The Truth About Layering

WoW Classic WoW Classic General Discussion
103

Holy lack of paragraphs batman

I am gnit picking, but they are actually instances and not “servers”

Raids and 5 mans are also instances. When you zone in they dynamically spin up a version for your group. That is why, at times, a portion of the “world” instance can crash and you will be fine, as long as you don’t leave the 5 man.

Yes

104

I agree with this… And is why the exploits need to be fixed!!! Cooldown timers. Or you can only layer from a city or inn. . Anything that keeps those who will always try to find a way to ruin it for everyone from succeeding.

105

We’re going to continue that process over the first few weeks, till eventually we will collapse down, and we promise we will do this a few weeks in , to a single world per realm, no sharding, none of that going forward.

Lets resplice his words:

“till eventually we will collapse down to a single world per realm, no sharding, none of that going forward, and we promise we will do this a few weeks in”

Ion is a lawyer. The way he says things, actually matters, not in that he’s trying to hide something, but that he’s very precise about how those little interjections happen.

He said that they would collapse down to no layers, and promised to do it a few weeks in. He also said that the collapsing would happen “over the first few weeks”. That can’t be true if they only start a few weeks in.

106

Yes now they do and each of these instances are actually a container. Where as in Vanilla these instances were located 1000’ in the air over the barrens and surrounding zones. This is why when you would crash and you loaded prior to the instance loading you could plummet to your death in the middle of the Barrens and then have to run back if there was not a lock in the group. It did not happen often but once in a while it would.

107

This was when they were discussing sharding.

108

The black lotus spawn rate will already be tweaked as server size will be larger to deal with the larger demand.

109

No. He was talking about layering (but he accidentally referred to sharding). Even the best lawyers misspeak.

All that I can say is that is a lot of windup. If the guarantee is that layering will be out of the game in the first few weeks (however long that is), then just say it.

110

Posts like this are the equivalent of crudely sketching a weiner & yambag on the wall of a public bathroom.

111

That is fine. Because the laws of supply and demand will still be in check. What is not fine, is one or few people are able to jump layers to take other layers BL and put it on the market.

The AH is def going to be a new beast. First, we know WAY more ways to make gold using the AH. Second, with the bigger number spread out on layers, there will be more materials available.

So yes, we will have more, but if that is farmed in a legitimate way, then its all good. . In my eyes

112

This is literally all there is to it.

/thread

1 Like
114

The problem is that even if they get the balance right, no one wants to see a clip of some streamer gathering 50 black lotus in 2 hours. It just makes your game look like a huge joke, even if you bring in an economists to explain why Adam Smith is right.

1 Like
115

Yeah but that was back in November, when he also said “Investigating”. May is six months later and they have their plan.

116

  1. Static layers, which solves:

    1. Layering, because the vast majority of layering hate is for the CRZ/Sharding elements, which static layers eliminate.
    2. Low population, because static layers maintain layering’s ability to merge layers.
    3. Queues, because while static layers won’t eliminate them entirely, static layers Will allow Blizzard to spin up as many layers as they need instead of artificially limiting the number of servers available.

The reason we’re getting layering is because the tech exists already and is therefore a cheap solution, not because it’s the best solution.

117

All i heat is whining from the op.

118

First off; the ellipsis.

Do you just not like the comma? Your comma key cries out for validation. Stop neglecting it. Heaven help me if I ever witness the state of your semicolon key.

Secondly

119

And prevents:

  • Players from grouping up with anyone they can see in chat (or are friends with) but aren’t on the same layer.
  • Finding someone who’s selling something on the AH to trade it directly.
  • Getting to know other players until the layers collapse.

They’re trade offs, but just wanted to make sure it wasn’t all sunshine and rainbows on the list.

120

My understanding is that the static layer solution would have each layer operating effectively as separate servers but sharing a namepool so that if merges do happen down the line there are no conflicts, in which case only your 3rd point has merit but thems the breaks.

121

Completely isolated realms then?

That would exacerbate point 3, but would also cause a fair amount of economic instability when the realms are collapsed and everyone’s price points suddenly get thrown out.

122

  • Chat isn’t shared between static layers. Why would it be? You can’t interact with other static layers without rerolling a new character. Static layers function exactly the same way as vanilla servers, except they share a name database and will eventually merge.

  • Similarly, the AH isn’t shared until layers merge.

  • What do you mean by this? Other players, as in players on different layers? When you literally have a server-sized population in your layer, I don’t think you’ll care. Also, good luck getting to know other players when current layering randomly shuffles you between layers, causing you to rarely see the same player twice.

123

Low pop servers have vastly different economies than high pop servers. Merging two low pop servers would also affect the economy.