You just described a less fluid version of layering as a solution to layering. Amusing.
2 Likes
False. In both of the examples, the world you play in and the people you play with are always the same people in the same cohesive, singular world with the same amount of resources.
Sure 2 months later the integrity of the game might waver a bit upon a merge with an over abundance of resources from the previous auction houses closing down, but the integrity of the world and game is intact from the beginning, rather than destroyed at the beginning.
2 Likes
There is ABSOLUTELY no good reason to let people phase out of a world and into another world on day one. I don’t care if it is once per day once per 12 hours or even once per hour, it destroys the integrity of the game.
1 Like
So what happens if your particular shard is basically dead after week 3, but blizzard isn’t going to collapse them until the end of month 3 because the rest are going strong. At that point you are locked to a dead layer for 2 months because they are locked.
I dunno but that doesn’t sound like a better solution to me.
2 Likes
Oh, so that wouldn’t be convenient for you to farm resources for a week? You want that instant gratification eh? I would bank up. This convenience oriented mind set needs to get out of Classic all together.
I wouldn’t waste your energy on these people. They don’t want to have their minds changed.
They just want to stew in their outrage.
What? Where did this week come from?
I don’t care what you do, request an early merger? But don’t destroy the integrity of my game for the sake of your convenience, again.
Blizzard don’t layer it like an onion because it’s going to make people cry!
Nope, I like the compromise that has been given for my ability to actually play the game instead of sitting in a 2k+ queue
1 Like
The “absolute good reason” is pretty much to prevent unnecessary costs to do a server merge. No matter how much you don’t want layering, Blizzard is a business. They will go with what will save them money. So rather than fighting what is going to happen, focus more on how to make it better for the short period it will be present.
2 Likes
For a couple of days you might be inconvenienced, so to combat that they are willing to destroy the integrity of the game for your personal convinience. THAT is what it is.
1 Like
That mindset is why they are where they are right now.
Market Summary > Activision Blizzard, Inc.
NASDAQ: ATVI
46.73 USD +0.53 (1.15%)
Not working for em, they gotta change it.
These “cutting corners” is costing them more than it is making them. As long as they keep trying to hock their “good enough and cheap enough” crap on people they won’t grow again.
But they won’t. If they do indeed fail because of layering alone, then so be it. But its gonna be in the game. You can’t change there mind on this =P
Yep, and that’s what people claimed about sharding too. You know what they compare opinions to right?
They wouldn’t have changed sharding if there wasn’t information presented that they found concerning. Sharding did not solve the issue of servers dieing some months in. They created Layering as a method to deal with this. I guess you could say that, yes, opinions did change this. But it was the opinions that Blizzard saw as an issue themselves.
1 Like
So you have tested this tech so far with 3000+ users per layer, extensively?
1 Like
This is true on Beta only because they HAVE to test it even if people stop playing and the pop can’t realistically support extra layers. Which is what we’re seeing on the Beta. They still have to spread people over multiple layers because it needs to be tested.
This will not be the case when Classic goes live. On live every layer will be a full servers worth of people. They won’t be forced to spread people out over low pop layers because they won’t be testing it. If you layer hop you’ll end up on another high pop layer. So farmers won’t have an easier time from one layer to the next. Layers won’t be dead because the lower the pop, the less active layers.
1 Like
For a subscription based game people deserve the highest quality, not “good enough”. I mean for $60 you can get the latest and greatest game and play it as much as you want. Many of the popular games out there are even free to play, and everyone is on the same playing field only paying for little perks that are irrelevant to the actual playing field.
Or for around $150 you can play a “good enough” game for a year (WoW Classic) or for around $200 you can play a sharded, crz, phased, convenience oriented game for 1 whole year!
For that price it is up to the people to DEMAND quality. The qualitty has been given away over the years little by little and now we are left with retail, so don’t give a little by little this time.
So basically your solution isn’t a solution at all. Amusing.