Hunter Marksman
User avatar
US Fairbanks
Posts: 961
Likes: 629
Alliance
Hunter
3 months ago (Beta)
 •  Unread

Nenski wrote:
3 months 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.

Druid Feral
User avatar
OC Yojamba
Posts: 830
Likes: 647
Tauren
Druid
3 months ago (Beta)
 •  Unread

@Stfuppercut, I think you are making a lot of assumptions also on how layering will operate. You are stating that people will be jumping from layer to layer, but if each layer has its own global chat, how will you know that Bhag'thera has spawned? And if someone is on your friends list that sees it, don't you think eventually the layers will homogenize such that eventually you, your friends and your guildies will likely end up on the same layer? Will the layers be 'labeled' and easily identified to truly make use of abusing the system by having a friend in 'each layer'? Also, you are making assumptions that they aren't intending to put restrictions on movement in switching layers. Will there be an internal cooldown to changing layers?

I think one of the easiest ways to stop people abusing the system, like you are intending to do, is to prevent switching layers during combat, and even for X time after leaving combat to prevent abuse during PvP/PvE encounters to escape/re-enter fights. The other thing is maybe resource nodes should have an ID that is the same across all layers, if you pick a herb on layer 1 with ID#102938, you cannot loot ID#102938 for minimum 5 minutes (or whatever is appropriate) to stop you switching layers to farm resources/chests/objects.

I think there are some pretty straightforward techniques to implement with layering to prevent obvious/simple abuse. But hey, what do I know? It might be technically challenging, or just not a big enough problem for Blizz to worry about. I think with some restrictions in place, a lot of people will just play the game with their friends/guildies and not give a fuck about layering.

I think until the finer details are known, saying that 100% it is a horrible idea and is completely abuse friendly is a little short sighted, I think we need to wait for feedback from their stress tests/beta feedback.

ImageImage
Hunter Marksman
User avatar
US Fairbanks
Posts: 961
Likes: 629
Alliance
Hunter
3 months ago (Beta)
 •  Unread

@Selexin
"You are stating that people will be jumping from layer to layer, but if each layer has its own global chat, how will you know that Bhag'thera has spawned?" If chat doesnt go cross layer, layering will be even worse for the community by isolating each layer. This would affect trade chat... This would be awful. I cant imagine that each layer will have its own isolated chat functions, but if that is what your speculation is, layering may be worse than I had thought. Aside from that, I will be jumping from layer to layer because I will be in a guild full of people, presumably in my layer, I will have a friends list full of friends in other guilds, presumably on other layers and I will be interacting with players who are looking for groups and wandering around the world jumping from layer to layer.

"don't you think eventually the layers will homogenize such that eventually you, your friends and your guildies will likely end up on the same layer?" Based on their explanation of cups filling and spilling over to create new layers, no. Lets assume at peaks a server has 9-12k players and at dead times the server has 3k players... Are you implying that the server will persistently have the 3-4 layers that would be required to host 12k players regardless of their only being 3k players online? Meaning each of these layers may have as few as 1k players online... Or do you think the layers will constantly be shifting to accommodate players? The layers would need to constantly shift to accommodate players. If you then want to assign values to players and who they play with and give preferred layers to guilds, which is possible, you're going to be experiencing A LOT of layer hopping just to balance all of the populations as players log in and out and layers are created and reduced... You can see how this would be problematic and you can see how, whether you are assigned to a specific layer OR layers are based entirely on population thresholds, players will constantly be shifting to layers throughout the course of their own play.

"Will the layers be 'labeled' and easily identified to truly make use of abusing the system by having a friend in 'each layer'?" They dont need to be. In fact, if layers are as persistent as you are speculating they will be, the layers will be even easier to manipulate than I am anticipating they will be.

"Also, you are making assumptions that they aren't intending to put restrictions on movement in switching layers." Yes. I don't believe they will be putting restrictions on movement between layers. This is a fair assumption because they have made no mention of putting restrictions on movement. Again, if they did this (put restrictions on layer hopping), this could highlight the barrier that layers create between the community and reinforce the issues that layering is causing. Imagine trying to sell portals in a major city or selling items but you have a restriction to hopping between layers? Yikes...

"I think one of the easiest ways to stop people abusing the system, like you are intending to do, is to prevent switching layers during combat" Wont matter. I play hunter and can feign. Mages can poly and run. Rogues can vanish or blind... etc. etc. etc. Breaking combat is actually quite easy with most classes.

"The other thing is maybe resource nodes should have an ID that is the same across all layers, if you pick a herb on layer 1 with ID#102938, you cannot loot ID#102938 for minimum 5 minutes (or whatever is appropriate) to stop you switching layers to farm resources/chests/objects." Maybe? Would be an odd restriction given the fact that you can AoE grind across all layers and is honestly one of the most insignificant concerns when considering layering... Rare mobs, rare pets, quest mobs, devilsaurs, etc etc etc, THESE are the true game changers when considering layer hopping for PvE.

"But hey, what do I know? It might be technically challenging" Hey, you and me both. If they plan to do this, I'd be glad to hear what their planned restrictions are. It actually sounds like your speculations about layering are FAR more grim than mine... Haha. I was giving layering the benefit of the doubt but if some of your speculations come true, we may find ourselves in some deep water.

"I think until the finer details are known, saying that 100% it is a horrible idea and is completely abuse friendly is a little short sighted." I'd disagree with this statement. We know what sharding is. Layering is sharding. Theyve renamed sharding and called it layering. They are in essence the same thing. Instead of temporary sharding confined to starting zones (the first 2-6 hours of play) we are now getting sharding (layering) for phase 1. I've played WoW with sharding. I've played private servers with dynamic respawns. Sharding has FAR more implications on gameplay than dynamic respawns do overall. If sharding was confined to the first zone of Classic, that would have had less impact than dynamic respawns. Layering, however it is done, will have a FAR greater impact than sharding (temporarily) or dynamic respawns (temporarily) would have. For the amount of restrictions it would take to prevent layering from being abused (most of which will cause additional gameplay issues) it would have been far easier and more effective to use temporary sharding or temporary dynamic respawns.

Druid Feral
User avatar
OC Yojamba
Posts: 830
Likes: 647
Tauren
Druid
3 months ago (Beta)
 •  Unread

You are picking and choosing parts of my quotes and ignoring other parts, and flat out making assumptions on what Blizzard will or wont do.

Stfuppercut wrote:
3 months ago
Yes. I don't believe they will be putting restrictions on movement between layers.
Why? Why not? You have nothing to say they wont put restrictions, they themselves said layering is a new tool and is a work in progress, why the hell wouldn't/couldn't they put restrictions on moving between?
Stfuppercut wrote:
3 months ago
Rare mobs, rare pets, quest mobs, devilsaurs, etc etc etc, THESE are the true game changers when considering layer hopping for PvE.
Mobs have ID numbers, just like nodes, my comment applies to all objects that can be abused, including monsters. Kill a rare you just killed in another layer? No loot for you. Yes it's still not ideal for other players, but less incentive to actually switch layers to kill it if you get nothing out of it, other than doing an odd and specific method of griefing.
Stfuppercut wrote:
3 months ago
"I think one of the easiest ways to stop people abusing the system, like you are intending to do, is to prevent switching layers during combat" Wont matter. I play hunter and can feign. Mages can poly and run. Rogues can vanish or blind... etc. etc. etc. Breaking combat is actually quite easy with most classes.
I think you intentionally didn't quote the next line of my post, which said that they could have a timer after exiting combat before you could switch layers, which would help massively in vanish/sheep/feign abuse. I think this one is the simplest and easiest techniques for them to use to switch layers - you can't switch for X seconds/minutes after exiting combat.

I don't think our conversation can go any further until we get more details on this. This debate will continue to go in circles because we have differing opinions with little to no facts on what will actually be implemented in Classic.

ImageImage
Hunter Marksman
User avatar
US Fairbanks
Posts: 961
Likes: 629
Alliance
Hunter
3 months ago (Beta)
 •  Unread

Selexin wrote:
3 months ago
You are picking and choosing parts of my quotes and ignoring other parts, and flat out making assumptions on what Blizzard will or wont do.
Why? Why not? You have nothing to say they wont put restrictions, they themselves said layering is a new tool and is a work in progress, why the hell wouldn't/couldn't they put restrictions on moving between?
I'm sorry you feel that way. I feel that you're assuming they will put restrictions when they havent mentioned anything about restrictions, historically they had no restrictions with their sharding and even if they DID put restrictions, those same restrictions would likely cause alternate gameplay issues.
Selexin wrote:
3 months ago
Mobs have ID numbers, just like nodes, my comment applies to all objects that can be abused, including monsters. Kill a rare you just killed in another layer? No loot for you. Yes it's still not ideal for other players, but less incentive to actually switch layers to kill it if you get nothing out of it, other than doing an odd and specific method of griefing.
I'm not arguing that there isnt a way to balance layering... I'm arguing that layering has a larger impact on the game than temporary sharding to start zones or temporary dynamic respawns. Blizzard could think of every eventuality and create a perfect version of layering and even if it weren't abused, it would still be problematic and more intrusive to gameplay than the other two options available. I feel like you're on this crusade to defend layering and validate it... Choose the simpler option. We could sit here ALL day and spitball how layering could cause issues, and then find potential options to fix that and then consider the implications those fixes would have... Its very cumbersome. Especially when you have no evidence to suggest they will be placing any restrictions on layering.
Selexin wrote:
3 months ago
I think you intentionally didn't quote the next line of my post, which said that they could have a timer after exiting combat before you could switch layers, which would help massively in vanish/sheep/feign abuse. I think this one is the simplest and easiest techniques for them to use to switch layers - you can't switch for X seconds/minutes after exiting combat.
Naw. Once the rogues vanished. You can put a 2-3 min timer and it wont matter. Once the hunter has created separation, he has cheetah/mount and you wont catch him. Once you are sheeped the mage can mount or run... You get the picture. Its not a good solution to the issue.
Selexin wrote:
3 months ago
I don't think our conversation can go any further until we get more details on this. This debate will continue to go in circles because we have differing opinions with little to no facts on what will actually be implemented in Classic.
Agreed. But thats sort of the entire point of this whole forum... Were talking about what we hope, what we know, what we want and what we dont want... It's not meant to be super serious. Were just talking about Classic. Lets be real, Blizzard is using layering. They likely decided they were using layering months before it was announced. We dont actually have a say in that outcome... They identified an issue (launch day) and they chose their solution (layering) and regardless of what they choose, we will both be playing Classic! You want layering, and they are going with it! So dont fret... And I experienced sharding on retail so I havent missed out on that... And I have experienced dynamic respawns on private, so I havent missed out on that either. It's alllllll good.

Loch modan
User avatar
EU Razorgore
Posts: 120
Likes: 69
Dwarf
Warrior
3 months ago (Beta)
 •  Unread

I am not sure what the point of arguing pro/contra layering is until we know more details. As of now we only know that it is a new approach to a problem that has been solved by suboptimal solutions. Depending on how thought through and ironed out this approach will be it may or may not turn out better than the other solutions.
That being said it comes with some inherent up- and downsides that no degree of fine tuning or fuckup could prevent.
You hate queues to the death? Layering will be better, no questions needed.
You hate phasing to the death? Queues would have been better, no questions needed.

Personally I think it wont be a big deal either way. The first months will be some magical wild west shit and layering had to be the single worst mechanic in the history of Warcraft to prevent that from happening.

Tschaka
Posts:
Likes: 0
3 months ago (Beta)
 •  Unread

Its pretty much everytime you check a other layer someone of a diffrent layer gone check your layer too.

Its gone even out over time.

Druid Feral
User avatar
OC Yojamba
Posts: 830
Likes: 647
Tauren
Druid
3 months ago (Beta)
 •  Unread

I think my main point is why bother bringing up sharding and dynamic respawns when they have decided to go with layering? Why not talk about possible solutions to potential issues with layering rather than continually comparing it to pserver or retail solutions? I find a lot of the anti-layering army aren't actually proposing solutions, just comparing it to some other system and going so far as to say they won't play, seems so counter productive to me.

Layering was announced, you see problems? Come up with clever solutions and post them on official forums/Reddit or if you're in the beta submit feedback. I feel like people could be a lot more productive and proactive with their energy expended on layering arguments.

I think ultimately everyone will retire behind their bastions on this issue and we'll see how it comes out in the wash. As I've stated many times in this thread already, I really don't see it being such a cataclysmic failure that some people are predicting.

   Bumlebi
ImageImage
Loch modan
User avatar
Posts: 7
Likes: 9
3 months ago (Beta)
 •  Unread

Raven wrote:
3 months ago
[...] after 12 months having 3k pop, 3k pop is low these days.
3k pop is low on dynamic respawn private servers.
But everything in Classic was designed around these values and I don't see why such a pop wouldn't be desireable.

I'm not the biggest fan of layering. But layering or even retailesque sharding in the first phase is - at least to me - much more preferable than the 10k always-on dynamic respawn private server experience.

   Selexin
Shaman Enhancement
User avatar
Posts: 18
Likes: 19
Tauren
Shaman
3 months ago (Beta)
 •  Unread

Layering cannot function in a way in which it won't be exploitable. It's just not possible.

Selexin wrote:
3 months ago
I find a lot of the anti-layering army aren't actually proposing solutions
It's because a solution isn't necessary when there's no problem, or if the problem can be fixed outside of altering gameplay. I couldn't believe the lag that I saw during the stress test last night. Why are random private servers hosted out of Serbia so much more stable than Blizzard's current day technology? How has Blizzard screwed this up so badly? Maybe they should fix their technical problems instead of just slapping a bandaid on it called layering.

   Stfuppercut
Arathi Highlands
User avatar
Posts: 27
Likes: 12
Gnome
Mage
3 months ago (Beta)
 •  Unread

Jon Bloodspray wrote:
4 months ago
What's the reasoning behind this again?
Starter zones and other areas around launch of any game (not just WoW) are very crowded.

Hunter Marksman
User avatar
US Fairbanks
Posts: 961
Likes: 629
Alliance
Hunter
3 months ago (Beta)
 •  Unread

Selexin wrote:
3 months ago
I think my main point is why bother bringing up sharding and dynamic respawns when they have decided to go with layering? Why not talk about possible solutions to potential issues with layering rather than continually comparing it to pserver or retail solutions? I find a lot of the anti-layering army aren't actually proposing solutions, just comparing it to some other system and going so far as to say they won't play, seems so counter productive to me.

Layering was announced, you see problems? Come up with clever solutions and post them on official forums/Reddit or if you're in the beta submit feedback. I feel like people could be a lot more productive and proactive with their energy expended on layering arguments.

I think ultimately everyone will retire behind their bastions on this issue and we'll see how it comes out in the wash. As I've stated many times in this thread already, I really don't see it being such a cataclysmic failure that some people are predicting.
I brought up the other two options because it is curious that they chose the weakest solution of the three. The potential solutions to the issues layering will present was to avoid layering and go with one of the other options available. If I had to propose a solution, which isn't necessary because the outcome is inevitable (they are using layering), it would be to go with one of the other two options. My posts were making a case for the other options and to question the choice that Blizzard had made. I haven't read a compelling argument to suggest that layering would be less impactful than the other options available to Blizzard.

"I really don't see it being such a cataclysmic failure that some people are predicting" It's temporary. Hopefully it will only affect us for a few weeks, and hopefully it wont even last all of phase 1. I wouldn't say this is a cataclysmic failure in regards to the entire experience within Classic, but of the choices they had, they chose the worst launch strategy that was available. It's okay to question the development process while still supporting the project... Lets face it, were all posting on a Classic WoW forum, and have been for months (some of us longer), for a game that is over a decade old and being re-released... They could add ANYTHING to that game, and all of us will be purchasing it and trying it. We're already in too deep.

edit:spelling

Loch modan
User avatar
EU Razorgore
Posts: 120
Likes: 69
Dwarf
Warrior
3 months ago (Beta)
 •  Unread

@Reiker
I have a hard time taking you serious when you complain about server performance during a stress test. It makes your whole post look like a mindless rant.

   IronBrutzler Selexin
Orgrimmar
User avatar
Posts: 18
Likes: 1
Horde
Priest
3 weeks ago (1.13.2)
 •  Unread

cross realm yes "layer"? and barber shop no ? pfff

Similar topics
to 'Layering until phase 2'
Posts ViewsLast post