Why the rush to eliminate layering?

WoW Classic WoW Classic General Discussion
21

I believe they started locking out faction transfers, which is a good start… which started a bit late.

I honestly can’t imagine Hellfire Peninsula if they move forward with BC. They’d have to temp bring back layering for an expansion release…

They had the technology for mega servers, but did not realize there is no sharding/crz/instant teleports to instances, thus everyone has to be out in the world, and crowded.

That alone is why many PVP servers are suffering. Not from “PVP”, but from the imbalance messing up the original faction vs faction design.

22

No they didn’t. Blizzard expect players to come and go. Just as they have. Every realm has had a significant population decline since the launch.

We’d already have to deal with most realms being dead. Layering did it’s job.

23

Possibly. Opening week was pretty bad in Northshire, that’s for damn sure.

I think they realized it but either didn’t care (they’re making money anyway) or assume the quit rate would be much higher than it is.

24

The few servers they released became FULL with hours of queue times.

They panicked and released servers too many too quickly and now we have this weird gobs here and there of populations.

25

They should have made vanilla accurate population caps with no layers and just had more servers. Then merged the low pop ones later if they got too dead, and doing the merging based on time zone and faction population/balance. No cross realm linking, just straight up smashing the two populations together.

Instead you now have a few massive servers with extremely long queue times and extremely unbalanced factions. And some dead servers where it takes an hour to find a group for a level relevant dungeon.

I think the 2 weeks ahead of time name reservation was a bad idea personally. It should have just been a free for all on August 27th.

3 Likes
26

I agree - that was a mistake.

27

world bosses

28

I believe the name reservations gave a ‘census’ of an idea of what to expect and how to prepare for it.

29

Really? That would then suggest that they completely ignored their own data?

Neither scenario would surprise me, ignore the data or no data, this is Blizzard.

30

They didn’t panic. This was the plan all along. Start with as few realms as possible. Then, force via que, the overflow onto new realms. Slowly trickle out realms to keep a minimum realm count.

31

I think they hugged onto their “You think you do, but you don’t” way too hard.

32

I think they still want that to be true.

33

Then you ended up with players so attached to their names they refused to transfer off because they weren’t guaranteed their name on the new realm.

1 Like
34

I know I’m attached to my names.

Most people are. Using the internet they have their certain handful of names that associate with their online self, or character.

Especially Roleplaying realms. Names are important.

35

I ran a census on Herod the other night. There were 2,300 Horde online at 5:00 P.M. Herod is the most popular server and the Horde is dominant there.

Herod likely had a total of 3,500 players online, which is the Vanilla cap. I don’t know where this idea that we have mega servers with 10k+ concurrent online users comes from but I’ve seen absolutely no evidence that this is the case.

1 Like
36

Can confirm, Mankrik is about 60/40 h:a ratio. Great guilds on both sides. Plenty of people for end game.

1 Like
37

Eh, it’s like 70-75% if anything. (I’m on pagle btw)

38

World bosses. Otherwise they screwed up.

39

Did you run /who paladin 1-5, 6-10…60 parses for each class, on both sides? Cap size increases confirmed by blizz, relative hk totals, AH transactions, node refresh rates, ironforge.pro, and layer removal effects.

1 Like
40

No, I only did the Horde side but Alliance on Herod is the minority faction by a fair amount.

https://i.imgur.com/QyeOxix.png