Go watch it.
1 Like
It’s not my job to find your evidence, that’s on you since you made the claim, the burden of proof is entirely on you.
1 Like
No, the fallacy is “Appeal to Authority”, where the fact that a given authority believes something, is not proof of truth.
I never said that the servers definitely could hold the numbers. I said:
And in the Staysafe interview, on this very question, Patrick Dawson said that Vanilla can, even though BfA can’t (yet).
1 Like
Peacing out here, got my piece/peace.
I’m only against exploitable layering, the issues brought to my attention, and learning what the server infrastructure may look like… Makes me hope blizzard comes up with a solution to prevent it, and even better would be to remove it once a majority of the hype train reach level 45 or so.
Well, they already supposedly implemented a cooldown on layer swapping, and many of us are still pushing for a “rested zones only” layer swapping limit. That would stop the majority of problems and make exploitation more of a hassle than it’s worth.
2 Likes
Description of the argument from authority
Generally, the argument from authority or false authority, is an argument from an authority, but on a topic outside of the particular authority’s expertise or on a topic on which the authority is not disinterested (i.e., is biased). The argument is considered conditionally fallacious, because an appeal to authority may be appropriate.
In order for the argument from authority to be considered a logical fallacy, the argument must appeal to the authority because of their qualifications, and not because of their evidence in the argument. Moreover, the argument can be fallacious if the authority lacks actual qualifications in the field being discussed.
If this was court you would be going to jail for that, now please present the evidence you claimed to have in regards to the current server infrastructure being able to hold 400+ people in an area.
Go watch the Staysafe intervew with Patrick Dawson and Brian Birmingham. They address your concern directly.
2 Likes
Seems to me that Voodoo is using a Fallacy Fallacy in order to get out of doing a simple google search for the video.
4:30 if the time mark doesn’t work.
"“Our goal is to not have classic have sharding in the long term. A healthy realm is a certain population(we know what that is) and that’s what we’re targeting to accomplish in three, four, however many weeks it takes to reach that target; that’s what we’re after.”
2 Likes
I’m not watching an entire video to find your evidence you claim to have, you post the citation/location then i will look at it.
Nope. Because you really need to watch those videos in their entirety, since you have some massive misconceptions.
I’ve linked the videos in a dozen other threads at the timestamps. I’m sick of repeating myself to the next uninformed person with an axe to grind.
Yep, they say that is a Goal, yet that isn’t any sort of evidence to a server holding more than 400 people in an area nor is it stated with certainty. They might be able to achieve that goal they might not, and I’ll tell you why they sttate it that way, is because they can’t hold 400 people in an area without sharting or layering them. The entire premise of that goal is contingent on massive population decrease.
1 Like
6:10 in that video is the point where they explain how BfA sucks and Classic can hold the server population in a zone.
Well now you’ve just made a positive claim, and the burden of proof falls to you to prove that they can only hold 400 people in an area.
Their goal was also to deliver an authentic wow experience, and they have people phasing in and out, so that tells you how much faith can be put in their “goals”.
5 Likes
No, I stated initially there is no evidence to support the claim that layering can be turned off, which is the positive claim, supporting 400 people in 1 area would be evidence to the claim that they can turn it off. As it is, there is no evidence to support that they can turn it off in a manner that would support the population.
1 Like
In BfA its a well supported claim, by a 40vs40 Paladin DK brawl breaking the server. At 6:10 they directly address that though and say that Vanilla can handle it.
They are “looking into it” nothing definitive there either.
1 Like
They are looking into it for BfA.
Did you completely miss his point about the n-squared problem, and Vanilla having a far lower ‘n’?
Because cloud servers can emulate physical servers perfectly, but they also let you do things like layering to solve problems that arise when players stop playing like the did in retail which caused dead realms which caused them to introduce LFD and CRZ to combat those because people do not like server merges
Depends what N is actually, because with more people it just goes up, they can’t hold 80 people right now in retail casting spells, so imagine 400 people casting spells that are less taxing. the spells would have to be 5x more taxing on the server in retail than in vanilla to fail equally. Which doesn’t seem likely.
1 Like