We're not making enough noise about layering

WoW Classic WoW Classic General Discussion
630

Massive queues will be seen as a bigger failure by the general population. Classic diehards are going to play regardless. Having players wait in a 4 day queue is a worse optic than the occasional “Huh?” from layering.

631

Have you thought about the outcome if Blizzard’s premise that there will be a mass exodus of players doesn’t occur? The conditions to remove layering never come about. So now what? Ironically, layering might be the very cause of the departure of a large amount of players.

Shall I link the article where Brack says they wouldn’t any sharding technology? Things change. And by the way, please do link these references you make that layering will be gone in a few weeks.

1 Like
632

The problem is that doing nothing will always be bad, and doing something will maybe be bad.

  • No layering, no new servers : Massive queues, people are turned away, game loses those people anyway, without subs. :x:
  • No layering, new servers, drop off: Population dies on every server. :x:
  • No layering, new servers, no drop off: Fantasy land but smooth. :white_check_mark:
  • Layering, with drop off : People try it, get bored, layering saves populations. :white_check_mark:
  • Layering without drop off: People try it, get super excited, Blizzard implements server transfers and more servers if required, coordinated Realm Splits as a last resort. :white_check_mark:

Do you see how Layering is the “sure bet”, not the “risky choice”? The people most up in arms about layering, are going to play regardless. They’re arguing to “protect” a casual player base who will be more concerned with playing than authentically waiting in queues.

633

I have Mogar. And at that point, we will be dealing with wonderful things and it will raise a lot of other issues indeed.

However, with the current server infrastructure, I could see that in that case, they could easily split the one server into two dividing them. This would have logistical issues to navigate but its a possible outcome.

We should be happy if Classic is so successful that another solution needs to be in place.

However, I still stick by my assertion that ques and larger visible populations would do more harm to getting to that state.

I also fear that the true resistance to some on the face of layering is simply a bias or desire to have classic fail except for a select few. Of which I don’t think will stick around very long once certain things happen. But this is solely my opinion and fear.

634

That’s a lot of words for not providing a source for your claims.

635

I have provided as many sources as you. Common sense, logic, rational breakdown of the situation?

I didn’t provide a claim, I laid out scenarios. Feel free to disagree that a specific scenario had the result listed, but your attempt to authority is spurious.

1 Like
636

Oh, I see, you slapped a question on the end:

Here’s a thread I prepared earlier. I’m surprised you’re not in it. Or maybe avoiding it because it disrupts your narrative.

637

You said:

I said provide a source, and now you’ve made two posts failing to do so.

638

The third post was literally the thread where the claim is laid out in detail. How’s the sand taste?

639

Was that so hard? By the way, you made that post the exact time I made mine.

In any event, good I’m glad they’ve said a few weeks. But that doesn’t change the impact those first few weeks will have. And especially the harm from layer hopping. I wouldn’t be saying anything about layering if it was just for the first few weeks or zones, and didn’t have layer hopping. The second part is going to be heavily abused. And players will miss out on all kinds of things because chance puts them in the ‘wrong layer’.

640

Given how many times I’ve reposted that one thread, yes, it’s getting a little tiresome.

641

Obviously I haven’t seen that thread…as you yourself noted. So when someone asks for a source maybe don’t cop an attitude: just provide it.

Anyway, I really didn’t like him saying basically ‘we have the technology to have 1,000 players in Elwynn, but it would be a miserable experience’. I disagree completely with that. And it’s exactly what I’ve been saying about them basing layering for the wrong reasons: convenience. Players will come to expect and rely on that convenience. And that’s a dangerous message to send. Especially from the very beginning.

642

You want a third of a server in just Elwynn, and we’re the ones who want changes?

SMH

Layering is not to reduce the number of players in a zone, its to simulate the exact number that we would have if we were on 3k servers, while ensuring that they don’t have a population crash later.

643

On the contrary. You guys are making too much noise about layering

644

…maybe you should watch that interview again, because that’s NOT going to happen. They’re not going to have even 1k players in Elwynn forest. Ion specifically says that that would be a miserable time. So they’re going to cap layering based on that, not a simulation of Vanilla server sizes.

645

Yes, they’re not. And there never was in Vanilla.

Even at worst numbers, humans make up 25% of the population, which would be 750 players. That’s assuming half the Alliance plays humans, which won’t happen at launch.

If they cap with 3k per layer, there will never be 1000 humans levelling in Elwynn Forest. You might have seen that in your Private Server experience, but it never happened in Vanilla. You’re asking for a change to the vanilla meta.

More likely, there will be about 500 humans in Elwynn Forest on Day 1, and no more than about 250 after that at any given time. Which is authentic.

You’re intentionally misreading the quote to make a spurious claim. They are not capping layering at smaller sizes than 3k to make life easier. They’re avoiding having higher than 3k caps because that would make life harder than it was in Vanilla.

TL;DR: If you removed layering you would never have your scenario either.

646

Ion literally said it’s being done for that very reason.

And it wouldn’t be a miserable experience. It would be a fantastic experience. It’s what I want from Classic. It’s frustrating that Ion doesn’t get that.

2 Likes
647

You are asking for changes to the meta. Stop asking for changes. I don’t want 6000 player populations without layering, because that is not authentic.

You people who want changes to the game are horrible.

:wink:

648

I like that too, it would be way better than people being globally sharted on !

A competitive world! :slight_smile:

649

Well, true. I still keep spreading the word to people that don’t know about classic. People just say “I’m not playing WOW anymore, it became too easy”, or “I tried it, during panda expansion, and didn’t enjoy it”. They have no idea that classic is a thing.

well, that confusion isn’T a bad thing. I still remember the confusion when someone was saved into the raid, or when nobody knew what caused the wipe.

However, about the player-organized events, you are right - but if this is only for the first 2 weeks, then we can just wait it out. I’m not expecting any player-organized events during the first 2 weeks.

they seem to have added some sort of delay with diminishing returns.