Would you prefer they be split up with a login queue? More servers? Or Mogar’s favorite, Early Access?
Yes, I would. At least that way, I would be able to see everyone around me.
Why is Johnny getting early access and Billy choosing not get early access any different than Johnny starting to play on release day and Billy starting to play a week later?
1 Like
Because people will be against something simply because of who said it.
1 Like
I don’t want people to be able to pay more for a headstart. That’s paying for an advantage no matter which way you look at it.
And telling those who don’t want sharding to wait until it’s removed isn’t getting an advantage?
Best idea. Have classic launch on the day a major content patch goes live to force the tourists to choose between a game they are playing or a game they want to see what’s about.
3 Likes
Sure, that’s one thing they could do. I don’t know how large of an impact it would have but they could try it.
im not arrogant enough to believe just because i said it people are for or against it .
the people that are against what i say are against no changes most of the time. but there were some in the post i made that are strict no changers against it too.
seriously though people like someone i wont mention think its all about them and take everything super personally and flag any post in disagreement with them.
There’s really no argument against a paid early access. Since it requires a sub anyway, you could always say…‘This person subbed a week before me, so they got to play a week before me.’ Therefore saying someone pays for early access has some kind of advantage has no merit. It’s available to all. And peoples’ values dictate whether or not it’s worth that cost.
And the people Ion was talking about at Blizzcon probably won’t pay for that early access. Meaning they can play a little later on without hugely crowded starting areas. Sharding is therefore unnecessary.
The only people I see against this are the entitled BfA players who want Classic handed to them on a silver platter conformed specifically for their ideals. People who, as Ion said, probably won’t last long anyway. So what difference does it make if they play a few days later? At least they’ll get the experience they want and the more dedicated, purist Classic players will get the experience they want.
1 Like
Except you pay the same as them at anytime. If you want the advantage of starting earlier, you have to pay more. That’s paying more for an advantage, it doesn’t matter how you try to dance around it.
They don’t even try to pull this level of crap in BfA and you want them to do it in Classic, yeesh.
Those raids had maybe a couple of hundred people between two raids, and people in the city.
The amount of people at start of the launch maybe significantly higher. It won’t last long, but i don’t think you want few thousand people creating human warriors, and have the server go down.
They sure didn’t allow people to pay for BFA before it was even released to gain those allied races, did they?
Oh, wait…
2 Likes
You’re arguing with a brick wall, man. Paying for early access is no different than paying for a sub a week earlier than someone who doesn’t. Guess what: you’re paying an extra week, therefore you’re paying more and playing earlier.
This is yet another example of no consistency in logic when someone is guided by personal bias rather than common sense and cold, hard facts. In any event, the ramblings of such trolls are irrelevant. Hopefully the devs at least consider the option.
They won’t because Blizzard will not support your p2w early access garbage. Keep your unethical gaming monetization ideas to yourself, please.
Comparing apples to submarines. Do you actually support Blizzard charging people more money in order to get to a game sooner than others? Do you think it would be a great idea for Blizzard to allow early access to raids if you throw them $20?
Blizzard allowing access to some cosmetic races with terrible racials earlier is not the same as allowing an ENTIRE GAME TO BE PLAYED EARLIER IF YOU PAY THEM MORE MONEY.
Jokers.
What ever happened to the slippery slope you trolls used to claim would be the result of giving Blizzard an inch? Hey, let’s use that garbage fallacy you guys carted out everytime one of your terrible arguments was smashed into pieces.
Allowing Early Access to the game by purchasing it will lead to them allowing you Early Access to the AQ gates event by purchasing it. Silithus will be closed off to everyone who doesn’t pay. That’s the situation most of you people think they’ll be willing to use sharding once again other than launch, right? SLIPPERY SLOPE BABY.
Great idea Mogar! Great idea Fesz!
Just keep moving those goalposts…
![:cocktail:](https://d38bqls1q93fod.cloudfront.net/en/wow/images/emoji/twitter/cocktail.png?v=6" ":cocktail:")
Early access would not be my first choice, but I would definitely choose early access over seeing that game cancer that is sharding used in any manner, even a limited fashion.
My first choice would be to have some servers designated as “no shard” that would NEVER see sharding (even if that meant queues or crashes at launch or down the road) and some servers that would have sharding (even if that means the possibility of sharding well beyond the, as yet undefined, “starting areas” and well beyond that brief time at launch). Let the players choose whether they want to deal with: A) the possibility of queues and server crashes or B) the possibility that sharding will encompass the entire world for the life of Classic.
My second choice would be two fold. Release Classic and a major BFA content patch (say 8.2 which would have pathfinder part 2 and the flying unlock) at the same time and use server queues if necessary.
That, of course, presupposes that Blizzard is using servers that can handle even a moderate load. If their servers cannot handle even a moderate load, then what chance is there that sharding would actually be limited to the, as yet undefined, “starting areas” or that brief time at launch?
If Blizzard decides that sharding is absolutely necessary, then my preference would be subservers, or stable shards, that can be consolidated if the population drastically drops off. Subservers should never be sharded within themselves and once one or more subservers are consolidated the consolidted subservers become a single subserver and should not again be separated, even if that means queues or crashes down the road if the population sees an upspike during a retail content drought.
Do you even Activision, Bro?
just showing the potential, happy new year!
Bottom line is server technology has only gotten exponentially better since 2004. If Blizzard takes the easy way out of this with sharding its dead on arrival and we’ll go back to emulators. Ball is in your court Blizzard.
1 Like
I’ll put up with loot sharing but sharding is a game killer for me.