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.
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!
//
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.