We've been utterly LIED to about Layering

[Eloraell-moon-guard]

And you absolutely ignore/accept all of the negatives that creates?

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.

[Vøøðøø-blackrock (Vøøðøø)]

Either competition is or isn’t as reason for you to prefer layering.

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.

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?)

[Ristra-suramar (Ristra)]

The way you phrased your statement seemed to imply that an anti-layering thread is inherently spam.

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.

No layering doesn’t mean adding more realms.

No layering doesn’t mean dynamic spawns.

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.

[Eloraell-moon-guard]

What is a feeder group?

The number of people on the server.

which would be more competition which you claimed is undesirable.

Lies. I said 500 would be fine because that’s what it was like in Vanilla. Please keep yourself to the truth.

[Vøøðøø-blackrock (Vøøðøø)]

@Eloraell-moon-guard

@Vøøðøø-blackrock

which would be more competition which you claimed is undesirable.

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.

@Eloraell-moon-guard

If I was a speed leveller and you only had sharding on a 12k server, I’d feel cheated, because I have to compete with 4x as many people in the higher zones.

[Ðavyjones-tichondrius]

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…

[Eloraell-moon-guard]

Then you contradict your own argument.

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.

[Alyorbase-elune]

So it’s either;
EXCESSIVE que times - bad
Dynamic spawns - bad
Server mergers - bad
Layering - bad

Blizzard considers layering the lesser bad.

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.

[Vøøðøø-blackrock (Vøøðøø)]

Then you contradict your own argument.

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.

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.

[Abigaiil-tichondrius (Abigaiil)]

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.

[Droodguy-terokkar (Droodguy)]

At least sharding didn’t create the situation where there are 4 layers for a zone with 2 players in it across all layers

[Ðavyjones-tichondrius]

Yep - going with the shared sub was their biggest mistake.

YES!!!

WoW Retail Subs: ???
WoW Classic Subs: ???
WoW Subs: 10,000,000

They dont need to tell us what game has the most subs!!!

[Eloraell-moon-guard]

that would mean we need 100 servers for them…

World-wide.

Break that down between EU and NA only, and they may only have 50 servers for one region. That seems reasonable to me.

30-50 US servers has always been my estimate, though you have to remember that that load is spread wider.

At peak hours of a day, 40% is a good difference between online and total.

So if there were 50 US servers, with a realm cap of 3000 each, that supports 7500 per server, or 375,000. When they see that the game is popular, and add say 20 more servers, that satisfies the 500,000 player estimate I keep making. (plus 25,000)

70 servers will ensure high populations on most servers if we have 500,000 players.

[Eloraell-moon-guard]

Which option is offering a 3k server again? The sharding option right?

No the layering option.

The layering option is 12k?

Broken into 4 3k layers of which you are only on one at any given time.

So layering will make more competion for you?

No it will make authentic competition. I don’t care if its more or less. I want what 3k in my “world” will provide. If all of them decide to go to Elwynn Forest, I’ll and keep levelling in Teldrassil.

[Ðavyjones-tichondrius]

70 servers will ensure high populations on most servers if we have 500,000 players.

Agreed 100% the problem is my assumption is there are 1,000,000 plus in America that want to play this as their main game. Not counting all of the tourists.

I could be wrong…

[Eloraell-moon-guard]

@Ðavyjones-tichondrius

Agreed 100% the problem is my assumption is there are 1,000,000 plus in America that want to play this as their main game.

Then we’ll have 135 servers.

You forget the other part of Ion’s statement.

and expand as needed, just as the 2004 launch did

Ion Hazzikostas

[Ðavyjones-tichondrius]

I could be wrong…

True True… the problem with that is the expansion as needed might need to happen on hour one… The great thing about the name save is that it gives them a good number of subs that will at least try classic… The bad thing is since it is not a classic sub they dont know how many do not intend to play that game…

As for total numbers consider this… I am going to main this game. I will also have a second account that will be logged in most of the time I am. Both of my sons are also going to main this game… so that is 4 classic accounts that grew out of one original Vanilla account

[Eloraell-moon-guard]

the problem with that is the expansion as needed might need to happen on hour one…

I think Blizzard’s server team has a lot of metrics to go off. We may see a rapid expansion in the server list when the signup happens anyway.

[Ohshiftson-area-52]

Setting up enough realms to handle the initial populations, which could be several million, then when the population drops action must be taken.

They don’t have to set up enough realms so that EVERY player can play at the same time. Queues are okay.

[Vøøðøø-blackrock (Vøøðøø)]

So if there were 50 US servers, with a realm cap of 3000 each, that supports 7500 per server, or 375,000. When they see that the game is popular, and add say 20 more servers, that satisfies the 500,000 player estimate I keep making. (plus 25,000)

70 servers will ensure high populations on most servers if we have 500,000 players.

You obviously don’t know what you’re talking about, each server contains generally 16 blades each blade can support 12k people. A realm with sharding would be an entire blade serving 12k people with layering, not 3k people per realm, because that would not be using layered realms. 7500 people on a server would mean there is only 469 people supported per blade.