We've been utterly LIED to about Layering

WoW Classic WoW Classic General Discussion
319

Your anger isn’t unfounded, however; I’m going to play the Devil’s Advocate.

From an I.T standpoint, the technology needs to be tested if it is to be implemented. I am (desperately hoping!) that it is configured for a low population threshold just for testing.

And with that out of the way - yes, it can be a potential deal breaker if it is the latter. :sob:

320

Those are steps in the right direction, but don’t go far enough. I would suggest additional restrictions like you cannot switch layers while flagged for pvp, can’t switch while in combat, a no switching cooldown debuff after mining or herbing a node to cut down on gathering exploits. A debuff banning layer hopping until 3-5 mins after the last node you gathered has respawned should be sufficient.

321

Any cooldown they implemented on that, would probably wear off before they got back to the Inn.

How would that work on a PVP realm where you’re always flagged?

You fight inside the Inn? So rude…

322

The “one community” is the individual layer that ideally would never need merging. If the population plummets such that the server would die otherwise, then merge with one or two of the other near-dead layers. With this method I’m treating each layer as a separate server since that’s essentially what they’ll be.

That said the current implementation of layering is far more destructive to the “one community” since players are constantly jumping around between logins and groups, shared chat would have players trying to join the “fun” layer non-stop and the only way to fix any of the MANY abuses is either a CD that prevents you from playing with groups you’ve joined or trying to prevent groups from forming anywhere but an Inn. Both of those are even worse than the exploits they try to fix.

2 Likes
323

Simple, on PVP servers, you are always flagged in contested territory, add an additional restriction where you can only layer hop in rested area in uncontested territory. If you don’t flag yourself in uncontested territory, you can switch layers.

1 Like
324

So… even longer separated, because you don’t want them to merge at all. So a sneaky way to implement no layering, and destroy the game.

Gotcha :wink:

This is not beta.

325

An Inn in an uncontested territory. I think that’s getting a bit extreme.

326

Typical Lfr hero response

327

Sometimes you have to get restrictive to minimize the most potential for abuse possible. Just how it is. It’s either that or subservers. I personally prefer the dynamic locked subserver approach, but we already agreed to disagree on that.

328

Given that Blizzard is going to most likely implement this in Retail permanently, we can only expect them to go so far. Providing things they’d use anyway as restrictions is far more likely to get traction than telling them to make more Retail servers.

Though the real solution for Retail is to actually merge servers for once, since everyone’s already lost their server identity long ago.

1 Like
329

Sharding…
/thread

330

“Being within the bounds of common sense; Governed by or being in accordance with reason or sound thinking.”

I see. So you think anything anti-layering isn’t reasonable, but anything that licks Blizzard’s boots is reasonable. Got it.

Yeah, I already said that.

We don’t really need or want a blue post; we want layering gone. We’re not looking for lip service.

Given that PvP servers are no longer a thing, layering is now a thing (and sharding before it), and almost all content is cross-realm, it seems they really only need 2 realms per region: Normal and RP.

4 Likes
331

If they actually merged servers consumate to population and dropped CRZ above level 100, they might get a community back though.

332

At this point, they should be trying to form a game-wide community. There’s really no chance of realm communities forming ever again with all the cross-realm stuff they’ve added.

Of course, that’s assuming they actually want a community at all in WoW. Most of what I’ve seen shows they don’t.

333

That’s the point though. If they pulled out all the cross realm stuff, by boosting server populations again through merging, it might at least get them out of the stall. CRBGs would have to stay, but they could repopulate the servers and have LFG be in realm, and not need CRZ above 100.

Below 100 you still have the lack of actual people levelling.

Classic will show them that what they want is wrong. If they listen, it might help revitalize Retail.

334

If only we were so lucky.

That’s by design. They want you paying for boosts. That’s why they make the leveling process as miserable as possible and constantly nerf any strategy for fast and efficient leveling people come up with.

I certainly hope so, but I don’t have any hope they’ll come to that realization. Even if they notice Classic is doing so much better than retail, they’ll probably mistake the reason why.

“Classic has fewer abilities; let’s just prune more abilities.” This is Blizzard’s way of doing things: fix things that aren’t broken.

335

In that case, remove CRZ at low level and it will feel even more dead.

336

Preaching to the choir. I was always against the CRZ crap.

337

That’s also partly why I’m against no layering. Because when people say “Just merge the servers” what we’ll get is “Connected Realms/CRZ”. Three weeks of pain, vs CRZ down the track…

338

I can see where you going with this. It’s really not unreasonable to ask that they test Beta with real world scenarios like 9k people on a realm with 3 layers each with 3k people because. . . you know. . .they said thats how it’s going to work.

So yeah less talking blizzard more showing us this system actually doing what you claim it to do. But the contrarians on this forums will tell you how much of a dullard you are for thinking this.

I myself am waiting to see how launch goes before I pick up my pitchfork. As of right meow, not looking good ladies and gentlemen.

3 Likes