It means you go back to day 0. Hence the minimum 100 day requirement.
![:cactus:](https://d38bqls1q93fod.cloudfront.net/en/wow/images/emoji/twitter/cactus.png?v=6" ":cactus:")
500 dispuerses and moves out of the starting areas way faster than 1000. What you have to remember about the starting areas… There’s only one place to kill wolves, only one place to kill cobolds, and only one place to kill defias. Once you move out of northshire abbey, I have choices on where to kill boars, or prowlers, or murlocs, or defias for linen scraps… The only real remaining bottleneck is the mine with goldtooth. And gnoll armbands is going to be a cycle of grouping to deal with the packs and hogger. It’s an entirely different game once you get past the starting area.
It doesn’t matter because it isn’t going to happen. It isn’t convenient enough to have to compete with that many people. 1000 disperses way faster than 2000 too, so what’s your point?
That the vanilla realm cap is authentic AND what we’re getting.
1.) I am busy, and as we get closer to Classic launch putting the links back is far less importance.
2.) I have been temp suspended more than 1 time 
1 Like
Well stop it! Or give someone Wiki access to the post.
All Zones are Quest Zones. kind of contradicted yourself there. More like take Layering out completely or Blizzard will kill Classic themselves.
No, you’re not getting that. It’s a false equivalency anyways, when the tech used to achieve it takes it so far away from the original, the pop cap becomes a moot point.
2 Likes
Yes. We are.
Then what would be the point of what Ion said that it is being implemented for convenience? If you are fighting against the same max amount of people in either version, then it really isn’t being implemented for the players convenience. And no, you aren’t getting it.
2 Likes
No, you’re not. And yesterday you said if 1,000 people end up in a zone, then so be it. After I linked a clip of Ion saying explicitly that they won’t allow that. Layer caps are for convenience, not server stability or authenticity.
2 Likes
He was being asked about high population caps. What he meant was that they could simply raise the cap to 12k and let thousands of people play at once. The servers would survive. However the gameplay would be atrocious. It would be inauthentic, and not what the game world was designed for.
Layers were implemented so that they can push more people through the server without huge queues, while the tourists are crammed in, without sacrificing the intended convenience of Vanilla scale populations.
Vanilla’s 2-3k limit was not a technical limitation. Mark Kern pointed out at one stage that they could have safely gone to about 4.5k maybe 5k, once they got the early stability fixes done. They used the 2-3k limit because that’s how they wanted the population to be as a community. Somewhere in a stream he also said he would have preferred smaller communities, but that the tradeoff of Server Cost vs Realm Size, made them balance around the 2k mark with an elastic cap to 3k.
They aren’t implementing for “retail convenience” they’re simply not providing 12k realm caps and throwing everyone on at it at once.
*don’t want that.
You’re missing the point. He’s specifying a zone capacity, not a world one. They can say that layers are worldwide, but clearly they’re still looking at it zone by zone. In fact, layers being worldwide is a problem in and of itself. So say you’ve got one zone that’s massively overpopulated. Blizz can’t shard that zone. So they just make a whole new layer to cope. But that layers the entire world. But what about every other zone that wasn’t overpopulated? Maybe they had healthy populations, or were even underpopulated. Now those zones are layered and the population goes down even more.
3 Likes
I’m going to laugh when your sitting there competing with only 50 other people in your zone wondering where everyone is.
fix your post a bit.
I’m going to weep as the world grinds to a halt, society begins to completely collapse and everything begins to burn as layering is still on during phase 4
Are we having a hissy fit?
Don’t you think you’re being just a tiny bit hyperbolic since it’s been clearly stated it will be gone at the beginning of phase 2 at the latest.
Probably way earlier though.
No I’m simply making a prediction
A difference of opinion is now scare tactics.
I wonder if you’ll consider this abuse.
All these so called no changes people advocating for one of the largest feasible changes to the game…
2 Likes