Bricklethumb!! Do you not remember my reply to you just very recently about this?
I also posted an alternative to layering earlier in another thread:
I’m completely up for that as long as both sides treat eachother as such.
and no one giving alternatives.
What about the “working as a family”!?
Also, i remember the things you said about generalizations. And i can see everywhere how much they get you and how you don’t like those. So pls, don’t generalize on me, i’m trying to not generalize for you too! It’s hard but i’m doing what i can
I’ll list a couple more to show alternatives are being posted and issues acknowledged, but i quite frankly cba to find every sinlge one of them because there’s quite a few of them now, so if you really wanna know also search yourself mkay:
Blizzard will choose a certain number of servers and certain number of layers per server at launch. I propose to make those layers selectable by users one time at character creation.
Server list:
Mannorth1
Mannorth2
Mannorth3
Mannorth4
Burning Blade1
Burning Blade2
Burning Blade3
Burning Blade4
When you make a character, you choose your server, and the layer. If you want to play with your friends then you all choose “Burning Blade3” .
Once you choose your layer, you are locked to it…
One concern I’ve seen brought up on the forums numerous times by posters is the issue of certain servers becoming Ghost Towns. Whether a server becomes a ghost town by means of tourist egression, player burnout and lack of influx of new players, or just plain bad luck–very few players would like to play on a server with less than 1000 active players.
Because of the nature of the game–player development requiring /days played–many people would not like to reroll if they find themselves on these …
I’m not going to address the lot of problems that this new “layering” system (basically sharding 2.0) they introduced to us a couple days ago bring with it, as there are many other threads that do so better than I possibly could.
Instead of patching one issue at a time to eliminate exploits (which will happen as it is) and for the sake of keeping the Classic experience authentic I propose a simple solution: Subrealms.
What are subrealms? Read below. It’s simple.
Basically, we have a realm cal…
https://eu.forums.blizzard.com/en/wow/t/some-thoughts-on-layering-and-possible-alternatives/56051?u=vershantis-argent-dawn
Is it possible just to have a couple non-layered servers available at launch?
-The layered servers can still be recommended to new players since you’re worried about the game being unwelcoming to new players.
-The non-layered servers can have a warning on them at character creation that these servers may be full and have a several hour queue to them at peak times.
Question: What’s the downside to offering them?
The game world feels broken with layering for many of us, and not at all like the…
Is that really the case?
People offered the option of instead having invisible servers on top of servers (layering) that enables abuse, to have mutliple servers that are bound to be merged in the future if numbers drop. For a pool of realms like that, names can’t double.
This is actually the same as layering – with the huge difference being that there is no layering or phasing or whatever. And that those merges only happen if numbers do drop. No abuse possible.
Sounds way better to me, but p…
Since some people are so against layering/sharding that they are talking about not playing at all, instead of losing their money, blizz should cater to them.
Instead of letting them leave, offer them an alternative. A separate specialty subscription for say 18 bucks a month that features servers with NO layering/sharding. Blizzard would know exactly how much the population would be because of the separate sub and they would make more money for doing less work. Everybody wins.
Etc.
People clearly are trying to offer alternative approaches, some better than others of course.
2 Likes
Don’t do me like this pls!