Where did you get this nonsense, and why do you keep repeating it? I will not be setting any records at all.
Did you or did you not say that you would feel cheated not being able to speed level with so many people around?
I said that if I was doing that, yes, I’d feel cheated if there were 4x as many people in that area. I never said I was doing that. I intend to get ahead of the pack and get some clear air, but not set any records.
And was that argument used for pro-layering?
You’re losing track of your spurious arguments.
That was in response to “Shard lower level zones, and no sharding at higher level zones”. Where you dump 4x as many people into higher level zones.
This rationale and logic also apply’s to layering, 12k pop is 12k pop if they are equally distributed. Either competition is or isn’t a reason for you to prefer layering.
All you do is offer problems… do you have any solutions??
1 Like
No. If you implement sharding at lower zones, then 4x as many people will be in the single layer higher level zones than otherwise would have been.
I know logic is hard, but its not that hard.
I want the equivalent of 3000 people in my “world”. Whether I’m level 1 or level 40. With sharding only low levels, you will have 4x as many high level players, because your feeder group is 4x as much. With layering, you will have 1x.
Yep. Dynamic Layering. 3-4 layers, 3000 people on each.
And you absolutely ignore/accept all of the negatives that creates?
2 Likes
No, I’ve been campaigning to increase the exploit limitations for months. And at least one part they’ve implemented. If we also get Rested switching only, most of the problems are minimised.
What is a feeder group? If you are competing against 500 people you are competing against 500 people, it doesn’t matter how they got there. Sharding wouldn’t put 500 people together, but what you are proposing would put 500 people in an area, which would be more competition which you claimed is undesirable. (well, you claimed it is undesirable, then you claim it is what you want, so who knows?)
1 Like
No, it’s not worded that way but being biased sure does help you read it that way. The statement is ambiguous. It’s about spam versus tact.
Still ignoring the full equation.
They are not going with 1 realm. That would be massively long que times. Unless they layer or dynamic spawn.
So how many realms do you think they will go with?
The correct answer is as few as possible. Where you come off as if you want them to set up as many as needed.
Setting up enough realms to handle the initial populations, which could be several million, then when the population drops action must be taken.
This is the part Blizzard is intent on mitigating. The part you ignore.
So it’s either;
EXCESSIVE que times - bad
Dynamic spawns - bad
Server mergers - bad
Layering - bad
Blizzard considers layering the lesser bad.
The number of people on the server.
Lies. I said 500 would be fine because that’s what it was like in Vanilla. Please keep yourself to the truth.
Then you contradict your own argument.
2 Likes
Even if there are ONLY 300,000 world wide that are going to play this game long term… that would mean we need 100 servers for them…
If we are going to get half that amount at launch (seems unlikely) Then they will ONLY be able to support 600,000 people with a 3000/4 layer per server cap
I would not be shocked if 1,500,000 people “try” classic at launch… meaning more than half of them will wait hours to play or not play at all…
Everyone wants to talk about layer and server caps without considering the fact that Blizzard already stated they are going with lean server numbers…
Including not having a single RP-PvP server… at least if you made one per region you would know that all of the people in those regions would play on that server keeping it alive… If they were going to launch with 50 servers you would assume that they COULD designate one per region to RP-PvP… but they wont… indicating that they are not going to have even 50 servers…
I hope this is not the case… I want Classic to be a success… but this whole issue with lean servers is more bothersome than any layering or sharding debate and what we should really be vocal about…
No. I don’t. Because on a 3k server, there would not be 4x as many people in that high level zone…
Its simple maths.
DING DING DING! I think we have a winner here! That’s exactly what is going on. Blizzard is trying to solve an issue that they believe is a “greater evil” than putting layering in the game which I agree with that myself. I’d rather have to deal with a month maybe 2 at most of layering and not have to suddenly realize that I don’t have anyone left on my server to play with. Plus the added benefit of being able to play on launch after maybe a brief queue instead of sitting in queue for hours waiting to get in when I have limited time to play.
2 Likes
Which option is offering a 3k server again? The sharding option right? The layering option is 12k? So layering will make more competion for you? Which is either desireable or undesireable to you, hard to tell.
Yep - going with the shared sub was their biggest mistake.
I think we are going to end up with server pops. of 10-12K after they remove layering. They are afraid to tell us that but the numbers don’t pencil otherwise.