Tirisfal Glades
User avatar
Posts: 196
Likes: 234
Undead
Mage
2 months ago (Beta)
 •  Unread

Stfuppercut wrote:
2 months ago
Looks like all of the big content creators are finally starting to realize that layering might be bad news?!?!



TLDW; Tips insinuates that he likely wouldnt have gone with layering but that is what Blizz will be going with. He doesn't really add any meaningful discussion to the topic and says that any option Blizz would have went with would be terrible.
No meaningful discussion except for the entire 2nd half of the video where he discusses the pros and cons of 3 separate course of action instead of layering? Those COA's came from the community btw. I know because I was watching his stream when he polled everyone for alternatives to layering and then discussed it with everyone for the next hour.

I would have chosen queues over anything else IF I really cared more about the negative effects of layering. The simplest solution to avoid a long server queue is to go to a less populated server provided Blizzard creates enough to house everyone who intend on playing. I never had issues during vanilla with having to wait any longer than 5-10 min to get on Mal'Ganis.

Everyone is going to have a different view on what they feel should be done because everyone has a different view of how they want their gameplay to be. None are particularly wrong. Laying for a couple weeks is not really a big deal in the grand scheme of things. If it sticks around permanently then that is where the problems will come. I would give a full report on how I think it should all be fixed but I'm certain no one has the time or interest to read it :smile:

   Selexin
Our time will come.
Druid Feral
User avatar
OC Yojamba
Posts: 854
Likes: 670
Tauren
Druid
2 months ago (Beta)
 •  Unread

Cletus wrote:
2 months ago
I would give a full report on how I think it should all be fixed but I'm certain no one has the time or interest to read it :smile:
You've just triggered @Stfuppercut's trap card!

Hahah. I agree with a lot of your post, and I too think at this point in time this close to launch there is not a lot more to be done other than try to patch the gaps of layering and hope its enough to get through the launch mess.

   Cletus
ImageImage
Hunter Marksman
User avatar
US Fairbanks
Posts: 985
Likes: 639
Alliance
Hunter
2 months ago (Beta)
 •  Unread

Selexin wrote:
2 months ago
Can you be optimistic about this change? Or is it all doom and gloom?

Fingers crossed.
Selexin wrote:
3 months ago
Honestly, I think the launch is going to be an unmitigated disaster, regardless of layering/sharing/dynamic respawns/huge server list. I don't think there is any good way to have a successful launch, without having some other ongoing issues created by the methodology they implement.
Some of us will remain optimistic and work towards positive changes through exploring the current state of layering and potential solutions. Others will have an emotional response to each piece of information we receive and explore their rollercoaster of emotions on the forums... Every... Day... While simultaneously projecting the critiques others have game them... You are the doom and gloom guy. Just roll with it. :lol:

I don't know what their version of layering is or what parallels it has to sharding but given how long they have had to work on layering and the current state of it in beta, I am not interested in them using their final few weeks on polishing this turd.

Druid Feral
User avatar
OC Yojamba
Posts: 854
Likes: 670
Tauren
Druid
2 months ago (Beta)
 •  Unread

Stfuppercut wrote:
2 months ago
Selexin wrote:
2 months ago
Can you be optimistic about this change? Or is it all doom and gloom?

Fingers crossed.
Selexin wrote:
3 months ago
Honestly, I think the launch is going to be an unmitigated disaster, regardless of layering/sharing/dynamic respawns/huge server list. I don't think there is any good way to have a successful launch, without having some other ongoing issues created by the methodology they implement.
Some of us will remain optimistic and work towards positive changes through exploring the current state of layering and potential solutions. Others will have an emotional response to each piece of information we receive and explore their rollercoaster of emotions on the forums... Every... Day... While simultaneously projecting the critiques others have game them... You are the doom and gloom guy. Just roll with it. :lol:

I don't know what their version of layering is or what parallels it has to sharding but given how long they have had to work on layering and the current state of it in beta, I am not interested in them using their final few weeks on polishing this turd.
You've just used your last two replies bitching about me in this thread rather than providing meaningful feedback/discussions points. I'm not sure what else to say on the matter? I think it's pretty clear to everyone there is discussion to be had about the changes they are making currently in the beta, and that it is more positive than doing nothing.

Oh and I know you like to point the finger at others for being pessimistic/doom and gloom, but you may need to invest in a mirror dude. You ain't exactly a beacon of hope! :lol:
Stfuppercut wrote:
2 months ago
I am not interested in them using their final few weeks on polishing this turd.

ImageImage
Hunter Marksman
User avatar
US Fairbanks
Posts: 985
Likes: 639
Alliance
Hunter
2 months ago (Beta)
 •  Unread

Selexin wrote:
2 months ago
Oh and I know you like to point the finger at others for being pessimistic/doom and gloom, but you may need to invest in a mirror dude. You ain't exactly a beacon of hope! :lol:
Stfuppercut wrote:
2 months ago
I am not interested in them using their final few weeks on polishing this turd.
Yes. They have had a very long time to work on the game. We have a few weeks left. Layering has not worked. It was one of the options they had to choose from. They have fleshed out the idea and it worked poorly. It is now time to use the beta for fixing the game and to take a new route while they still have time left. This is not being pessimistic... This is highlighting an actual issue that Blizz is dealing with and addressing it with a sense of urgency. They have a limited amount of time left. That is not being pessimistic... That is acknowledging how calendars work. If anything, this is optimistic... Despite the current state of layering, I am optimistic that they still have time to redirect the project and fix their poor decision to go with layering.

Druid Feral
User avatar
OC Yojamba
Posts: 854
Likes: 670
Tauren
Druid
2 months ago (Beta)
 •  Unread

Stfuppercut wrote:
2 months ago
Despite the current state of layering, I am optimistic that they still have time to redirect the project and fix their poor decision to go with layering.
Fix layering, or remove/replace it?
With a knowledge of calendars, I would say scrapping it and trying to rush a different solution in before launch would be a mistake. It appears they have committed to layering, and if the changes we are seeing in the beta are anything to go by, they may be able to fix some issues.

ImageImage
Hunter Marksman
User avatar
US Fairbanks
Posts: 985
Likes: 639
Alliance
Hunter
2 months ago (Beta)
 •  Unread

Selexin wrote:
2 months ago
Stfuppercut wrote:
2 months ago
Despite the current state of layering, I am optimistic that they still have time to redirect the project and fix their poor decision to go with layering.
Fix layering, or remove/replace it?
With a knowledge of calendars, I would say scrapping it and trying to rush a different solution in before launch would be a mistake. It appears they have committed to layering, and if the changes we are seeing in the beta are anything to go by, they may be able to fix some issues.
I would agree if the alternative wasnt so simple... Create 3 servers. Merge them at a later date. This is the solution Blizzard had used for years and years and years... A solution that has worked and solution that IS layering without any form of layer hopping. A solution that doesnt require ANY additional back end work. Just create separate servers and merge them.

Druid Feral
User avatar
OC Yojamba
Posts: 854
Likes: 670
Tauren
Druid
2 months ago (Beta)
 •  Unread

Stfuppercut wrote:
2 months ago
I would agree if the alternative wasnt so simple... Create 3 servers. Merge them at a later date. This is the solution Blizzard had used for years and years and years... A solution that has worked and solution that IS layering without any form of layer hopping. A solution that doesnt require ANY additional back end work. Just create separate servers and merge them.
Hmm I feel like the 'make 3 servers then merge them' is just layering on hardcore mode. Do you do unique names/guild names across all 3? How does PvP/Ranking/BGs work over those 3? I feel like layering is kind of psuedo doing what you are proposing, creating 3 virtual servers all on one realm, so there is no 'merge' process and all character names are unique etc. It just gets turned off, or phased out, and you are always on your server with all the same people/names/reputations. You will be doing BG with all layers, you will rank with all layers, you will compete more directly with PvE progress etc.

I'm not sure, I think layering probably caters for what you want, but without some of the physical/distinct separation problems. And with layering if you want to play with your mates on 'Server 3' you can do it without waiting/hoping for the server merge. You can just invite them to your group and go on adventures. I think layering with the right controls in place could provide a virtual alternative to 3 separate servers being merged. Only 2 months until we find out! (The hype is getting a little unbearable at this point)

ImageImage
Hunter Marksman
User avatar
US Fairbanks
Posts: 985
Likes: 639
Alliance
Hunter
2 months ago (Beta)
 •  Unread

Selexin wrote:
2 months ago
Hmm I feel like the 'make 3 servers then merge them' is just layering on hardcore mode.
It is layering without being able to hop layers. It is layering without being the victim of layering and ending up alone. It is layering without being able to avoid PvP or manipulate the server to gain an advantage.
Selexin wrote:
2 months ago
Do you do unique names/guild names across all 3?
Yes. Names and guild names would be shared.
Selexin wrote:
2 months ago
How does PvP/Ranking/BGs work over those 3?
BGs are shared. No different than crossrealm would be.
Selexin wrote:
2 months ago
I feel like layering is kind of psuedo doing what you are proposing, creating 3 virtual servers all on one realm, so there is no 'merge' process and all character names are unique etc.
This has all the advantages of layering without any of the drawbacks. This is the only way to maintain a persistent world within layering to avoid disrupting immersion.
Selexin wrote:
2 months ago
You will be doing BG with all layers, you will rank with all layers, you will compete more directly with PvE progress etc.
PvE progress happens within an instanced world.
Selexin wrote:
2 months ago
I'm not sure, I think layering probably caters for what you want, but without some of the physical/distinct separation problems.
I dont want layering. We will be getting a form of layering. This is the new best option we have. We WANT physical separation... We dont want an invisible world full of phantoms leveling and hopping around where you can find yourself in a full world or an empty world regardless of the player population. A world where people can escape ganking or a world where you can see a player typing in chat that you have never physically seen. Phantoms.
Selexin wrote:
2 months ago
And with layering if you want to play with your mates on 'Server 3' you can do it without waiting/hoping for the server merge. You can just invite them to your group and go on adventures. I think layering with the right controls in place could provide a virtual alternative to 3 separate servers being merged. Only 2 months until we find out! (The hype is getting a little unbearable at this point)
Your mates will all roll on the same server. No different than when you choose your server name. You will simply be choosing Tichondrius 3 together.

Bear in mind that I don't WANT this... This is simply the safest option we have within the timeframe we have left. This solution works. It has demonstratively worked for years. Layering has never worked. Sharding is terrible. Layering is a version of sharding that has not been functional in the beta.

Druid Feral
User avatar
OC Yojamba
Posts: 854
Likes: 670
Tauren
Druid
2 months ago (Beta)
 •  Unread

Stfuppercut wrote:
2 months ago
It is layering without being able to hop layers. It is layering without being the victim of layering and ending up alone. It is layering without being able to avoid PvP or manipulate the server to gain an advantage.
As we can see from what is occurring in the beta, layering hopping will be present, but not as easily exploited. Also, if a guild that is not in your layer is recruiting for a raid schedule that suits you, you can join them. In 3 separate servers, you are not afforded that opportunity. Not everyone will have a guild or a group of people lined up before they roll, so restricting their choices after they've committed seems unnecessarily obstructive to the community of that 'server cluster'. You are creating an impassable barrier between what will eventually be a community, and while those barriers are present you will have a very distinct chasm, that may have flow on effects after the merge. There may even be discrimination against certain sub servers after a merge, something that can't occur with a dynamic layering system with no clearly identified or permanent 'labels'.
Stfuppercut wrote:
2 months ago
Yes. Names and guild names would be shared.
What if the server doesn't merge because they remain too high population, or is this a forced merge @ phase 2 and queues?
Stfuppercut wrote:
2 months ago
BGs are shared. No different than crossrealm would be.
X-realm BGs @ launch confirmed? I was thinking/hoping x-realms would be introduced in Phase 6 in line with Vanilla release timeline, to provide more activity in PvP when it may be starting to dwindle. X-realm BGs has you fighting against people you dont know, from guilds you have never seen, in gear from bosses your subserver hasn't killed yet, could be a little jarring.
Stfuppercut wrote:
2 months ago
PvE progress happens within an instanced world.
Very insightful, thanks. What I am getting at here is Realm competition for PvE Progress which will be a very real thing. Will there be an asterisk next to Tichondrius 3 realm first Rag because they were actually 7th for Realm first (Tichondrius 1-3)?
Stfuppercut wrote:
2 months ago
I dont want layering. We will be getting a form of layering. This is the new best option we have. We WANT physical separation... We dont want an invisible world full of phantoms leveling and hopping around where you can find yourself in a full world or an empty world regardless of the player population. A world where people can escape ganking or a world where you can see a player typing in chat that you have never physically seen. Phantoms.
A little negative/pessimistic, I think from some of the new discussion and developments we are hearing about on the beta we might be seeing some positive changes that could prevent layer hopping abuse, and also if they can provide a dynamic layer methodology that means that there aren't new layers added until there is a significant population to exist in it, it may help from creating 'empty' layers. This one needs more info/testing and is one of my concerns of layering, which is more in line with sharding.
Stfuppercut wrote:
2 months ago
Your mates will all roll on the same server. No different than when you choose your server name. You will simply be choosing Tichondrius 3 together.
If there is one PvP oceanic server, all of my Australian based friends from different social circles will likely play on that server. Even if I didn't know some of my friends were playing, they would be on the same server as me, even if they are in a different layer I can still catch up with them and play. If there is a cluster server for PvP Oceanic, my different groups of friends may roll on different sub servers, which while not a fault of Blizzards, is still resultant of physically separating a community. This is a more specific concern of mine being that I am an oceanic player and the server choices will be limited, but I would hope that there is more chance of being able to catch up with old WoW buddies/school friends/ex-workmates if we roll on one server with layering, rather than 3 sub servers and waiting for an eventual merge.

I am trying to be positive and optimistic about the changes being made to Layering, and I hope it can help negate some of the concerns raised in this thread and throughout social media. We all have issues with layering, sharding, dynamic respawns, queues, server merges. Making everyone happy is impossible. I think they are trying to find a middle ground at this stage, and having to patch up the consequences that are coming with that decision. I still think launch is going to be a shit fight, but it is to be expected when millions of people try to play a game at the same time. Layering may end up being successful in mitigating the launch dramas, or it may fall on it's face. Time will tell!

ImageImage
Hunter Marksman
User avatar
US Fairbanks
Posts: 985
Likes: 639
Alliance
Hunter
2 months ago (Beta)
 •  Unread

Selexin wrote:
2 months ago
As we can see from what is occurring in the beta, layering hopping will be present, but not as easily exploited. Also, if a guild that is not in your layer is recruiting for a raid schedule that suits you, you can join them. In 3 separate servers, you are not afforded that opportunity. Not everyone will have a guild or a group of people lined up before they roll, so restricting their choices after they've committed seems unnecessarily obstructive to the community of that 'server cluster'. You are creating an impassable barrier between what will eventually be a community, and while those barriers are present you will have a very distinct chasm, that may have flow on effects after the merge. There may even be discrimination against certain sub servers after a merge, something that can't occur with a dynamic layering system with no clearly identified or permanent 'labels'.
Putting parameters on prohibiting players from jumping from layer to layer to is also obstructive. Though layering is more apparently obstructive because these restrictions need to be placed so that players wont misuse layering. A persistent world is less obstructive overall.
Selexin wrote:
2 months ago
What if the server doesn't merge because they remain too high population, or is this a forced merge @ phase 2 and queues?
The same question should/could be asked about layering. At what point are server merges forced? How many layers per server? Are we looking at upwards of 5 layers with 3k players on each layer that will eventually collapse before phase 2??? 15k players on a server could be a nightmare!!! A far worse outcome then 3 servers that wont NEED to be merged and can simply exist at their own healthy populations until merges are necessary. Remember, these individual realms are functional servers. They dont NEED to be merged unless the population dictates that it would be healthier to have them merged. It gives the merging schedule A LOT more lenience.
Selexin wrote:
2 months ago
X-realm BGs @ launch confirmed? I was thinking/hoping x-realms would be introduced in Phase 6 in line with Vanilla release timeline...
We wont even have BG's with launch... Learn your phases man! Layering should be gone long before BG's are introduced.
Selexin wrote:
2 months ago
Very insightful, thanks. What I am getting at here is Realm competition for PvE Progress which will be a very real thing. Will there be an asterisk next to Tichondrius 3 realm first Rag because they were actually 7th for Realm first (Tichondrius 1-3)?
Yes... But if you are going for speedclears and server firsts you are likely interested in the larger pool of competition and will plot yourself against various servers anyways. This is the point of speedclearing and speedrunning.
Selexin wrote:
2 months ago
A little negative/pessimistic, I think from some of the new discussion and developments we are hearing about on the beta we might be seeing some positive changes that could prevent layer hopping abuse, and also if they can provide a dynamic layer methodology that means that there aren't new layers added until there is a significant population to exist in it, it may help from creating 'empty' layers. This one needs more info/testing and is one of my concerns of layering, which is more in line with sharding.
Way to look for something that wasn't there weirdo... lol. I have damaged you so deeply. Just relax. Let down your guard and have a conversation. I also believe that they are working towards reducing layer hopping. Given the timeline we have, I dont think it is worthwhile to try and put anymore duct tape on layering, given the alternative solutions we have available.
Selexin wrote:
2 months ago
If there is one PvP oceanic server, all of my Australian based friends from different social circles will likely play on that server. Even if I didn't know some of my friends were playing, they would be on the same server as me, even if they are in a different layer I can still catch up with them and play. If there is a cluster server for PvP Oceanic, my different groups of friends may roll on different sub servers, which while not a fault of Blizzards, is still resultant of physically separating a community. This is a more specific concern of mine being that I am an oceanic player and the server choices will be limited, but I would hope that there is more chance of being able to catch up with old WoW buddies/school friends/ex-workmates if we roll on one server with layering, rather than 3 sub servers and waiting for an eventual merge.
There will be multiple PvP servers that are available to your region so this reasoning is silly.
Selexin wrote:
2 months ago
I am trying to be positive and optimistic about the changes being made to Layering, and I hope it can help negate some of the concerns raised in this thread and throughout social media. We all have issues with layering, sharding, dynamic respawns, queues, server merges. Making everyone happy is impossible.
Agreed. And I am glad that your attitude is changing to be a bit more optimistic. You have come a long way since our original chats about layering. Remember, regardless of what they come out with, this is going to be awesome!
Selexin wrote:
2 months ago
Layering may end up being successful in mitigating the launch dramas, or it may fall on it's face. Time will tell!
And in the mean time, it sure is fun to chat about!

Druid Feral
User avatar
OC Yojamba
Posts: 854
Likes: 670
Tauren
Druid
2 months ago (Beta)
 •  Unread

Stfuppercut wrote:
2 months ago
A persistent world is less obstructive overall.
A server split 3 ways is not a persistent word.
Stfuppercut wrote:
2 months ago
The same question should/could be asked about layering. At what point are server merges forced? How many layers per server? Are we looking at upwards of 5 layers with 3k players on each layer that will eventually collapse before phase 2??? 15k players on a server could be a nightmare!!! A far worse outcome then 3 servers that wont NEED to be merged and can simply exist at their own healthy populations until merges are necessary. Remember, these individual realms are functional servers. They dont NEED to be merged unless the population dictates that it would be healthier to have them merged. It gives the merging schedule A LOT more lenience.
You seem to be getting emotional over this one, there is no merging with layering, the layers are filters and over time they will be required less and less until the point in which they are turned off. There is no distinct MERGE that happens, which is incredible disruptive to the community. A lot of people have raised there objection to merges on Reddit (and probably on here). People don't like merges.
Stfuppercut wrote:
2 months ago
We wont even have BG's with launch... Learn your phases man! Layering should be gone long before BG's are introduced.
So what happens if the split servers (or layering) extends into phase 2? X-realm BGS for split servers and not for any other servers?
Stfuppercut wrote:
2 months ago
Yes... But if you are going for speedclears and server firsts you are likely interested in the larger pool of competition and will plot yourself against various servers anyways. This is the point of speedclearing and speedrunning.
That's like saying winning your national football league is unimportant and no one cares, you only care about champions league. There will definitely be realm specific racing/bragging rights. Do you remember playing vanilla? Or are you remembering single server private servers where there is only one focal point of competition?
Stfuppercut wrote:
2 months ago
Way to look for something that wasn't there weirdo... lol. I have damaged you so deeply. Just relax. Let down your guard and have a conversation. I also believe that they are working towards reducing layer hopping. Given the timeline we have, I dont think it is worthwhile to try and put anymore duct tape on layering, given the alternative solutions we have available.
I think your immature response here has only reinforced my earlier comments about how negative and emotional this topic is making you. I think server merges may be something that the community at large does not want, I would love to hear some feedback from other people here on Barrens.chat on this, although we may have scared them off long ago.
Stfuppercut wrote:
2 months ago
There will be multiple PvP servers that are available to your region so this reasoning is silly.
Blizzard haven't even confirmed Oceanic Servers yet, let alone how many of each type (based on discussions on @Solveig's discord yesterday). I think they will have Oceanic servers, but I don't know how many. No one knows how many servers there will be unfortunately. There is nothing silly about my reasoning, do you have a response to my discussion point? Or as an alternative, a Blizzard post confirming how many Oceanic PvP servers are available at launch?
Stfuppercut wrote:
2 months ago
Agreed. And I am glad that your attitude is changing to be a bit more optimistic. You have come a long way since our original chats about layering. Remember, regardless of what they come out with, this is going to be awesome!
Thanks, your view/stance of Blizzard and their work with layering is really negative, I hope you can start to see a little bit of light at the end of the tunnel, I think you'll still enjoy yourself even with layer hopping! Classic is going to be fantastic, and the sooner it comes, the sooner we can end some of the discussions points on the forum that rely on us all 'hoping' for one thing or another. Then we can fill the forums with complaints of what they actually implement hahahaha.
Stfuppercut wrote:
2 months ago
And in the mean time, it sure is fun to chat about!
It sure is! Hopefully Blizzard continue to watch the feedback/streams/videos that are talking about the problems with layering (and other bugs) and continue to try to improve and implement features to make the game launch more successful. Classic WoW is going to be huge!

ImageImage
Hunter Marksman
User avatar
US Fairbanks
Posts: 985
Likes: 639
Alliance
Hunter
2 months ago (Beta)
 •  Unread

Selexin wrote:
2 months ago
A server split 3 ways is not a persistent word.
It is when each world is self sufficient and boasts a healthy player count. Each realm in this circumstance is a healthy realm that is persistent. No layering. No sharding. No phasing. Just a healthy realm full of players that are consistent. A realm that has the option to merge as player count dips... As was always done during Vanilla, BC, etc etc etc. This circumstance is a bit different because this will be a predetermined merge will have an even smaller impact on the community.

Selexin wrote:
2 months ago
You seem to be getting emotional over this one, there is no merging with layering, the layers are filters and over time they will be required less and less until the point in which they are turned off. There is no distinct MERGE that happens, which is incredible disruptive to the community. A lot of people have raised there objection to merges on Reddit (and probably on here). People don't like merges.
There is a merge. There will be a deadline where no new layers are created, regardless of server populations. There is a time when layering comes to an end, based on what Blizzard has told us and the entire community is merged together. Layers are slowly collapsed into one world. If we are to believe that layering is effective and sticky layering develops a persistent world, that world will eventually be merged to the other persistent layers. There will always be a transition period, regardless of separate servers or with layering. The issue I see here with layering is that we take a VERY big risk when assigning a population count to a server. If layers are 3k per, and you allow players to create upwards of 5 layers and you misjudge your own retention rates, you could find yourself unable to start merging those layers... You may find yourself in a situation that you need to extend the duration of layering because you simply cannot accommodate the players who have remained. Conversely, if you underestimate the quantity of players who leave and begin with 2 layers of 3k players, and your retention rates are lower, you may find yourself with too few players to boast a healthy player count. Now you have no other realms to combine with, without causing an actual uproar due to unscheduled merges. Dialing in layering is difficult... Very, very difficult. It is much easier to have 3 separate servers with the intention of merging. A simple solution to a complex issue. A solution that can and HAS been done. Occam's Razor, put simply, states: “the simplest solution is almost always the best. Why try to make layering work with a few weeks remaining? We already have a solution that has been used for years.

Selexin wrote:
2 months ago
So what happens if the split servers (or layering) extends into phase 2? X-realm BGS for split servers and not for any other servers?
A choice would need to be made. An easier choice though than if layering extends into phase 2 and the implications that layering will have on phase 2... In my opinion, layering with excessive layers and high player retention has a higher probability of causing merge issues than separate realms.

Selexin wrote:
2 months ago
That's like saying winning your national football league is unimportant and no one cares, you only care about champions league. There will definitely be realm specific racing/bragging rights. Do you remember playing vanilla? Or are you remembering single server private servers where there is only one focal point of competition?
This is a very odd and specific argument in regards to layering... Does playing on multiple layers on the same server have any difference in the significance of accomplishments than it would if you were on a separate realm with the same name? I feel like this is a desperate attempt to find a flaw... If layering was capable of working in the way that Blizzard sold it originally, each layer would have their own community and would support a consistent playerbase. But it wont and thus your accomplishments on each individual layer WONT be significant, you will just be a small shard of the entire server. If layering worked the way Blizzard sold it to you, it would function the same as separate realms. The reality is that it does not. I dont see this as a weakness... I see this as a strength to separate servers. Servers where you KNOW all of the guilds because you can see them and physically interact with them. No phantoms. Real players in one persistent world.

Selexin wrote:
2 months ago
I think your immature response here has only reinforced my earlier comments about how negative and emotional this topic is making you. I think server merges may be something that the community at large does not want, I would love to hear some feedback from other people here on Barrens.chat on this, although we may have scared them off long ago.
Its all in good fun crybaby. If you can dish it out, you can take it. If you didn't have such crazy reactions I wouldn't tease you as often <3. Just a friendly ribbing to get you post-happy. If I didn't ruffle your feathers I wouldn't have anyone else to talk to.

Selexin wrote:
2 months ago
Blizzard haven't even confirmed Oceanic Servers yet, let alone how many of each type (based on discussions on Solveig's discord yesterday). I think they will have Oceanic servers, but I don't know how many. No one knows how many servers there will be unfortunately. There is nothing silly about my reasoning, do you have a response to my discussion point? Or as an alternative, a Blizzard post confirming how many Oceanic PvP servers are available at launch

Are you asking me for a source for my claims? If so I want to hear you say it. Ask me for a source Selexin. :lol: We both know how I will respond don't we?

Selexin wrote:
2 months ago
Thanks, your view/stance of Blizzard and their work with layering is really negative, I hope you can start to see a little bit of light at the end of the tunnel...

Is it though...
Selexin wrote:
3 months ago
Honestly, I think the launch is going to be an unmitigated disaster, regardless of layering/sharing/dynamic respawns/huge server list. I don't think there is any good way to have a successful launch, without having some other ongoing issues created by the methodology they implement.

Yeah, stay positive buddy. You're always our shinning little light of optimism here on the forums... Then 10 mins later you're doom and gloom... Then 10 mins later you're Mr. Optimism... We ride the emotional rollercoaster with you until you crash and logoff for the night. Then we will do it all again tomorrow! And I look forward to every damn minute of it!

Druid Feral
User avatar
OC Yojamba
Posts: 854
Likes: 670
Tauren
Druid
2 months ago (Beta)
 •  Unread

Stfuppercut wrote:
2 months ago
Selexin wrote: I think your immature response here has only reinforced my earlier comments about how negative and emotional this topic is making you...
Its all in good fun crybaby.
Ok dude, I think it's time to move on from this thread, hahaha. That's just hilarious :lol:

/thread

   Stfuppercut
ImageImage
Hunter Marksman
User avatar
US Fairbanks
Posts: 985
Likes: 639
Alliance
Hunter
2 months ago (Beta)
 •  Unread

Selexin wrote:
2 months ago
Ok dude, I think it's time to move on from this thread, hahaha. That's just hilarious :lol:

/thread
I bid you adieu and look forward to what tomorrow brings :lol:

   Selexin
Druid Feral
User avatar
OC Yojamba
Posts: 854
Likes: 670
Tauren
Druid
2 months ago (Beta)
 •  Unread

Stfuppercut wrote:
2 months ago
Selexin wrote:
2 months ago
Ok dude, I think it's time to move on from this thread, hahaha. That's just hilarious :lol:

/thread
I bid you adieu and look forward to what tomorrow brings :lol:
Our plan to powerlevel you to 60 is working fantastically well!

ImageImage
Hunter Marksman
User avatar
US Fairbanks
Posts: 985
Likes: 639
Alliance
Hunter
2 months ago (Beta)
 •  Unread

Selexin wrote:
2 months ago
Our plan to powerlevel you to 60 is working fantastically well!
They wont even see it coming.

Similar topics
to 'The State of Layering'
Posts ViewsLast post