Wow!! He actually said promise. Well put, you are correct.
This early name creation probably gives them a baseline to run from at least, so if we hit High/Full across the board, there will be more realms come release.
1 Like
They actually said this in a interview and they just made a new est pvp. So MORE SERVERS inc. LONG LIVE CLASSIC.
1 Like
Layering will either make or break classic. Many great ideas on how layers can be beneficial to classic. That being said, so far as weâve seen in the beta / stress test, layering is gunna hurt.
I doubt it, because this is whatâs going to happen.
People play for a bit, then wait for phase 2 to come out, then come back temporarily.
Then throw in the fact servers going to have a boat load of people to begin with. Yeah, I just donât see it happening.
1 Like
I believe this to be the correct answer. The way the they have answered the question regarding layering and questions about player populations has always read to me that they expect player numbers to drop to a point a few weeks post launch so that layering isnât a thing people notice.
If each server only has a 2-3k concurrent players during prime time, no one will notice layering, because no one will be sent to another layer. However layering/sharding are baked into the core server code at this point, and they arenât going to be âremovingâ the code, and there is no layer on/off switch.
As if his promise is actually binding⌠Blizz will do what they think is best, despite whatever some functionary carelessly promised in an interview.
Actually there is an on/off switch. With layering off, the system will âfill upâ faster than with it off. Or, to be pedantic, there is no âon/offâ switch, but they may simply set the number of layers to 1, effectively disabling it. The single layer count essentially turns it off for all practical purposes.
That was Ion the lead over WoW, not just some random Blizzard Dev making those promises. Go back and look at the history of WoW and look at how many times anything has ever been promised. Here is a hint, its going to be very hard to find.
Blizzard doesnât throw out the word promise unless they are certain it is going to happen, and Ion especially considering he is the king of lawyer language.
1 Like
Well they broke their word as soon as they incorporated Layering into Classic among other things after announcing that Classic would be authentic to what it was back in 2004.
If the realms are dead then they can be merged. Logic 101.
Oh i know. They have been backpedaling since the beginning.
âNo sharding crz etc in classic.â.
âWere thinking of using sharding for a few weeks, but only in low level zones so it doesnt impact resources or pvpâ.
âWere going to shard the entire worldâ.
2 Likes
Merging realms require that some people have to give up their names and itâs no guarantee itâs going to be the other guy that has to change and not you. This is why merging is distasteful. The more likely solution would be server clustering, like they did with my realm, and then someone else could be standing next to you with your exact same name, which people donât like either. Layering really is the least disruptive solution for the long term.
1 Like
They could have just sharded 1 to 20. Thats the least disruptive system.
Gives everyone a chance to spread out.
No impact on rare resources.
Minimal impact on world pvp.
its up in the air i bet but as of right now i dont see it being needed
If that is really all it took, then layering can actually go away in a couple weeks when most people are level 20 and the same end results will be seen.
Weâll see, Iâm picturing 3 scenarios to happen during phase 2.
-
They increase the server cap to hold everyone on that server while also needing to increase dynamic respawns to accommodate large numbers but if thats the case why have layering at all? Just have mega servers with a 10k cap. Nost was successful and they didnât have the budget Blizzard has.
-
They remove layering but have to split the community since the server cap is reached, they create new servers that the overflow of players drain into which will also damage the relationships built while on that server since theyâll no longer be on it.
-
Layering stays forever.
Option 2 is the best.
1 Like
Also, it is a given that when a player is on a dead server their only option is to transfer in which case their name might be taken. Merging servers has the same effect, so instead of merging. Blizzard could offer a free character transfer to those who would rather be on a populated server and sacrifice their name than staying on a dead server.
Nost did not launch with 10k players all trying to get in at once, much less hundreds of thousands, and there were absolutely long queues to log in during peak. I think alot of us recall Nost with some pretty dark rose colored goggles.