NO CROSS-REALM ANYTHING - None

[Lora]

you're gonna be disappointed bud because cross realm bgs was in vanilla. stay mad

[Deleted]

Yes, hopefully Blizzard will stick to no cross realm... It sucks much more to lose to someone you're playing against regularly than some random German or Russian team whose server or player names you cannot pronounce nor remember. Also by playing against them regularly it is easier to remember their names/character.

Wait time was never an issue for me during classic. Wow is not LoL, CS:GO or Overwatch where it's just plug and play. When you have time to kill, e.g. waiting for a BG queue, is where you become creative; ganking the other faction in front of gate of Orgrimmar/Ironforge, farm some herbs in Winterspring, or answer Trivia questions in front of the bank in IF.

Also I dislike the fact that people are arguing #NoChanges... It is just misinterpreting the consensus. #NoChanges is refering to the fact that the game should only contain elements that belong to the original game, not to keep 1.12 in its purest form, e.g. with Naxx, AQ, ZG and BWL released.

[Echocho]

Also I dislike the fact that people are arguing #NoChanges... It is just misinterpreting the consensus. #NoChanges is refering to the fact that the game should only contain elements that belong to the original game, not to keep 1.12 in its purest form, e.g. with Naxx, AQ, ZG and BWL released.

It's pretty understandable that people can't extrapolate all that from that hash tag. No changes literally means no changes so that's probably why people think we don't want any changes.

That said, I was on a very faction unbalanced realm in vanilla, queue times were horrible so cross realm came as a godsend. Unless they find a way to change the game and avoid long queues cross realm bgs must stay in the game.

[Chaelexi]

That's why I used the word "cap". No need to allocate all 2500 resources when there are only five people online.

The issue is that they will need the hardware to run all of these servers at cap available and they can not use it for other tasks....therefore it is not scaleable and not economically feesable...... Where as the sharding pool method has the ability to just load which shard is needed in a container, this container could be a Current wow instance container, a raid container or a classic wow zone container and once it is no longer needed it can go back. Also the 2500 server cap leads to the issues of dead servers very quickly, issues of people not being able to play with friends and forced migrations or CRZ servers merges.

[Echocho]

The issue is that they will need the hardware to run all of these servers at cap available and they can not use it for other tasks....therefore it is not scaleable and not economically feesable...... Where as the sharding pool method has the ability to just load which shard is needed in a container, this container could be a Current wow instance container, a raid container or a classic wow zone container and once it is no longer needed it can go back.

Classic will use the same infrastructure as BfA does, they'll all share the same hardware. The power needed to spin up these virtual servers are already in place, they don't need to invest in pretty much anything.

Also the 2500 server cap leads to the issues of dead servers very quickly, issues of people not being able to play with friends and forced migrations or CRZ servers merges.

#nochanges

[kamuimac]

It RUINS server identity, NONE OF IT, not in battlegrounds, not in anywhere.

DONT YOU DAREE

lol not only you will get cross realm but all lfd and probably lfr

why do you think they are building it on current client

[Chaelexi]

Classic will use the same infrastructure as BfA does, they'll all share the same hardware. The power needed to spin up these virtual servers are already in place, they don't need to invest in pretty much anything.



#nochanges

Exactly why it will use the same technology the BFA does......Sharding INC......... ahh yes the argument when people have no actual leg to stand on #NoArgument......oops I mean #NoChanges. So what is your answer when almost all the servers are dead? #NoChanges means dead game......

[Echocho]

Exactly why it will use the same technology the BFA does......Sharding INC......... ahh yes the argument when people have no actual leg to stand on #NoArgument......oops I mean #NoChanges. So what is your answer when almost all the servers are dead? #NoChanges means dead game......

In vanilla they handled population issues by offering free transfers, that should obviously be the solution this time too if the situation would occur, that way they don't have to change the entire game to solve something they've already solved. #nochanges

[Chaelexi]

In vanilla they handled population issues by offering free transfers, that should obviously be the solution this time too if the situation would occur, that way they don't have to change the entire game to solve something they've already solved. #nochanges

That does not solve population issues as you will still have the dead realm with characters on it...... So even if 99% of the population leaves and you have the guy that gets back from his deployment of 9 months and logs on they still need to keep that server hardware running at all times for the 25 people that stayed. This does not solve an issue and it is why they are still working on ways to fix it. Current solution is CRZ and sharding. If it was solved why did they stop the failed practice?

[Kaver]

It RUINS server identity, NONE OF IT, not in battlegrounds, not in anywhere.

DONT YOU DAREE

*sorry for caps*

- - - Updated - - -

If it was in Classic, it will be in Classic. End of. I can't imagine there's going to be a lot of servers anyway, so they'll probably link them all together.

You forgot to say that if it was in Classic, it will be in Classic..

Saying the same point multiple times makes it more true. Everybody knows that.

[Deficineiron]

The issue is that they will need the hardware to run all of these servers at cap available and they can not use it for other tasks....therefore it is not scaleable and not economically feesable...... Where as the sharding pool method has the ability to just load which shard is needed in a container, this container could be a Current wow instance container, a raid container or a classic wow zone container and once it is no longer needed it can go back. Also the 2500 server cap leads to the issues of dead servers very quickly, issues of people not being able to play with friends and forced migrations or CRZ servers merges.

only reason i am not 100% in agreement with what blizzard will do is they have a long history of NOT merging, forcing folks to stay on dead realms or pay to xfer (or re-roll and start from scratch). That said, to try to pull that rabbit out of the hat right out of the gate this time could well backfire, but they did exactly that on retail for years rather than merge realms, so someone thought that was a good idea and maybe, from blizzard's viewpoint, they were right.

but doing it embriel's way sure would create demand for blizzard to 'fix' it pretty fast. it would be pretty sharp to have all the changes they need to 'fix' classic ready in patch form and just wait for the sandbagged release version to create the outcry they want to justify their fixing.

I am sort-of playing devil's advocate because I don't think they want to sandbag release THAT badly (I expect that sort of stuff to be focused on class balance and qol), but it is fun because it is based on exploitative practices blizzard factually has engaged in (going years with no server merges despite many, many dead realms), and relies on Perverse Design Incentives that value-added provides.

[Deleted]

I find it fun that ppl think there will be more than 2 classic realms

[THEORACLE64]

*sorry for caps*

- - - Updated - - -



You forgot to say that if it was in Classic, it will be in Classic..

Saying the same point multiple times makes it more true. Everybody knows that.

It's not about making it more true, because it already is. It's more about you clearly don't understand facts, so presenting them with you over and over might make your brain actually switch on and start absorbing information. Then again, idiots are idiots.

[Kaver]

It's not about making it more true, because it already is. It's more about you clearly don't understand facts, so presenting them with you over and over might make your brain actually switch on and start absorbing information. Then again, idiots are idiots.

Always insult other people while making your arguments... that is 101 of diplomacy... *sigh*

[THEORACLE64]

Always insult other people while making your arguments... that is 101 of diplomacy... *sigh*

It's not even an argument when I've just presented facts - facts are facts, in regards to them saying that Classic will be as true as possible. It's not my fault you can't comprehend what the facts are. This also isn't the UN, it's an internet forum, so take your basic diplomacy trying to be an insult but failing terribly elsewhere.

[Kaver]

It's not even an argument when I've just presented facts - facts are facts, in regards to them saying that Classic will be as true as possible. It's not my fault you can't comprehend what the facts are. This also isn't the UN, it's an internet forum, so take your basic diplomacy trying to be an insult but failing terribly elsewhere.

1) I don't want thing that weren't in Classic to be in Classic, so I basicly agree with you.

2) You have a bad attitude.

3) Present facts without the insults and people will receive them better.

[Deficineiron]

It's not even an argument when I've just presented facts - facts are facts, in regards to them saying that Classic will be as true as possible. It's not my fault you can't comprehend what the facts are. This also isn't the UN, it's an internet forum, so take your basic diplomacy trying to be an insult but failing terribly elsewhere.

define 'possible' - your 'fact' is reliant on a term you have not defined. who defines it? How is it defined? (hint - it is presently undefined and will mean whatever blizzard says 'possible' means.)

did they even actually use the word 'possible' in this context?

also I am somewhat bemused at how many people consider anything blizzard says which is a forward-looking product release statement to be a 'fact' even when one ignores the subjective nature of what you claim they said.