The Layering Scandal

WoW Classic WoW Classic General Discussion
68

No… I can talk to anyone in game regardless of server. I message people often via zone chats that aren’t on my merged realm (Onyxia, Burning Blade, Lightning’s Blade). What you can’t do is trade to people who aren’t on your merged realm which makes complete sense.

What doesn’t make sense is not being able to see (in zone or guild chat) what someone on your server says, just cause you aren’t on their layer. Sure I shouldn’t be able to see their yells or /say but zone chats imo shouldn’t be layer specific.

69

Oh yeah, i was there for that one too all the way. It was very crowded. But this kinda stuff only happens so very temporarily, and personally i found it fun to see the masses of people. The moment it’s on, sure, it’s crazy. But just as quickly as it starts, its gone again (assuming the actual launch, not stress test only).

70

I don’t think this is an unreasonable request. If this is all it takes for people to be OK with layering the first few weeks, I’m all for it.

71

That’s not a “request”. That is the way it’s supposed to work according to Blizzard. If it doesn’t work that way in Beta it’s a bug.

there’s supposed to be a single chat and a single AH.

Someone calls out LFM then anyone can join and you get ported to the layer of the group leader.

72

Correct. I have reported everything I could with layering in the stress tests to help them find where issues are. Unfortunately I can’t tell when I can’t see what someone in another layer is saying.

73

Solution 1: Layers are static. No layer swapping, either automatic or manual. This removes the CRZ/Sharding aspects of layering, while still keeping the ability to merge.
Solution 2: More servers, and allow for free transfers from low pop servers.
Solution 3: Extremely limited sharding in starting zones and days long, not weeks or months. Layering is far more detrimental than the sharding Blizzard originally mentioned; layering lasts much longer than what sharding was supposed to last, while having the same impact as CRZ on the community.
Solution 4: Get creative. Offer players a retail mount or pet if they delay their entry into Classic WoW by a week, so that launch isn’t as overloaded.

1 Like
74

#2 is horrible and should be switched the other way if anything. You shouldn’t be able to transfer from a low pop server. All that would do is kill the server off completely.

75

just cap a server at 6k at launch and have dynamic respawns in the starting zone (1-10)
Then allow free server transfers to servers that end up at low pop.

It blows my mind that blizzard went with layering. but its this new technology so they have to justify its existence by shoehorning into a game it screws up i guess.

2 Likes
76

Sad to say this problem was built into the game from day 1 with segregated realms.

Small communities are nice until they aren’t.

Now ESO uses megaserver technology.
“Oh but it destroys communities” you say.
Well I can join up to 5 guilds and guilds can hold 500 players.
There’s my “community”
I belong to 3 guilds…social, trading, housing and in each one there are 500 like minded people. Currently looking to join a pvp guild for casual pvp play.

1 Like
77

It is to cut down on server costs.

78

You have three options:

  • Have enough servers for the launch day crowd, but then 75% of them are ghost towns by the end of the year and Blizz has to either implement cross-realm or merge servers.
  • Do absolutely nothing, have the servers implode like the Stress Test for the first week, and get absolutely roasted for “the worst launch in history.”
  • Have Layering.
79

Where did you get your 75% from ? If you’re just making stuff up I could say the same and use 10%.
Blizzard has a history of bad launches…nothing new.

80

I think a lot of people would quit well before level 30, or just play it super casual.

Is that two weeks? Probably not, and Blizzard doesn’t definitively know, which is why the commitment is to end of Phase 1 at the latest.

81

In your opinion how long do you think phase 1 will be ?

IMO I think they will drag it out and milk it as much as possible to keep subs going and that could be months…3-4-6 even.

82

That-- doesn’t mean quite what you seem to think it means. :sweat_smile:

83

Blizzard needs to figure out the expected attrition rate and then launch the appropriate number of servers so that we can get to a single layer at a reasonable amount of time. I don’t expect them to have 20 layers/realm as it is not reasonable to bring it down to a single layer within a few months.

How long will Phase 1 last? I dunno. I just hope the number of realms launched will be near the right number so that layering will naturally go away after 2-3 months.

84

I don’t know if you stopped reading there or if you are dishonest.

My next words are: “It must be much sooner than “the end of phase 1” which destroys server economy, phase 1 gameplay, and the entire leveling experience. 2-3 days, at worst 1 week. Guarantee me that layering is gone in a week and I shut up and say “okay”.”

If you cannot see how this destroys your entire post I don’t know what else to say.

85

Aren’t you the guy that was complaining about streamers a few day’s ago? lol hi again.

86

What makes you think that they can’t do what private servers did and use dynamic respawns for a few days and have mega servers with 10-20k players? If bootleg Europeans servers can do it why can’t a multi-billion dollar company? They have convinced you they can’t when in reality they don’t want to.

Alternatively, why not have sharding 2.0 for a few day for launch then end it? They are saying MONTHS now. It isn’t just for launch. This is crappy.

87

Dynamic respawns in pserver fashion hurts the economy way more than layers… So why are you ok with that?