Nobody wants layering…Nobody suggested layering…Nobody thinks layering is a good idea. Henceforth…Blizzard thinks we need layering!!! That’s the slogan at Blizzard headquarters…“If it ain’t broke…FIX IT”…“If players don’t want it…IT MUST RIGHT”. lol…Classic isnt even released yet and these guys are already cooking up new and exciting ways to make it bad. I have a new slogan for Blizzard…its simple…only 3 letters, “LTL” (Learn To Listen).
36 Likes
Here is your problem… no one has suggested a better idea. Until someone does, I am 100% in favor of layering.
29 Likes
The majority of problems with WoW over the years have come from implementing exactly what players wanted, instead of what was best for the game.
18 Likes
0/10 but you’ll still get bites because this place is super duper sensitive to this sort of trolling.
5 Likes
Awkshuuullllyy… I want layering, I want to get black lotuses and devilsaur leather 3x in a row each time and dominate the economy of the server ![:joy:](https://d38bqls1q93fod.cloudfront.net/en/wow/images/emoji/twitter/joy.png?v=6" ":joy:")
4 Likes
Sometimes it’s about being bored with nothing better to do.
When you’re dying of thirst in the desert, you can’t always be picky =P
ellipse/10
Speak for yourself.
1 Like
Layering is a sick, dark and disturbing evil
5 Likes
I think layering is a good idea. So yeah…
4 Likes
Nobody thinks the social/gameplay effects of layering are positive. Not even Blizzard. But many of us realize that layering makes sense in terms of a sane launch and sustainable populated servers to keep the game going.
For those against Layering, it really boils down to this.
- Layering
- Low population issues with server merging and the resulting name conflicts/etc. that result from that
- Large queues preventing you from logging in
-----[ You must pick one. ]-----
All 3 would have the community raging, just at different points in the product release cycle. It’s a lose-lose there.
Unsurprisingly, Blizzard picked #1 as it would impact their infrastructure and be an additional point of contention (“You’re forcing me onto a server with <x> guild or <y> streamer, REEEE!”).
It is impossible to have a flawless release here. If you don’t want layering, at least admit which other community rage-inducing option you would prefer to have threads spawned about and why your choice is the lesser evil.
- Layering - We have the “reee” threads on that already
- Low population - “Reee classic is a failure, low population” combined with inevitable server merges with “Reee I forcibly lost my name now! Reee I’m forcibly on a server with <x> guild now! and Reee I’m forcibly on a server with <y> streamer now!”
- Queues - “Ree I pay my $15 I deserve to be playing” and other arguments similar to what we’ve seen for “Why I should have a Beta invite”.
11 Likes
Sounds more like the OP needs to LTL.
Blizzard stated their issue and that sharding was a possible solution they would utilize.
The forums blew up with anti sharding. Blizzard adapted and announced layering.
OP doesn’t want to hear that.
2 Likes
Can we stop with these threads. They’ve explained why we’re going to have layering. The fact that you don’t like it doesn’t change the fact that they’re going to do it. Yes it’s going to cause problems, but it’s going to solve some problems too. I don’t know about you but I actually want to be able to quest, and I’m going to have trouble doing that if I happen to pick a server where the players outnumber the NPCs, as they’re going to do the first day or two.
If you don’t like it wait til they get rid of the layering. Don’t let the door hit you on the way out.
First off, WoW is not a democracy. WE don’t decide what goes into the game.
Blizzard weighed the risks and benefits of both having it and not having it and made decision based on their information, that layering at first is ultimately going to better for the release of classic. Either deal with it or just don’t play.
4 Likes
Static layers. Let people choose their layer at the character screen so they can play with friends. Merge after the first few weeks on a server by server basis.
6 Likes
- I think that seeing 3000 people in the world, not 12000 is a positive.
- I think that ensuring enough long term players are on any given server among the tourists at launch, to have a stable population 3 months in, is a positive.
- I think that allowing people to play and get it out of their system if they’re a tourist, instead of putting them in queues for days, is a positive.
More importantly:
Media response to options:
1: This game is smooth, easy to play and a great testament to the original experience.
2: The game is massively overcrowded. You can barely move to play and Blizzard failed to provide enough servers for what was expected to be a massive crowd.
3: This reviewer couldn’t actually provide a review of the game, because he spent the first three days before his deadline waiting in the same queue.
The media response matters.
1 Like
Wrong
Wrong again
Is 3x the charm? Nope, wrong again.
1 Like
Completely agreed here. My statement “Nobody thinks the social/gameplay effects of layering are positive.” is an over-simplification to try and combat the apparent argument that “If only Blizzard knew Layering caused <problem>, they would remove it!”. At least, as implied by the numerous threads pointing out how <bad thing> can happen in layering. It’s an acknowledgment that Layering does have its downsides, but it’s still the best solution available.
1 Like
PC Gamer:
“Even if its new loot system is a bust, Battle for Azeroth is a vibrant expansion full of wondrous new locales to explore, characters to meet, and stories to tell.” *86 out of 100.
Could always just force caps on servers and offer free transfers later.