Bumlebi wrote:Either way, I don't think layering will stay in for long, so it's pretty possible that by the time you realize your coworker plays as well then layering is already a thing of the past.

Bumlebi wrote:to the people who're whining about it; wait until Phase 2.

You know phase 1 is going to be months long right? It's not going to come and go like sharding would have (literally was said to not be a thing outside of starting zones). MC and Onyxia are going to be out during phase 1, so your solution to people that don't like layering is to just not play for months on end? You didn't seem to think through this post either.

Selexin wrote: Do you really think that is a solution? Because if you do, you obviously don't know what happens if you have a lot of medium/low pop servers after 6-12months. Then you have to do merges, you DO NOT want server merges. That's like a inbred cousin of layering/sharding.

I think it's a better solution than layering is.
I played on a server during vanilla that died so I got a free transfer and went to a larger one later whenever they gave them out. Merging is better than cross realms or layering, cross realms are absolutely disgusting and a very large part of why I quit the game. I don't see how merging is any worse than layering other than people having to change their names. (which is essentially the same thing as layering since only one person is going to be allowed a name on a server)

Queues are 100% better than all this convoluted garbage, you're playing an MMO.

Swans wrote: ↑

6 years ago

Bumlebi wrote:Either way, I don't think layering will stay in for long, so it's pretty possible that by the time you realize your coworker plays as well then layering is already a thing of the past.

Bumlebi wrote:to the people who're whining about it; wait until Phase 2.

You know phase 1 is going to be months long right? It's not going to come and go like sharding would have (literally was said to not be a thing outside of starting zones). MC and Onyxia are going to be out during phase 1, so your solution to people that don't like layering is to just not play for months on end? You didn't seem to think through this post either.

I thought it through well enough, thanks for making me question myself on that. Yes, if layering is such a huge issue to you (or anyone else for that matter) as a player, then prioritize what you want to spend your time on like the adult you are and not play during MC/Onyxia. If that's an issue to you, then you need to deal with layering as well. To the "not playing in months on end" then sure, you've waited more than 10 years. What are a few more months? And yes, I do mean 100% that skipping MC/Onyxia is an option. This game is a service to you and not a right. If you dislike the service for some reason then don't buy it.

I've never really understood people who complain without offering solutions or any other kind of peace to themselves. Sharding in just the level 1-6 areas won't do it. With a little foresight it's easy to imagine how impossible it is to complete any quests in, say, Westfall, too. In my opinion layering is better than realm merges (accomplishes the same thing but on a much shorter timescale), and jumping ship when the server pop drops low enough is immersion-wise much worse than layering, too, no?

You come off to me with a subtle toxicity, which I don't really like or see the point of. I might be over interpreting, but then please say.

Bumlebi wrote:I've never really understood people who complain without offering solutions or any other kind of peace to themselves. Sharding in just the level 1-6 areas won't do it. With a little foresight it's easy to imagine how impossible it is to complete any quests in, say, Westfall, too. In my opinion layering is better than realm merges (accomplishes the same thing but on a much shorter timescale), and jumping ship when the server pop drops low enough is immersion-wise much worse than layering, too, no?

I suggested multiple realms didn't I? They would take care of people on servers that died with free server transfers like they have done before. It's better than manipulating the base game and allowing for players to exploit different layers for the auction house, item and mob spawns and gathering nodes and so on.

Bumlebi wrote:You come off to me with a subtle toxicity, which I don't really like or see the point of. I might be over interpreting, but then please say.

How does me disagreeing with you on a controversial topic make me toxic?

I'm totally fine with this for the first phase. I'd really be discouraged if the starting zones were super clogged with a billion people on day one.

I wonder what happens if there is 3001 players online. If they get split into two pools or if one guy gets the layer for himself?

Defuzed wrote: ↑

6 years ago

I wonder what happens if there is 3001 players online. If they get split into two pools or if one guy gets the layer for himself?

I think they are still changing the settings of layering and we will get more information closer to release.

I wonder about that too btw

Defuzed wrote: ↑

6 years ago

I wonder what happens if there is 3001 players online. If they get split into two pools or if one guy gets the layer for himself?

Showerthoughts

After considering everything, I understand why it exists and why it has to happen. I'm just holding my breathe for now. I know why it's needed but I worry about it being exploited.

My greatest worry is that this is like sharding putting its foot in the door and Blizzard won't hold to its promise of it being only in phase 1, or using some weird technicality to Ion Hozzikostas it back into ghe game in later phases.

pan0phobik wrote: ↑

6 years ago

I worry about it being exploited.

I very much agree with you on this but I don't think it will be too bad because, I imagine, there won't be that many layers.

Rakeem wrote: ↑

6 years ago

pan0phobik wrote: ↑

6 years ago

I worry about it being exploited.

I very much agree with you on this but I don't think it will be too bad because, I imagine, there won't be that many layers.

I can relate to this... I think its impact will be entirely dependent on how many people actually play, and how many servers they actually launch with and thus the population on each realm... The fewer realms they launch with, the more layers, the more impact layering has.

edit:spelling

Stfuppercut wrote: ↑

6 years ago

The fewer realms they launch with, the more layers, the more impact layering has.

I agree, I really hope they don't have servers with 20k pop. I am hoping for sort of 5-10k per server max. That way natural attrition will bring it down to basically non layering levels soon.

Selexin wrote: ↑

6 years ago

Stfuppercut wrote: ↑

6 years ago

The fewer realms they launch with, the more layers, the more impact layering has.

I agree, I really hope they don't have servers with 20k pop. I am hoping for sort of 5-10k per server max. That way natural attrition will bring it down to basically non layering levels soon.

Yea. Most of my concerns will likely subside when we have the full details of layering but its fun to speculate. I'd still have preferred temporary sharding confined to the start zones or dynamic re spawns, but if we find out each server has a max of 9k players with a hard cap of three layers, I could live with that temporarily. I am not concerned with 2 layers but once we start to get into the 3-5 layer region, I think it will have massive implications on gameplay.

Defuzed wrote: ↑

6 years ago

I wonder what happens if there is 3001 players online. If they get split into two pools or if one guy gets the layer for himself?

I think the best solution would be to combine layering with queues:
If all layers are full you get put into a queue. Only if one person has to wait X minutes or N amount of people are in the queue, a new layer will be opened and everyone in the queue gets in. This way you prevent/unnecessary empty layers from happening.

I dont think that will happen though. I guess Blizz wants to prevent queues at all.

res wrote: ↑

6 years ago

If you've ever played on a private server during a launch, you will know that it's pretty much impossible to play the game at launch, there are hundreds of people competing for the same mobs.

It's quite the opposite, anyone who has played on the launch of a private servers knows that sharding and layering aren't needed. Specifically, Nostalrius didn't have sharding or dynamic spawns and it launched smoothly with a larger playerbase than any Classic server will have - unless Blizzard doesn't launch with enough servers but that mistake would be on them.

The people who are pro-layering are imagining private server scenarios that they (nor anyone) have never experienced. People are claiming it'll take a week to be able to kill a single mob and all sorts of other hysterical fantasy.

The negatives of layering do not outweigh the positives. It negatively impacts all aspects of gameplay from community to economy to immersion.

Also keep in mind that Blizzard has kept moving the goal posts on sharding, and I'm sure they will move them again. At first it was only going to be starting zones and only for the first few days. Then it was the entire world, but only for a few weeks. Then it was the entirety of Phase 1. What happens when the population doesn't decline after 3 months of Phase 1? We've already seen on servers like Nostalrius that the population actually gradually increased over time. Then we're gonna be stuck with the meta game of phase-jumping for world bosses and World PvP?

It's not a deal breaker for me, but I'm definitely not happy about it, and I'm a bit disappointed in the community for supporting it.

What happened with the #nochanges guys anyway? They raise a stink over improved graphics but worldwide sharding is okay? They could introduce dual specs, barber shop, and tokens and it'd still be much less impactful to the game than layering.

Reiker wrote: ↑

6 years ago

res wrote: ↑

6 years ago

If you've ever played on a private server during a launch, you will know that it's pretty much impossible to play the game at launch, there are hundreds of people competing for the same mobs.

It's quite the opposite, anyone who has played on the launch of a private servers knows that sharding and layering aren't needed. Specifically, Nostalrius didn't have sharding or dynamic spawns and it launched smoothly with a larger playerbase than any Classic server will have - unless Blizzard doesn't launch with enough servers but that mistake would be on them.

If you by smoothly mean 10s lags, constant disconnects and dramatically decreased visibility. Not to mention waiting for mobs all the time.

Definitely pro-layering and against the shitfest of 10k players at once.

s1atan wrote: ↑

6 years ago

If you by smoothly mean 10s lags, constant disconnects and dramatically decreased visibility. Not to mention waiting for mobs all the time.

Definitely pro-layering and against the shitfest of 10k players at once.

If you had 10000ms ping at launch, then that was a connectivity issue that you specifically had with the Nostalrius server and unrelated to population, because no one else was experiencing it.

There was a latency issue, but it didn't appear until about a month after the launch of the server since it was caused by the network being unable to support the 10,000+ simultaneous connections that Nostalrius would reach at peak hours. Blizzard has better server technology, and hopefully better server availability so we won't be seeing 10,000+ simultaneous connections at peak hours.

Disconnects also weren't a population issue. There was some crashing at the beginning that was related to coding issues and was fixed over time. Nostalrius was transparent with all of this, so I'm not sure why you're trying to attribute it to being a launch/population issue.

Draw distance was only decreased when the server started to struggle with stability. Again, this was related to the unforeseen peak population spikes in excess of 10,000 players and already fixed by Blizzard's more modern networking and distribution of release servers. In fact, draw distance on the beta client is further than it was in vanilla WoW, is that a problem for you as well?

I've also had to clarify these same scenarios dozens of times on the WoW Classic subreddit. I just don't understand why so many people are fabricating all of these Nostalrius launch issues that never actually occurred. Is it unbelievably bad memory? Or are people inventing history just so they have a reason to support sharding? And if that's the case, why do people want sharding so badly?

Comparing all of these technical issues is like comparing apples and oranges. Do you honestly think that a corporation like Activision-Blizzard has worse server stability than some random private server? These are things that cannot be compared in the way that you're trying to compare them.

What can be compared however is the in-game impact since things like quest availability, mob density, mob respawn rates, etc. won't significantly change between Nostalrius and Classic. "Waiting for mobs all the time" just never happened, and I leveled to 60 within a couple of weeks without issue. Did you have to skip some quests like escorts at times? Absolutely. And I bet you'll have to skip most of them even with layering. Is it worth trading for sharding and all of the problems it brings? Absolutely not.

I just don't understand why people consider Layering a solution to "dead realms".

Their proof of concept would need to be in the manner of something like layering allows more players on less realms so once the game is static its more likely that realms will have a sustainable population rather than just showing 1 layer after 12 months having 3k pop, 3k pop is low these days.

The podcast Countdown to Classic just aired a new episode where they touch on layering from an IT perspective.

https://countdowntoclassic.com/2019/05/ ... -blizzard/

Skip to 1:12:45 for the discussion. It's a very rational guy with a background in IT who runs through his toughts and experiences in relation to how layering might be working. Very enlightening!

Reiker wrote: ↑

6 years ago

//
The negatives of layering do not outweigh the positives. It negatively impacts all aspects of gameplay from community to economy to immersion.

//
It's not a deal breaker for me, but I'm definitely not happy about it, and I'm a bit disappointed in the community for supporting it.

I think of you read the rest of my post you will see I came to the same conclusion.

I played on pretty much all private vanilla servers on launch day, and of course you could "play" the game without layering, and I think the hardships that develop when resources such as mobs are limited lead to more bonding and a sense of community.

But I can also understand that a lot of onlookers won't understand this and Blizzard is afraid it will reflect badly upon them.
Unfortunately this seems to just lead to a scenario where nobody is quite happy.

I'd prefer to play without layering but I think we'll manage, and hopefully it will be over quicker than planned.

Reiker wrote: ↑

6 years ago

It's not a deal breaker for me, but I'm definitely not happy about it, and I'm a bit disappointed in the community for supporting it.

What happened with the #nochanges guys anyway? They raise a stink over improved graphics but worldwide sharding is okay? They could introduce dual specs, barber shop, and tokens and it'd still be much less impactful to the game than layering.

RIGHT!?!! This is how I feel. Since the launch of Classic I was NEVER #nochanges. I thought the idea was silly and naive. Changes were always inevitable. I was even pro modern graphics because I felt as though it would increase player interest and thus the community while still maintaining a toggleable option for those who preferred old graphics. I even have mixed feelings about the token. Gold farmers creating black gold and disrupting the economy while causing inflation or the token allowing one player to trade clean gold to another??? I digress...

We have been nit-picking and talking about the subtle nuances of gameplay for over a year and now they introduce layering and a large portion of people seem absolutely okay with it. Hell, I think people have had more of a fuss over AoE looting and the modernization of the mailbox, than they have with layering... The reality is that I'll play WHATEVER they release! I'm just surprised that people are accepting this with open arms. Layering has massive implications on Classic, even if they are just temporary. Given our other options, dynamic respawns or temporary sharding restricted to starting zones, I feel as though layering is clearly the worst choice. As someone who will use any edge I can get, I plan on trying to abuse layering immediately and I question Blizzards ability to mitigate that abuse based on what information we currently have about layering. Again, I will play WHATEVER they release, as I'm sure the rest of you will, but I think that layering should be stimulating a lot more conversation than it has been in the community.

Raven wrote: ↑

6 years ago

1 layer after 12 months having 3k pop, 3k pop is low these days.

3k per continent. Layers are per continent. So that would be 6k pop, which is concurrent logged in users. This would be considered a very active server.

Stfuppercut wrote: ↑

6 years ago

Layering has massive implications on Classic, even if they are just temporary. Given our other options, dynamic respawns or temporary sharding restricted to starting zones, I feel as though layering is clearly the worst choice. As someone who will use any edge I can get, I plan on trying to abuse layering immediately and I question Blizzards ability to mitigate that abuse based on what information we currently have about layering.

OK, here is my problem with your argument. I don't want to abuse the game or the system. Once I am on a layer with all of my friends and my guild, I will be on that layer until layering is removed. It will feel exactly like #nochanges, because we wont have bullshit sharding/phasing in starting zones throwing me all over the place, we wont have bullshit dynamic respawns which is not representative of vanilla WoW and it will feel literally like it did for vanilla. 3k population on a layer playing the game with the correct respawn timers and with the same familiar faces (your guildies, other guilds on same layer, friends etc.). This is temporary, and as long as you're not actively trying to abuse systems to make it feel like #changes, then I don't see the problem.

If people want to abuse the system, well then good for them, for regular players like myself who want to play vanilla wow with our friends and guildies, we will simply play the game on our designated layer and enjoy #nochanges. Then layering will be removed and we might see some more face/guilds, but it certainly wont be this constantly changing landscape of seeing people disappear and appear and not recognising anyone like phasing/sharding.

Have they stated anything about the size of servers? Are they going with the original population size? Or perhaps a new number combined with layering?

Selexin wrote: ↑

6 years ago

Stfuppercut wrote: ↑

6 years ago

Layering has massive implications on Classic, even if they are just temporary. Given our other options, dynamic respawns or temporary sharding restricted to starting zones, I feel as though layering is clearly the worst choice. As someone who will use any edge I can get, I plan on trying to abuse layering immediately and I question Blizzards ability to mitigate that abuse based on what information we currently have about layering.

OK, here is my problem with your argument. I don't want to abuse the game or the system. Once I am on a layer with all of my friends and my guild, I will be on that layer until layering is removed. It will feel exactly like #nochanges, because we wont have bullshit sharding/phasing in starting zones throwing me all over the place, we wont have bullshit dynamic respawns which is not representative of vanilla WoW and it will feel literally like it did for vanilla. 3k population on a layer playing the game with the correct respawn timers and with the same familiar faces (your guildies, other guilds on same layer, friends etc.). This is temporary, and as long as you're not actively trying to abuse systems to make it feel like #changes, then I don't see the problem.

If people want to abuse the system, well then good for them, for regular players like myself who want to play vanilla wow with our friends and guildies, we will simply play the game on our designated layer and enjoy #nochanges. Then layering will be removed and we might see some more face/guilds, but it certainly wont be this constantly changing landscape of seeing people disappear and appear and not recognizing anyone like phasing/sharding.

"It will feel exactly like #nochanges, because we wont have bullshit sharding/phasing in starting zones throwing me all over the place"
It wont. You don't get to decide how it will feel. The cumulative interactions of the players around you will determine that... When you try to gank me and I phase to avoid that gank, it wont feel authentic. I promise. When I phase back and gank you, and then hop phases again to avoid retaliation, it wont feel authentic. I promise.

"sharding/phasing in starting zones throwing me all over the place" Layering is one gigantic shard. A shard that will "throw you all over the place" if you are receiving invites and interacting with players in other layers.

"we wont have bullshit dynamic respawns which is not representative of vanilla WoW" Correct. Dynamic respawns are not authentic. Sharding is not authentic. Layering is not authentic. Vanilla retail release did not have the same influx of players that we will have in Classic. We are dealing with a new problem that wasn't an issue in retail vanilla. Dynamic respawns not being representative of vanilla WoW is not an appealing argument to promote layering, when layering was not present in vanilla WoW.

"3k population on a layer playing the game with the correct respawn timers and with the same familiar faces (your guildies, other guilds on same layer, friends etc.)." This is a huge assumption. I cant see how you think Blizzard will have upwards of 9k players on a server interacting with eachother and mixing between 3 layers continuously, yet somehow you think that you will constantly be seeing the same 3k players. A guy in /1 says Bhag'thera is up, you get an invite and you're in his layer. You kill Bhag and drop group and go back to your layer. You run back to Nessy's and 3 horde are standing there at camp. You ask your friends / guild or /1 chat for an invite to get an invite and hop layers...

Above this post you mention that layering is per continent. Are you planning on staying on one continent? Or were you planning on going back and forth between continents multiple times during each gaming session like the rest of us?

"If people want to abuse the system, well then good for them, for regular players like myself who want to play vanilla" When I abuse sharding, it will affect you. If you arent planning on abusing layering, you will be the victim of it. This is an MMO. Other players will impact your experience, regardless of what layer they are in.

"we will simply play the game on our designated layer and enjoy #nochanges." Layering is a change. A gigantic change. A change with far greater impact than dynamic respawns. Instead of mobs respawning at a rate appropriate for the players in any given cell. Multiple versions of the same world will exist with mobs respawning in all of them simultaneously and those respawns will not be dependent on other players. Whats worse with layering? You will be playing with phantoms who are killing them SAME mobs as you but you wont be able to see them. You don't just get to voice an opinion while plugging your ears and saying "this is no changes, this is no changes"... This is a change. Layering didn't exist in retail vanilla, it is a change.

"it certainly wont be this constantly changing landscape of seeing people disappear and appear" Lets hope youre right. All we have right now is speculation, but based on their own definition of layering, this doesnt sound like the case.

Nenski wrote: ↑

6 years ago

Have they stated anything about the size of servers? Are they going with the original population size? Or perhaps a new number combined with layering?

They have used a figure of around 3k players per layer. They then explained that they intend to stack several layers to accommodate players. We dont know if there is a cap to layers. They then plan to begin reducing layers as they progress into phase 2. As it was described, they eluded that the layers would be slowly merged to ease into the full population during phase 2. There is an interview with Ion posted earlier in this thread that has the details.