreeing with me. The playerbase will continue to rise and layering will have caused more harm than good.

[Eloraell-moon-guard]

The first expansion that had a net drop was Cataclysm.

Way to strawman.

I didn’t say a net drop. I said that every expansion including TBC and Wrath had a peak right after launch, followed by a sharp drop. Even TBC in the midst of the climb had a burst of numbers right after launch that fell back again as people who had left WoW came back to check out the new Expansion.

Yes, players join and players leave. But as long as the population goes up, then the playerbase grows.

And I wish I didn’t have to explain yet again that I agree this will happen. AFTER we have dropped back to about 500k from the 2-3 million. It will continue to grow slowly from a base of 500k. It will not burst to 2-3 million and hold that onwards. That’s ridiculous.

[Ôwns-proudmoore (Ôwns)]

And if ‘the exact same thing happens in Classic’ as you say, then thanks for agreeing with me. The playerbase will continue to rise and layering will have caused more harm than good.

You’re not one of those people who think classic is gonna have 6 million people are you?

[Mogar-stormrage (Mogar)]

And if ‘the exact same thing happens in Classic’ as you say, then thanks for agreeing with me. The playerbase will continue to rise and layering will have caused more harm than good.

You’re not one of those people who think classic is gonna have 6 million people are you?

And now in typical internet forum discussion behavior, you pivot. Change subject, deflect.

But yes, Classic will very likely have several million players. Six might actually be a conservative number.

[Ôwns-proudmoore (Ôwns)]

And now in typical internet forum discussion behavior, you pivot. Change subject, deflect.

But yes, Classic will very likely have several million players. Six might actually be a conservative number.

lol right.

Is it the 250,000 poll that gives you that number?
Maybe the shallow pserver populations?
Or just you being in dreamland.
^ Going with that one.

[Mogar-stormrage (Mogar)]

And now in typical internet forum discussion behavior, you pivot. Change subject, deflect.

But yes, Classic will very likely have several million players. Six might actually be a conservative number.

lol right.

Is it the 250,000 poll that gives you that number?
Maybe the shallow pserver populations?
Or just you being in dreamland.
^ Going with that one.

Perhaps it’s the fact Classic is crushing BfA in Google trends. A 15 year old game has far more interest than the Current game. The day 8.2 dropped Classic held like the top 3 or 4 Twitch WoW streams (despite having so few people in the Beta).

If you don’t see how much interest there is in Classic you’re being deliberately obtuse. But don’t feel bad, because Blizz is also still operating by this assumption of ‘you think you do, but you don’t.’ And they’re in for a surprise.

[Eloraell-moon-guard]

Perhaps it’s the fact Classic is crushing BfA in Google trends.

Low bar man… low bar.

Also, 50k up to 200k isn’t exactly 6 million.

[Ôwns-proudmoore (Ôwns)]

Perhaps it’s the fact Classic is crushing BfA in Google trends. A 15 year old game has far more interest than the Current game. The day 8.2 dropped Classic held like the top 3 or 4 Twitch WoW streams (despite having so few people in the Beta).

If you don’t see how much interest there is in Classic you’re being deliberately obtuse. But don’t feel bad, because Blizz is also still operating by this assumption of ‘you think you do, but you don’t.’ And they’re in for a surprise.

I knew I shoulda mentioned the 100k viewership on twitch streams… As if thats an indication of anything.

Lets say you have a pool of 6 million players. You take away the pserver players who only play cause its free. You take away the hardcore nochangers that see theres been some changes and refuse to play it cause its not a 1:1 version of vanilla, you take away retail tourists, you take away the people who came for the nostalgia and realized its not as fun as it was 15 years ago, you take away the new generation of gamers who dont have the patience for a game that is a slog, there is going to be a huge drop off, its you that is in for a surprise.

[Mogar-stormrage (Mogar)]

It’s funny when I can completely foresee someone changing the subject, and then it happens exactly as I knew it would. Man, I’ve been posting on the internet for far too long. And my old modding days have made me hyper sensitive to this behavior.

[Ôwns-proudmoore (Ôwns)]

I dont blame you for being passionate for a game you love but you’re off your rocker if you think this thing is gonna maintain anything more than maybe 1-1.5 million tops. For a year anyway and thats probably being generous.

[Fateweaver-misha (Fateweaver)]

I’m dedicated to shutting down this nonsense scaremongering.

You mean like how the pro-layering crowd are 100% certain that ABSOLUTELY NO ONE will be able to play at launch without layering? How server crashes are GUARANTEED to occur without layering? How the LONG-TERM HEALTH OF CLASSIC will suffer without layering?

That kind of scare-mongering?

[Eloraell-moon-guard]

That kind of scare-mongering?

Nope. The scaremongering that 3 weeks of layering will make every player an anti-social drone. The scaremongering that layering won’t be removed and we’ll forever be unable to see the zone. The scaremongering that one player will layer hope 15 times a minute and maintain a monopoly on Black Lotus and Devilsaurs.

That kind of scare-mongering.

[Fateweaver-misha (Fateweaver)]

you’re off your rocker if you think this thing is gonna maintain anything more than maybe 1-1.5 million tops

Please explain these powers of foresight to us further. I’m intrigued to know the reasoning behind your certainty of this claim.

[Ôwns-proudmoore (Ôwns)]

Please explain these powers of foresight to us further. I’m intrigued to know the reasoning behind your certainty of this claim.

Its the difference between being a realist and being someone whos bias makes them overestimate things.

[Fateweaver-misha (Fateweaver)]

That kind of scare-mongering.

So, you’ll shut down the scare-mongering you DON’T subscribe to. Other forms you agree with. Gotcha.

[Eloraell-moon-guard]

So, you’ll shut down the scare-mongering you DON’T subscribe to.

No, because what you described isn’t scare mongering, except in the way you presented it as hyperbole.

Also, no crashes with or without layering.

[Fateweaver-misha (Fateweaver)]

except in the way you presented it as hyperbole.

Except, that’s what the pro-layering crowd has been preaching…back when it was pro-sharding.

[Eloraell-moon-guard]

No, it really isn’t.

Layering is a necessary evil since no-one has come up with a better solution to solve Blizzard’s conflicting launch goals of reasonable queues, and long term server populations.

Any other solution presented so far (except maybe locked layers, but that’s still layering), intentionally breaks one goal to satisfy the other.

And layering > sharding the starters because of the lack of disappearing people, which is what all the anti-sharders had as one of their pillars of complaint.