There you are!! Where have you been?
i work 12-16 hour days (mostly 16). so yeah. sometimes when i’m at work i can jump on and sometimes i can’t. but you can bet when i’m not at work i’m usually asleep.
1 Like
Nice numeral assumptions. And yes, I want to restrict
No way the Barrens should be sharded at all IMO. It is a rich world PvP zone.
1 Like
Not assumptions, based on WoW’s published subs. They had 1.5 million in Q1 2005, and 7 million in Q3 2006.
Describe your method of restriction, beyond “I get in and someone else doesn’t”.
Imagine a game not being made for you. Some people can’t understand this. Queue me up ![:sweat_drops:](https://d38bqls1q93fod.cloudfront.net/en/wow/images/emoji/twitter/sweat_drops.png?v=6" ":sweat_drops:")
1 Like
Early bird gets the worm first, slow birds will get the worm some hours later. We won’t have 7 million btw. Classic will probably cap around 2 mil.
This guy gets it. Most people will be gotten… hook, line, and sinker. Vanilla was and is a master course on getting you to want to level just “1 more” to get those sweet, sweet talent points.
It’s hard for us to control our base emotions. Vanilla plays the latter like piano fingers on steroids.
I can’t debate blind illogical religion.
You can’t debate what you don’t understand, yes; you are indeed correct.
Like I said, I can’t debate illogical religion. Glad you agree.
I think there’s some misunderstandings here. OP’s reference to “tourists” explicitly refers to players who do not make it past level 20. Whatever the number of players who do make it beyond that level is completely irrelevant to the phrasing used to describe those that don’t. It’s a categorization, not a criticism of the game.
There could be fifty-million players who make it past level twenty, and one-hundred that don’t and the one-hundred are still all “tourists”. Flipping those numbers so that it’s the fifty-million who don’t make it doesn’t change the “tourist” title, only the number thereof.
They’re questioning the logic that every single human on the planet won’t fall in love with Classic the moment they play it. Or rather, not questioning. Explicitly stating that it will happen.
Regarding your ideas, I think the hard limit here should probably be less than three months. Honestly I’d lean more towards one-and-a-half, I also think a 24 hour time frame on sharding checks probably leads to a whole lot of nonsense like we see on retail where there’s a brief, large surge of players who quickly log off before we see servers taking too long to readjust after that spike leaves.
I’m also concerned that only having a 24 hour check here leaves a lot of room for shadier sorts of outside interference. As someone who played through just about every single initial expansion launch, let me tell you, there is NO WAY that the launch for classic won’t wind up getting DDOS’d or something to that effect. I honestly won’t rule out people starting trial accounts just to log on classic and artificially increase server population sizes just to try and cause problems deliberately.
how about no
1 Like
If these mechanisms aren’t required after the first day, they should go away. If we’re still seeing queues and 500+ people in a zone at 3 months, they need to ditch shards and start making new servers. That was more what the hard limit was about.
They can be more liberal about the disable options. Or say “Less than 70% over 7 consecutive 24hr periods etc.” As long as the shards disappear early, if its shown that they’re unnecessary.
3 mounths? 400 people per map? Oh man please no.
How about 3 days 800 people per sharding?
Or better How about no sharding?
Unplayable starters will make Classic more likely to fail.
I know that Political Tribalism is rife in the US, but it doesn’t have to pervade every aspect of society. Compromise gets things done.
Then sharding would no longer be limited to those " starting zones" or that “brief time at launch”, would it?
This is exactly why many are concerned about sharding.