"We're gonna funnel everyone into the same starting zone, but this time it will be.."

[theossy]

...Different, trust me.

[Egomaniac]

20 bucks says they implement some form of layering at launch.

[Armakus]

20 bucks says they implement some form of layering at launch.

What? You're saying it like it's not a given or obvious. Like, of course. That's the only way something like this works...?

[Denizly]

As far as baits go, at least there's pretty pics

[Somnium]

20 bucks says they implement some form of layering at launch.

20 bucks that they use a system that's already in use permanently ? risk-averse gambler, I see.

[Dracullus]

Both Legion and BfA had smooth launch (BfA had problems on few huge servers like Draenor EU first few hours), so I don't think you know what you're talkking about OP.

And we had that thanks to so much hated sharding tech, imagine that.

[Justpassing]

Dude trust me

[Lochton]

...Different, trust me.

Three faults in the picture...

... Legion didn't have the same starting zone, you had a choice of 4.
... Cataclysm didn't have the same starting zone, you had a choice of 2.
... Wrath didn't have the same starting zone, you had a choice of 2.


But yeah, going to feel weird to be back on a linear leveling path for your main, at least free choice as an alt.

[LadyGrayRose]

Both Legion and BfA launch went pretty damn smoothly, at least on my realm. BfA had a few issues with sporadically lagging out into purgatory about two or three hours in in, but those were resolved fairly quickly—and those were during prime-time on launch day. Legion launch was pretty damn flawless aside from the nightmare lag in Dalaran (and, let's face it, Dalaran lags people even when no one is there because there's so many objects and NPCs crammed into a small space) and a disconnect or two; there were some issues around day two or three, but I think those were a result of DDoS or something?

WoD's launch issues were largely a result of a dedicated DDoS attack as opposed to being technical difficulties on Blizzard's end, although they should have implemented the overflow 'start Tanaan' NPCs they put into the cities sooner than the last minute so there weren't as many people clustered around the Dark Portal (which was, by all accounts, a hideous mess of lags and DCs if you wanted to go through the portal to start WoD instead of having the overflow NPC teleport you into Tanaan.)

I think the Shadowlands launch will go fine unless there's another big DDoS. Some lag, some DCs, some things horrifically broken under server stress the beta never hit that require emergency hotfixes, but nothing unplayable.

[Egomaniac]

What? You're saying it like it's not a given or obvious. Like, of course. That's the only way something like this works...?

20 bucks that they use a system that's already in use permanently ? risk-averse gambler, I see.

That was kind of the whole point guys...

Also, layering is not a permanently in use system.

[sunxsera]

Hmm ... worked pretty well & smooth for MoP, Legion & BfA - at least on my server which is one of the biggest german realms.
WoD was a mess though. ~500 people around Khadgar in blasted lands.

[Tech614]

20 bucks says they implement some form of layering at launch.

Sharding has existed for how many expansions now? And you think it was some grand new tech because they altered it slightly and called it "layers" for Classic? lol.

- - - Updated - - -

That was kind of the whole point guys...

Also, layering is not a permanently in use system.

Uhh, yes it is. Sharding is a permanent system on retail servers. It was a temporary solution to avoid making too many realms for classic. Nice try tho... The fact you're even calling it "layering" when that's not even what it's called outside of classic is showing just how little you know on the topic.

[Nevcairiel]

Ever since they introduced sharding after the broken WoD launch, these issues have really been very minimal. WoD was the last launch I remember actually having serious issues, and they didn't have sharding there yet, they only introduced it in the aftermath of the launch. Of course experiences often depend on the server you are on, but both Legion and BfA were smooth here.

[Egomaniac]

Sharding has existed for how many expansions now? And you think it was some grand new tech because they altered it slightly and called it "layers" for Classic? lol.

- - - Updated - - -



Uhh, yes it is. Sharding is a permanent system on retail servers. It was a temporary solution to avoid making too many realms for classic. Nice try tho... The fact you're even calling it "layering" when that's not even what it's called outside of classic is showing just how little you know on the topic.

The implementations of sharding and layering are different. Which is why they use different terms.

Have a good night.

[Tech614]

The implementations of sharding and layering are different. Which is why they use different terms.

Which I already explained the very post you quoted. You're the one that posted clearly not knowing or understanding what sharding is by suggesting retail would need "layering" instead. Sharding limits the number of players in a single instance by a far, far greater amount then layering and makes any day 1 rush non existent and has succeeded at this for the past 2 expansion launches.

[Khrux]

Sharding and layering are two very different implementations of server capacity management.

One is activated by Blizzard manually and needs to be toggled on/off dependent on need, the other activates dynamically based on capacity thresholds and can activate or deactivate automatically. One prevents you moving between the phases without a hard logout, the other lets you join a group or individual or even change zone to move to their phase or back again. One is intended for long term capacity control, one is intended for a single or multiple short term capacity controls.

Layering was a temporary solution for Classic specifically, enforced by blizzard for population control and to minimise spinning up 100 realms that would all be at half or less capacity after the initial rush. Outside of some bugs, it mostly prevented you moving between layers and acted as virtual servers all sat on top of each other like mirrors. The layer persisted through zones, instances, grouping etc. as if you were literally on a different server entirely.

Sharding is dynamically used on retail every day of the week if needed, but most common at expansion or major patch release where players funnel together. Its creates temporary "instances" that don't persist across zone/dungeon/grouping and you can freely move between the shards by crossing any load screen or joining any other player. If you got 500 people together and went to a single zone, you'd cause sharding to kick in automatically. Layering cannot do that.

We'll continue to use Sharding for retail, like the last 3-4 expansions. Layering is not suitable or needed for an expansion.

[Egomaniac]

Which I already explained the very post you quoted. You're the one that posted clearly not knowing or understanding what sharding is by suggesting retail would need "layering" instead. Sharding limits the number of players in a single instance by a far, far greater amount then layering and makes any day 1 rush non existent and has succeeded at this for the past 2 expansion launches.

I was going to say more...but while responding I saw the post by khrux that explains the difference in implementation I was talking about. On the other hand, I do see how layering probably isn't really compatible with CRZ...which I wasn't really considering before. So, there's that me raising the white flag of surrender.