Zone Phasing Vs Dynamic Respawn Vs Population Cap

[Cempa]

Has Blizz spoken on how they plan on handling population per server?

Vanilla servers had a hard population cap which inevitably lead to a server feeling quite small -after the initial leveling zerg passes.

Today, servers are able to hold folds more players without any technical issues whatsoever BUT need to implement Dynamic Re-spawn or quests/mobs would simply take far too long.

While I want active servers with thousands of players online on both sides, I really don't like Dynamic Re-spawn seeing how not only does it lead to random player deaths -multiple mobs insta spawn on you- to player abuse to grind/farm in the same spot and again quests are hard to complete.

I would much rather have zone phasing that allows same guild/party/friends to be together but would phase out players entering that zone based on population in said zone. Thoughts?

[Bakis]

I guess it will depend on the amount of servers they go. Tech changed (obviously) and the hard cap on population would not pose a problem, they would be large enough to not have an issue of cross-realm recruting to guilds due to the servers population issues.
On the other hand phasing is possible. It might however be shunned as not vanilla'ish and skipped.

[Noomz]

Has Blizz spoken on how they plan on handling population per server?

Vanilla servers had a hard population cap which inevitably lead to a server feeling quite small -after the initial leveling zerg passes.

Today, servers are able to hold folds more players without any technical issues whatsoever BUT need to implement Dynamic Re-spawn or quests/mobs would simply take far too long.

While I want active servers with thousands of players online on both sides, I really don't like Dynamic Re-spawn seeing how not only does it lead to random player deaths -multiple mobs insta spawn on you- to player abuse to grind/farm in the same spot and again quests are hard to complete.

I would much rather have zone phasing that allows same guild/party/friends to be together but would phase out players entering that zone based on population in said zone. Thoughts?

If you want vanilla, you ain't getting new tech for it like zone phasing. You're getting the vanilla experience, not a sort-of-Vanilla experience.

[Deleted]

Pop cap, everything else is out of the question.

[Rapti]

Pop cap, everything else is out of the question.

I second that. I am fine even with Server Merges after some time if needed. Nothing was more irritating when chasing someone in wPvP and he vanishes cause he 'zoned out'. Launch will always be dramatic and it is bit of the experience as it was. It will even out over time as many people will drop out.

[Accendor]

I guess it will depend on the amount of servers they go. Tech changed (obviously) and the hard cap on population would not pose a problem, they would be large enough to not have an issue of cross-realm recruting to guilds due to the servers population issues.
On the other hand phasing is possible. It might however be shunned as not vanilla'ish and skipped.

Phasing is something that never should have made it into the game, like sharding. If one of them is used in Vanilla this also has the power to destroy the whole project.

[Jtbrig7390]

If you want vanilla, you ain't getting new tech for it like zone phasing. You're getting the vanilla experience, not a sort-of-Vanilla experience.

Ya make sure you playing on a P4 Computer with Windows XP and 512Mb of Ram otherwise your not getting the full Classic Experience.

Also must use Dial Up.

Ontopic: They haven't said but likely won't use phasing since they are trying to stick to as close to classic as they can,

[Echocho]

Servers certainly didn't feel small. 2500-3500 is what the game was designed for and that should not change. We don't want fucking vanilla with sprinkles, #nochanges to vanilla!

[Rafoel]

The loudest people come from private servers community, but they way private servers do it spoilt their players.

After playing on those servers, I can say that even changes that seem purely positive end up disrupting game balance and make the game... not neccessarily worse, but definitely completely different than original Vanilla experience.

Server population and dynamic respawns are among those changes.

It's true that population of 3000 was what the "full" server was considered to have. The size of world was designed with this amount in mind. WoW was about exploration of wild and hostile territories. With population of 10k, it becomes a theme park. There is much more players than monsters, everywhere. Places that were originally hard to penetrate are wide open with 20 people enjoying perfect farm spots inside. Elite quest targets, instead of being horrors that players either flee from or carefully plan to engage, are camped 24/7 by several full groups at all time, because 10 minute spawn timer is not enough to satisfy everybody who quest through the zone.

For these and many other reasons, if Blizzard really wants to provide AUTHENTIC Vanilla experience, the population cap must be the same, and respawns must work same way they worked back then.

[The Emperor]

No, waiting for a mob for hours should definitely be a thing. I liked classic for it.

[Warning]

Has Blizz spoken on how they plan on handling population per server?

Vanilla servers had a hard population cap which inevitably lead to a server feeling quite small -after the initial leveling zerg passes.

Today, servers are able to hold folds more players without any technical issues whatsoever BUT need to implement Dynamic Re-spawn or quests/mobs would simply take far too long.

While I want active servers with thousands of players online on both sides, I really don't like Dynamic Re-spawn seeing how not only does it lead to random player deaths -multiple mobs insta spawn on you- to player abuse to grind/farm in the same spot and again quests are hard to complete.

I would much rather have zone phasing that allows same guild/party/friends to be together but would phase out players entering that zone based on population in said zone. Thoughts?

Pop caps around 5000 would be alright, dynamics spawns probably as well, but phasing no. It's vital that you at all times feel part of a world that is shared by a set community, which means seeing everyone present in the same area as you are.

[Gavll]

Phasing is cancer so is any kind of cross-realm anything.

Higher pops than back in the day is fine by me and these must come with dynamic spawn rates to match to the original values.

[Shiny212]

Funny, I felt the server seemed MUCH bigger than it does now. Doesn't really feel like you even have a server, and you barely interact with others for 70% of your time playing the game anyway.

[Hottage]

None of the above, you can enjoy Classic the way it's meant to be played...

Spending 15 minutes tag sniping wolves in Northshire Valley for the first quest. Unless you're a melee, then expect at least 45 minutes.

[Chaelexi]

Servers certainly didn't feel small. 2500-3500 is what the game was designed for and that should not change. We don't want fucking vanilla with sprinkles, #nochanges to vanilla!

Yes but with a server of that size after attrition you are going to end up with 1k player bases per server and that is not at all healthy. High server pops with Sharding is the only logical way to handle it. There will be no changes to Vanilla but there are already changes happening to classic.

- - - Updated - - -

I have posted it in other threads but here it is again because everyone ignored it because it was logical.
There are 3 situations and think about which one sounds the most plausible and best player experience.
1)First you make smaller servers but many of them to handle the initial rush of players but once the first wave leaves these servers will be relatively quiet and the experience will be poor since there will be many players but spread across many servers in small numbers making the organization of and pvp poor. Thus forcing Blizzard to either run combine realms or worse forced xfers.

2) You make a small number of servers with high population limits to handle the initial rush. On these servers you have high cap sharding allowing them to handle that high pop and people can still complete quests, get mob tags, etc but at the same time preserving the experience of vanilla of competing for tags. Once the initial rush leaves this server you will still have healthy population on the server and depending on server populations you then can disable sharding or atleast move up the thresholds.

3) You make high pop servers with no sharding and endup with 3-5000 players per starting zone competing for mobs for the first week and only the lucky get passed those quests quickly. The rest of the player base will get frustrated with the game and likely leave since they have not been able to get passed the starting zone in 12+ hours played since it is a competition for every tag. This will cause many players that may have stuck around to leave, it is bad business practice to drive good customers away when you have a great solution at hand that will not really damage the "experience". This will also cause huge lag and connectivity issues for players with less than top-end gaming rigs as trying to render and track a couple thousand players will be terrible.

Remember the end goal of Blizzard is keep people playing and not appease a small but loud contingent of people who wave the no changes flag. They are a business that makes it's money of repeat clients.

[Hitei]

None of the above, you can enjoy Classic the way it's meant to be played...

Spending 15 minutes tag sniping wolves in Northshire Valley for the first quest. Unless you're a melee, then expect at least 45 minutes.

Vanilla wow had only 100,000+ (<200,000) people playing at launch. So you aren't going to get "classic the way it's meant to be played" unless only 150,000 people decide to play on launch day.

[Doctor Funkenstein]

Funny, I felt the server seemed MUCH bigger than it does now.

Psst, 3,000 people on two continents > 5,000 people on seven.

[Deficineiron]

Phasing is something that never should have made it into the game, like sharding. If one of them is used in Vanilla this also has the power to destroy the whole project.

the blizzard cynic in me thinks that there surely are advocates for restructuring classic zone questing into 'linear' questing with vanilla-like quest names and goals. if this were to get into the game (blizzard seems to feel they have to cram a story down the players' throats), then phasing certainly makes sense.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes but with a server of that size after attrition you are going to end up with 1k player bases per server and that is not at all healthy. High server pops with Sharding is the only logical way to handle it. There will be no changes to Vanilla but there are already changes happening to classic.

- - - Updated - - -

I have posted it in other threads but here it is again because everyone ignored it because it was logical.
There are 3 situations and think about which one sounds the most plausible and best player experience.
1)First you make smaller servers but many of them to handle the initial rush of players but once the first wave leaves these servers will be relatively quiet and the experience will be poor since there will be many players but spread across many servers in small numbers making the organization of and pvp poor. Thus forcing Blizzard to either run combine realms or worse forced xfers.

2) You make a small number of servers with high population limits to handle the initial rush. On these servers you have high cap sharding allowing them to handle that high pop and people can still complete quests, get mob tags, etc but at the same time preserving the experience of vanilla of competing for tags. Once the initial rush leaves this server you will still have healthy population on the server and depending on server populations you then can disable sharding or atleast move up the thresholds.

3) You make high pop servers with no sharding and endup with 3-5000 players per starting zone competing for mobs for the first week and only the lucky get passed those quests quickly. The rest of the player base will get frustrated with the game and likely leave since they have not been able to get passed the starting zone in 12+ hours played since it is a competition for every tag. This will cause many players that may have stuck around to leave, it is bad business practice to drive good customers away when you have a great solution at hand that will not really damage the "experience". This will also cause huge lag and connectivity issues for players with less than top-end gaming rigs as trying to render and track a couple thousand players will be terrible.

Remember the end goal of Blizzard is keep people playing and not appease a small but loud contingent of people who wave the no changes flag. They are a business that makes it's money of repeat clients.

I like these multiple choice questions. Please make more

- - - Updated - - -

For these and many other reasons, if Blizzard really wants to provide AUTHENTIC Vanilla experience, the population cap must be the same, and respawns must work same way they worked back then.

I suspect blizzard will not fall prey to having major decisions decided by word-thinking. They will call it an authentic experience and they will not do it the way you say they must based on the power you claim the word Authentic holds over them. it is, in fact, the opposite - Blizzard will use magic words like 'authentic' and 'experience' on us and will succeed in making many customers believe the words are true even in the face of direct evidence to the contrary. (though 'experience' is subjective enough it can be goalpost-moved to justify any change).

[plagueshard801]

Servers certainly didn't feel small. 2500-3500 is what the game was designed for and that should not change. We don't want fucking vanilla with sprinkles, #nochanges to vanilla!

This is exactly it. A lower population per server will eliminate the need to have dynamic respawns and phasing. If you are wondering because of pserver experience, those servers run 10k+ people at launch. When you take away 2/3rd of those people, it wont seem so bad.

[Deficineiron]

This is exactly it. A lower population per server will eliminate the need to have dynamic respawns and phasing. If you are wondering because of pserver experience, those servers run 10k+ people at launch. When you take away 2/3rd of those people, it wont seem so bad.

the real problem becomes when you are leveling on a mature server with the cap you suggest - some large % of the players on at any time are at 60. hard to do anything as a group leveling. this REAL problem was part of the reason for elimination of nearly all outdoor elite areas in BC 2.3.

once you are on a 5k+ server, the leveling population seems to be much more likely to be at a critical mass to allow a lot more group content to be done.

this issue is more complex than most posters seem to think, particularly given that the old server cap was at least in part a hard technology limit, not a design goal independent of this.