Remove layering for the sake of WoW

[Vøøðøø-blackrock (Vøøðøø)]

I’m not sure you understand how layering is going to work

He dosent. He thinks its sharding. And hes about to call you a name or something.

Pointless to talk to some.

Sharding is more reasonable in terms of saving resources than creating an entire world for shart out a few zones.

[Celessi-turalyon]

I’m not sure you understand how layering is going to work

I understand the theory of it, and it is absurd to create an entire world for each over-populated zone. Then divy up the rest of the world to the rest of the people. Or the rest of the world is entirely empty and wasted resources?

http s://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratio

[Mogar-stormrage (Mogar)]

if the stress test was any example the number they are focusing on for a layer is still up in the air meaning that everything you just said was wrong… if they havnt decided what the server cap is even going to be how do we know its the same as a past vanilla server? if they are going to these lengths to implement a sharding/layering system they will not allow for the amount of people in one zone that vanilla had.

They’ve said they want it to be dynamic, so they can tune the dial. And that’s exactly what they’re going to do. Layer caps on launch day won’t be at all indicative of what existed in Vanilla. They’ll cap them much lower because everyone is crammed into a few zones. So Blizz saying it’s ‘a world size layer’ means nothing when 99% of the world is empty.

[Bricklethumb-anvilmar]

Sharding is more reasonable in terms of saving resources than creating an entire world for shart out a few zones.

It’s a continent and not a world.

We get it that you are against it.

[Eloraell-moon-guard]

It’s being done for convenience, according to Ion.

The “Convenience” being you don’t seen 12,000 people on the server… ah huh.

[Vøøðøø-blackrock (Vøøðøø)]

Sharding is more reasonable in terms of saving resources than creating an entire world for shart out a few zones.

It’s a continent and not a world.

We get it that you are against it.

The same reasoning applies. Create 20 entire continents to accommodate 5k people in the starter zones rather than just making 20 starter zones to accommodate the same amount of people. One makes much more sense than the other, as far as resources are concerned.

I get it, you’re in love with sharting, apply your own logic to yourself bud.

[Eloraell-moon-guard]

Create 20 entire continents to accommodate 5k people in the starter zones rather than just making 20 starter zones to accommodate the same amount of people.

Can you guarantee that only the 3k dedicated people will get out of the starter zone?

[Vøøðøø-blackrock (Vøøðøø)]

Create 20 entire continents to accommodate 5k people in the starter zones rather than just making 20 starter zones to accommodate the same amount of people.

Can you guarantee that only the 3k dedicated people will get out of the starter zone?

Doesn’t matter when they are “grouped” on their own little sharts. How would you ever know the difference? You think you have a world of warcraft, but you don’t you have a group shart.

[Erbirkzak-illidan]

i

Create 20 entire continents to accommodate 5k people in the starter zones rather than just making 20 starter zones to accommodate the same amount of people.

Can you guarantee that only the 3k dedicated people will get out of the starter zon

irrelevant… you assume that they would all get out of the start zone at the same time and would keep pace with eachother… this isnt bfa the leveling process is massive encompassing a whole world.

[Eloraell-moon-guard]

Doesn’t matter when they are “grouped” on their own little sharts.

I mean in your scenario where only the starters are sharded.

Since Layers are 3k population across the world, the argument doesn’t apply to them.

[Bricklethumb-anvilmar]

The same reasoning applies. Create 20 entire continents to accommodate 5k people in the starter zones rather than just making 20 starter zones to accommodate the same amount of people. One makes much more sense than the other, as far as resources are concerned.

I get it, you’re in love with sharting, apply your own logic to yourself bud.

Here is the breakdown. You don’t know what I am in love with and if you take a moment to just stop yelling into the wind and look around you will see.

Sharding will cause more problems than a “virtual” server that is tied to the larger realm for collapsing. You want to give the true no layer, no change people a fit, suggest sharding.

Server merges are bad and destructive.
Sharding is bad and destructive.
Ques are bad and ultimately destructive when people stop trying.

Layering is NOT perfect but it is better than any other alternatives provided we do get the safeguards in place.

1. Debuf on changing layers
2. Changing layers only from a city or specified rest zone.
3. Contested areas off-limits for pvp servers.

This will not make everyone happy, but to prepare for the influx we will see, something needs to be done that will allow ALL fans to have a chance to play.

[Vøøðøø-blackrock (Vøøðøø)]

Doesn’t matter when they are “grouped” on their own little sharts.

I mean in your scenario where only the starters are sharded.

Since Layers are 3k population across the world, the argument doesn’t apply to them.

Says who? Do you think they are going to dump 3k people all together at launch? Really now, c’mon. They don’t even hold 500 people in 1 area, more than likely you are going to be sharted and group locked into groups of 50-100 people, so that would supposedly equate to 30 - 60 continents being created for no apparent reason. Do you really think they are going to create an entire 30 - 60 continents when they can just make it look like it and just lock groups on sharts creating 30-60 dynamically expanding zones instead?

[Eloraell-moon-guard]

irrelevant… you assume that they would all get out of the start zone at the same time and would keep pace with eachother… this isnt bfa the leveling process is massive encompassing a whole world.

No, I assume that when they get out of the starters, the resources are far slimmer than the population would suggest and much of those resources will be consumed by people who soon quit.

[Vøøðøø-blackrock (Vøøðøø)]

misstype⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀

[Bricklethumb-anvilmar]

I prefer all of those things over sharting and layrings. The integrity of the world is far more important than a few “inconveniences” one might encounter at launch.

That IS for layering

[Mogar-stormrage (Mogar)]

Says who? Do you think they are going to dump 3k people all together at launch? Really now, c’mon.

According to Ion that would be a miserable experience.

[Erbirkzak-illidan]

No, I assume that when they get out of the starters, the resources are far slimmer than the population would suggest and much of those resources will be consumed by people who soon quit.

so?.. its an mmorpg its a long haul type of game those fair weather players your so afraid of wont stick around beyond a month then the resources will be fine… competing while leveling is part of the fun of vanilla. those forced interactions really help to build a community, throwing that away because your afraid you may be delayed by other people in a massive multiplayer game is silly and a person of that mindset should be playing a single player game.

[Vøøðøø-blackrock (Vøøðøø)]

I prefer all of those things over sharting and layrings. The integrity of the world is far more important than a few “inconveniences” one might encounter at launch.

That IS for layering

I thought you were listing the inconveniences of non-layering, which I would prefer over layering.

[Vøøðøø-blackrock (Vøøðøø)]

Server merges are bad and destructive.
Ques are bad and ultimately destructive when people stop trying.

These I prefer over layering and sharting, sorry for the confusion.

[Bricklethumb-anvilmar]

No worries.

And that is ok that you prefer them over layering. I, personally prefer layering and believe it has the best chance for long term retention of players.

But I do strongly hope for those caveats as well as a limited timeframe.