The alternative to sharding: Patience

[Matcauthon-steamwheedle-cartel (Matcauthon)]

Lol no, that solution is the worst one by far, it does nothing but target the smallest player source, does nothing at all to the much larger player sources.

but its completely okay to inconvenience those who just want classic to be classic. funny how we have to cater to tourists instead of catering to those who want classic to be authentic.

has nothing to do with authentic anything or catering to anyone, my concern was its effectiveness.

And tourists are going to come from everywhere.

still not fair to those who just want classic though. they have to suffer through crap like sharding. which isn’t fair to them at all.

[Cipherr-stormrage]

It’s one of those ironic things where we can see the effect this has on the game and the community, yet some people completely ignore it. It’s why I question certain posters motives for Classic. They clearly either have no capacity of learning from history, or they just want to sabotage Classic.

Nah not really. I would prefer no sharding. But even if they sharded for the first few weeks in the starter areas like they said; it wouldnt have any long term effect on the servers and Classic would be just fine.

To be honest, the funny thing is the people on this board are so bored that you all will claim any and every minor thing will RUIN DA GAME!

Its really not that big of a deal. If they sharded the starter zones for the first few weeks, by the end of year 1 people wouldn’t even remember it. Would be far too busy working on their raid progression or whatever.

[Matcauthon-steamwheedle-cartel (Matcauthon)]

and you can’t think of anything that would help have more then a marginal impact besides the worst solution possible?

Mat, buddy, look up at this very topic, the CE box with early access would have an effect on everyone, which will do more to help than anything. and where did you get the idea I though sharding was the best and only solution?

the fact that you routinely argue against any other option?

[Ziryus-doomhammer (Ziryus)]

Can you articulate those other solutions?

I have named some. Dynamic spawns, shared tags, lots of realms with later mergers. Are those better than sharding?

You can go back and read them at your leisure.

For someone who claims they are not dead set on seeing the totally anithtetical to vanilla technology of sharding used in Classic, you seem to be awfully opposed to any suggestion that would help alleviate or reduce that initial rush.

Well you can also go back and read the objections to those suggestions that have also already been made

[Studmuffyn-veknilash (Studmuffyn)]

Because it ONLY targets the smallest player source and would have a very minimal effect, better to focus on solutions that target everyone. If they did it, meh, they do it.

well here’s the problem - that solution makes those who actually want classic suffer. why should those who want classic have to suffer because the tourists?

again, tourists are going to come from everywhere not just current players, the best solution is one that also affects them too.

[Ziryus-doomhammer (Ziryus)]

Because it ONLY targets the smallest player source and would have a very minimal effect, better to focus on solutions that target everyone. If they did it, meh, they do it.

well here’s the problem - that solution makes those who actually want classic suffer. why should those who want classic have to suffer because the tourists?

And how do you define people who actually want classic and shouldn’t suffer?

[Studmuffyn-veknilash (Studmuffyn)]

the fact that you routinely argue against any other option?

did you read this thread at all? Pointing out effectiveness is ok, did you also neglect where I acknowledge that even doing that is better than nothing and that a combination of things is not a bad thing, or even the quote you just copied where I directly bring up one of the options?

[Matcauthon-steamwheedle-cartel (Matcauthon)]

Because it ONLY targets the smallest player source and would have a very minimal effect, better to focus on solutions that target everyone. If they did it, meh, they do it.

well here’s the problem - that solution makes those who actually want classic suffer. why should those who want classic have to suffer because the tourists?

again, tourists are going to come from everywhere not just current players, the best solution is one that also affects them too.

and that’s why i emplore them to choose something that ISN’T SHARDING. which is awful, anti community, anti classic, and did i mention awful? it’s literally the worst choice for those who plan to stick around.

[Matcauthon-steamwheedle-cartel (Matcauthon)]

Because it ONLY targets the smallest player source and would have a very minimal effect, better to focus on solutions that target everyone. If they did it, meh, they do it.

well here’s the problem - that solution makes those who actually want classic suffer. why should those who want classic have to suffer because the tourists?

And how do you define people who actually want classic and shouldn’t suffer?

the people who plan to stick around in classic long term.
and sharding, as has been stated numerous times, stunts community growth.

[Studmuffyn-veknilash (Studmuffyn)]

and that’s why i emplore them to choose something that ISN’T SHARDING. which is awful, anti community, anti classic, and did i mention awful? it’s literally the worst choice for those who plan to stick around.

Ok? by why quote me and say that? I was talking about the solutions we were discussing as an alternative, i did not say “use sharding!”

[Matcauthon-steamwheedle-cartel (Matcauthon)]

the fact that you routinely argue against any other option?

did you read this thread at all? Pointing out effectiveness is ok, did you also neglect where I acknowledge that even doing that is better than nothing and that a combination of things is not a bad thing, or even the quote you just copied where I directly bring up one of the options?

and yet you argue against options that cost more money (seperate sub, box cost) saying that somehow those won’t be effective. how would they not be effective? i know plenty of people who have said they are going to “check out classic” just because they get it free. they have no intention of sticking around, they just want to go goof around for a bit because they get it free anyway.

[Ziryus-doomhammer (Ziryus)]

Because it ONLY targets the smallest player source and would have a very minimal effect, better to focus on solutions that target everyone. If they did it, meh, they do it.

well here’s the problem - that solution makes those who actually want classic suffer. why should those who want classic have to suffer because the tourists?

And how do you define people who actually want classic and shouldn’t suffer?

the people who plan to stick around in classic long term.
and sharding, as has been stated numerous times, stunts community growth.

So do queue times, and realms created that just end up dead.

Maybe the people who can stick around for a zone or two through sharding are the people who actually care about classic?

[Ziryus-doomhammer (Ziryus)]

the fact that you routinely argue against any other option?

did you read this thread at all? Pointing out effectiveness is ok, did you also neglect where I acknowledge that even doing that is better than nothing and that a combination of things is not a bad thing, or even the quote you just copied where I directly bring up one of the options?

and yet you argue against options that cost more money (seperate sub, box cost) saying that somehow those won’t be effective. how would they not be effective? i know plenty of people who have said they are going to “check out classic” just because they get it free. they have no intention of sticking around, they just want to go goof around for a bit because they get it free anyway.

A box cost or a separate sub does not address the initial rush.

[Matcauthon-steamwheedle-cartel (Matcauthon)]

Because it ONLY targets the smallest player source and would have a very minimal effect, better to focus on solutions that target everyone. If they did it, meh, they do it.

well here’s the problem - that solution makes those who actually want classic suffer. why should those who want classic have to suffer because the tourists?

And how do you define people who actually want classic and shouldn’t suffer?

the people who plan to stick around in classic long term.
and sharding, as has been stated numerous times, stunts community growth.

So do queue times, and realms created that just end up dead.

Maybe the people who can stick around for a zone or two through sharding are the people who actually care about classic?

see? now we’ve already moved from sharding 1-10 and a few weeks to sharding a zone or two. when does that zone or two expand? blizzard has already moved the goal posts from no sharding/crz to sharding at launch? what prevents them from expanding its use?

NOTHING. WHICH IS WHY I WILL CONTINUE TO FIGHT AGAINST THE ABOMINATION KNOWN AS SHARDING UNTIL BLIZZARD COMES OUT AND GIVES US CONCRETE ANSWERS OR REMOVES SHARDING.

[Matcauthon-steamwheedle-cartel (Matcauthon)]

A box cost or a separate sub does not address the initial rush.

it reduces the number of people in the initial rush. thus impacting it quite a bit.

[Studmuffyn-veknilash (Studmuffyn)]

and yet you argue against options that cost more money (seperate sub, box cost) saying that somehow those won’t be effective.

Please reread everything not just one thing, talking about how effective is not the same as saying “no don’t do them”, or at least that is what I mean, and exactly what I end up saying if you read everything.

. how would they not be effective?

I said for either one , how effective they would be, not that they would no effect, definitely things to keep in mind, though a combination of things is probably the best approach in the end, as I did agree with.

oh separate sub? that I will say would have the worst effect out of all, it would be about as effective as the patch, but also isn’t worth considering since it is highly unlikely they change that now. A Box cost with the early access is the best to hope for on that front.

[Ziryus-doomhammer (Ziryus)]

A box cost or a separate sub does not address the initial rush.

it reduces the number of people in the initial rush. thus impacting it quite a bit.

Does it reduce it enough?

It certainly didn’t in vanilla.

[Matcauthon-steamwheedle-cartel (Matcauthon)]

Let me put it this way.
You want to know why i fight so hard against sharding?

1. its anti vanilla/anti community.
2. they initially said "We’re not going to have sharding/crz/etc because thats anti vanilla.
3. they got caught red handed in the demo and have already moved the goal posts from “no sharding” to “use it at launch”
   what prevents them from using the goal posts again except people making absolutely sure they understand they will lose subs if they keep the crap up.

so i will continue to say.
Shard 1-10 and 2 weeks maximum. any use beyond that and i will unsub and you will NEVER SEE ANOTHER DIME FROM ME AGAIN. PERIOD. I don’t care if its AQ Release or whats going on. NO SHARDING. PERIOD.

[Matcauthon-steamwheedle-cartel (Matcauthon)]

A box cost or a separate sub does not address the initial rush.

it reduces the number of people in the initial rush. thus impacting it quite a bit.

Does it reduce it enough?

It certainly didn’t in vanilla.

new technology could easily fix the launching issues of old vanilla.

[Studmuffyn-veknilash (Studmuffyn)]

Let me put it this way.
You want to know why i fight so hard against sharding?

No i want to know why quote me when I am not talking about supporting sharding?

They also stated right after that they know it is something we do not want.

new technology could easily fix the launching issues of old vanilla.

Still had a bad BF launch with the new tech.