If you are on server A in master group 1 and you are called Steve, a player on server B in master group 1 will NOT be able to choose the name Steve for his name because it is already taken on in the master group.
So someone DOES have to change their name after days of time invested. NOPE.
Answered above.
This sounds like CRZ, but with worse consequences. Solid Pass.
I suggested almost exactly the same thing earlier but with the clusters being made out of 6 servers instead of 4 to allow more merging options.
So have a heart from me. Perhaps they will listen.
1 Like
How is it like CRZ if it’s only as a failsafe to be taken months down the line?
We’ll see.
1 Like
CRZ was taken years after merger failsafe’s were triggered.
It is exactly like blizzard merging with there being a dominant server, with the same consequences.
It is a bad idea.
1 Like
So it’s nothing like CRZ then. Thanks for the input.
I will give you that it doesn’t compare to CRZ, but it is not markedly different than the way that blizzard handles server mergers.
People were pissed about losing their character identity due to merging, then CRZ came. So i feel like going down this path of merging and master groups is a direct path to pissing off a lot of people.
1 Like
Sounds good. Let’s do it.
Only thing I would suggest is a name decay system. Such as, say you were less than lvl 20 and hadn’t logged in for one year. Then your name would become available and you’d be prompted to change it if/when you ever logged in again. If you did log in again and your old name was available then you could choose it again.
1 Like
I understand the issue of losing your players identity which is why I addressed it as something that there can only be 1 unique name per group.
If players were barred from taking the name at player creation because someone else in the same server group already selected it, it would be less painful for the player than all of a sudden having to change your name after you’re decked out in tier 2.
It comes down to what players prefer more. The inevitability of sharding on your server/dynamic respawns (both not blizzlike), or this option.
1 Like
How will this impact the economy of the serves? Will the entire “battlegroup” share the same AH?
Every server merger has a huge impact on the economy.
They won’t share AHs.
Yes, it might have an impact on the economy. But again it comes down to what problems players would prefer more.
The inevitability of sharding on your server/dynamic respawns (both not blizzlike), or this option.
1 Like
Reading comprehension not your forte? The predetermined cluster would have a single master list of names If a name already exists on any server in the cluster, it’s taken and unavailable across all servers that could ever potentially get merged. This was explained, asked, clarified, and explained again already in this thread. Don’t dump on ideas if you aren’t going to take the time to read them first
1 Like
It’s not even really a new idea, blizzard does almost this exact same thing.
There will be people who have to change their character names under this idea.
How is my reading comprehension being called into question when it is clear that not only is this the way it was done before CRZ but that this will upset players? Because it has been tried.
Additionally, having multiple server clusters in the same group is akin to CRZ. Especially if you have naming like: Legolas - Server Group 1 and Legolas - Server Group 2.
Just simply stating that one gets the name and the other doesn’t isn’t good enough. Nor is the idea that they wouldn’t necessarily be on the same shard.
Not to mention the effect on server identity, are they apart of a new server name? Is it two? How do you differentiate who is on which shard of that merged server?
No, there will be people that have to choose different names at level 1, however. This happens regardless with popular names like Legolas, for example.
Will it upset players more than the inevitability of true sharding with players constantly phasing in and out or less?
There is only going to be one Legolas per server cluster. It’s only going to show up as Legolas. People from different server clusters can have the same name, but they will never interact in this setup.
Naming has always worked as a first come first serve thing. If they aren’t on the same cluster, they can have the same name–because blizzard will never merge those two servers together so there will never be a naming conflict.
I don’t consider naming the new servers to be a big issue. You just merge the two populations together. There is no shard at that point–or any point for that matter.
1 Like
![:star:](https://d38bqls1q93fod.cloudfront.net/en/wow/images/emoji/twitter/star.png?v=6" ":star:")
Two hours, no viable contenders. This approach and methodology would be an overall positive and healthy addition to Classic WoW population management.
The population problems that face us tomorrow must be planned for today.
People don’t roll on a given server because they want a certain population. They roll on a specific server because of something or someone already on the server. Streamers, friends, a certain raid team. These are the drawcards to a specific server.
How? You’re basically describing Server Merges. And we know from history that the community did not fare well when servers were merged. Either a) early on people were pissed off because they lost the name they’d used for the last year, and/or b) tribalism ensued either between ‘old server’ groups, or because everyone had an arbitrary surname above their head branding their old server.
Your talking about active cap. Population is the group of people trying to log on. Population is about queues not logged in accounts. If that “Goal 1000k accounts” server has too many people trying to make accounts, how do you stop them. Are you planning on restricting who can make an account after a certain point? “Sorry, your friends all play on Server X, but now that they’ve finally convinced you to play, you have to roll on another server.”
You’re basically making CRZ writ-large. At a future date you will slam two communities together and suddenly make the population become filled with people you don’t know, who expect your immediate respect because their server respects them. Or the customs of one server directly interfere with the customs of another server (e.g. Ony Head Mount times).
It would be a far better solution to not need to merge servers, by allowing a “super bulge” during launch which settles down afterwards. Sharding is the method they intend to use for that.
If, in the unlikely event that servers don’t settle down after launch, adding new servers is definitely the best option, providing transfers from high pop to new realms where they can start fresh without trying to integrate into another existing community.
We were all too busy arguing the exact same point in a dozen other threads while working.
Well this does sound better then just having to deal with sharding if blizzard doesn’t keep there word, and remove it within one or two weeks.
How long would you keep this in, and how would it handle World pvp, and ranking?
1 Like