False conclusion.
1 Like
How can I factually test the fact it will be different once Classic launches? Or did you already forget what you said?:
Haha, right. “Objective comparison.” Get a grip.
4 Likes
Hourly reminder that layering is going into the game, no matter how many threads you people make.
Hourly reminder that that doesn’t mean it’s a good thing or should be in the game in the first place.
4 Likes
Way to dismiss the arguments raised by people you’re disagreeing with as “people not understanding layering/beta testing”, doubting any “problems” even exist even though they clearly are even if you don’t agree with them being problems, just to state your own opinion like it is a fact because people should just accept your way of “it’s actually nothing”, when clearly it is.
A very dismissive stance, based on ignorance of concerns raised with valid points and evidence (videos, articles, experience from tests,…) yet you go ahead and say stuff like this:
Before you accuse others of such things, how about being more consistent yourself first.
8 Likes
N is not just people. Its spell effect interactions. BfA has a lot more ‘procs on reactions’ and that magnifies the problem.
Vanilla’s N is far smaller than BfA’s N when two people are standing in front of each other. And because its the N-Squared problem, as BfA’s N increases far more than Vanilla’s N, for every person added, it scales far worse.
Hourly reminder that being a defending a billion dollar company with your every breath is cringe and if we make enough noise there’s a great chance the layering issue can be addressed!
Understanding the reasoning for a mechanic, and recognizing that the reasons for its existence are valid, is not shilling.
I wonder who’s paying you to discredit everything Blizzard’s doing? FF? OSRS? Who are you shilling for if disagreeing = shilling…
Ok way to completely misrepresent what I was saying.
Every point about layering and its problems have been discussed ad nauseam in the countless threads on it, the thing is its quite clear that while it has some problems they are minor compared to the problems its solving and of the proposed solutions its the least bad option. Go through those threads and see for yourself. Nothing new was brought up in this thread with 1 exception.
The one exception is the layering on the beta that is happening despite the beta not having enough people. That is a non issue since if you understand how the system works and how a beta test works and how its due to the scalability testing that is being done you understand that its a non issue.
I have been perfectly consistent.
2 Likes
You must be new here. Blizzard doesn’t care about feedback. Whatever plans they’ve got, they’re sticking to them, for better or for worse, no matter how it’s received by their customers.
The old Blizzard. The company we used to love and respect.
Blizzard beta tests are more or less preview versions. What you see in beta is what you’ll get. Folks like you who say “it’s just beta, it’ll be fixed by launch” have been around since the vanilla beta. It’s always the same.
2 Likes
Except that we’ve been seeing fixes get implemented.
They already changed their content plan after feedback from players. They recently announced they understood they went too far with classes after feedback from players. They even recently said they’ve done a poor job with feedback from players. Therefore I think the chances more recently of this making a difference are a bit higher than before.
True, and the more people casting spells increases the server load. The complexity of the spell in the programming adds to that load, but so does more people casting simpler less demanding spells. So 400 people casting a simple (Lets says value 1) spell would equate to 80 people casting a complex (lets say value 5) spell. Both equations = 400 server load. If 400 server load = unstable, then 400 server load = unstable, regardless of how you get to 400 server load.
Blizzard did not “cave to all the noise” over making Classic. Blizzard is making Classic for their own, undisclosed, interests.
Make all the noise you want. Blizzard still will do whatever they want.
Make a valid, well articulated, case and Blizzard might listen.
While your maths might be right in the way you think about it, its not in the way that the n-squared problem works.
If you say “value 5”, that’s making that 1 unit equal to 25, not 5.
80 x 25 = 2000^2 = 4,000,000
400 ^ 2 = 160,000
The values of the spells server load is unknown, and are arbitrary as far as the example goes.
It’s true they changed it. I’m curious if it was feedback that influenced that decision, though.
The feedback didn’t really make them change it. They were going to do that regardless of how people felt. They changed it because of how they felt. At best, you could say the feedback brought the issue to their attention, and they discussed it internally as a result.
From my understanding, that was a “we think we’ve gone too far,” not “we understand you think we’ve gone too far.” Subtle difference.
And it would not surprise me if this translates to 9.0 offering more abilities being pruned, a talent tree homogenization so talents are class specific instead of spec specific, a new rental “Class Artifact Power” system, and maybe a class mount that’s just a reskin of an old mount for a new rep you have to grind to exalted.
And what are they going to do about it? Recognizing the problem is great, so long as they actually do something to address it.
We can hope so. But this is Blizzard we’re talking about. I don’t have an inkling of trust in them anymore. I’ll never take them at their word again.
I’m sure they listen to it all the time. That doesn’t mean they do anything with it.
Hard to really appreciate someone listening to you say “don’t shoot me” if they then shoot you anyway.
Sure, but as the spell complexity increases, it doesn’t go up directly, it goes up exponentially. That’s the point.
I’m not discrediting the values, I’m pointing out that your factoring of spell complexity isn’t linear.
So both equations would go up exponentially. More people casting the same simple spells against more people equates to less people casting less, but more complex, spells against less people. You have to figure in the amount of people being affected by the spells as well, which would offer more load. For example 400 people getting frost nova and arcane explosioned, versus 80 people getting frost nova and arcane explosioned.
IF there is a chance, Tact and clarity is the method that will work. Noise is not.