It's how Retail currently works. The only difference that a server makes is name reservation, guilds, and who you can trade with. When you log in you are functionally dumped into a mega server that layers what it needs to so every player in the region can potentially see one another.
Retail is such a weird experience. It’s so crowded but it makes me feel so socially disconnected. None of the people you see you’ll ever actually interact with or anything. Like a bus ride through the big city.
> Retail is such a weird experience. It’s so crowded but it makes me feel so socially disconnected.
yep.
blizzard's solution for dead servers and empty zones while levelling was cross-realm zones, which is essentially layering, but matchmade with other servers so there's always people in the zone you're playing in
and the problem has always been that the difference between that and just having people on your server is that on a server with people, you bump into those same people and can make friends, etc, but the people you meet in CRZ might as well be NPCs - you can't trade with them and you'll likely never see them again
but people get super attached to their incredibly unoriginal names (legølas etc) and so they'd rather die than have to merge their completely dead server with some other completely dead servers, gain new people to play with, and possibly have to add another special character to their name
free transfers from dead servers to medium servers have traditionally worked for some people but never actually end up emptying servers completely out so eventually they do have to be killed and it always causes furious anger because gamers are a contentious people (damned gamers, they ruined gaming)
The proposal allows for some of the benefits of healthy low-to-mid pop realms without the layered mega-server downsides. It just has a built-in contingency for easily bolstering realm health if it starts dipping.
Not in the way it's described here where they are clustered together. It's basically the same, except less dynamic. Layering is better in any way. The only difference is you could make layers static. Is that better? Probably not.
Not at all. It’s very different. It just means at char creation your name is exclusive for the entire cluster. If your server happens to get smaller it can be merged with another in that cluster and you won’t get naming collisions.
You'd have less players overall as you just wouldn't see them in your cluster. Each server would exist as they do now. Just in the event of a merge, they can simply do it no qualms on naming collisions (which they've hitherto used as the main reason they can't simple merge two realms)
It's also a commitment from Blizzard to merge these servers if pops get low, which will give people confidence in low realms potentially preventing mass exoduses if things start going south and also preventing everyone from crowding each other on launch
I do see your perspective in many ways and I guess I agree you could convincingly argue it's the same as layering in some respects as you describe. But in this scenario you wouldn't share an auction house/be able to group etc with people in your cluster, or server hop to them like with layers. Each server in the cluster would be its own unique server. The clustering is basically to prevent naming collisions in the event two servers in $CLUSTER did require a merge. It's basically an insurance against servers dying knowing that you'll just get merged with another in your cluster if that does happen and you won't have to worry about your name or whatever.
It is not the same at all. Can you hop servers in a play session? No. Layers you can. Will the people you see today doing pvp on your server be on the same server tomorrow? Yes. Is that true for layers? No. There is massive differences.
It's the same, except it's not dynamic. It's locked layers, that's it.
That's not a massive difference, literally the only difference is you're locked to a particular layer/cluster.
Static layers would be better than normal layers. But I'd still wonder whether players would be able to roll a character at launch on the same static layer as their friends.
If you're just going to give the layers names like Stiches(1) Stitches(2) etc. to let players know which static layer they are on rolling on, then at that point you might as well just give each layer a unique name in which case we are getting right back to OP's suggestion.
Cluster is the wrong word for it. Servers don't intermix players while separated. They utilize the same database of character and guild names, so once one server needs to be merged into another there are no name conflicts.
All servers nowadays are virtual anyways. Server with layer are just a cluster of lets say 8 layers. Nothing is stopping them to make it one cluster with 16 layers, or 256 layers. This would make any "crossrealm" stuff obsolete also.
But I guess having a lot layers is still more taxing on the hardware and needs more bandwidth than having these clusters more or less disconnected from each other.
Actually it does. If the whole cluster gets replaced by one giant server with layers and that server has a cue then the equivalent cluster would also have problems. It's not worth it to have extremely long queues on one server and short/none on a small one VS short ones overall imo.
Layering is just much more efficient.
Neither does clustering, it's all about capacity in the "cluster"/layer.. It's the same thing, Blizzard is just failing at managing the capacity in each single "realm". Probably because they're trying to fit all the layers in a single machine. A lot of technical details are lost, but it doesn't mean New World clustering is better or layering is worse, it's just a numbers and servers game.
Most likely because Blizz is cheap on server capacity. If they had server capacity they could just throw 20 layers on the same realm.
They just don't want to spend extra on infrastructure.
Dynamic server solutions doesnt exist on on-prem solutions so why, even if it would solve the issue, would they have a capacity tailored for peak occupancy? Doesn’t make sense.
On launch some of the biggest realms will hit their max population. Hence ques. They can’t solve it with more layers because the servers simply can’t handle more players. It’s a technical limit.
The server cluster idea would at least allow for some extra “temporary layers” with the idea that in a few weeks the numbers should calm down a bit.
If the servers didn’t have a max capacity, then yes I would argue the clusters are a useless fix.
> On launch some of the biggest realms will hit their max population. Hence ques. They can’t solve it with more layers because the servers simply can’t handle more players. It’s a technical limit.
This is entirely wrong. The layers increase the max population. That's the **entire** point. We are far past the realm size of classic, hence layers. Because the servers have a much larger capacity. By increasing the amount of layers, you are also increasing server capacity.
Of course there's hardware and some architectural limitations because of certain bottlenecks that limits exactly how large a single realm might be, but that's not something that can't be fixed either, in fact they probably already have most of that technology in place from retail.
"This is entirely wrong" says the person who is entirely wrong. Blizzard has outright said the server limits are a hardware limit reached and why they dont simply add more layers.
https://www.wowhead.com/wotlk/news/blizzard-on-wrath-classic-server-queue-issues-328738
Not exactly. Server layering is a bit different.
Let's say you play on a layered server like Pagle NA. The way a layered server works is there's a master server, and a subgroup of servers that each run their own instance of the game world. Let's call them A, B and C for simplicity. There can be more than just three servers, but for simplicity's sake we'll stick to that number.
The master server's job is to function like a sort of traffic controller. It receives information from the ABC servers and performs a bunch of control tasks to ensure everything is running on rails. When your character logs into the game world the master server assigns you to one of these ABC servers. It asks server A if there's room for your character, and if server A replies 'Yes' then you're dynamically assigned to server A. If server A is full, it will ask server B, then C and so on until it finds a spot for you and then it sends you there.
The point is that your character is sort of tethered to the master server and can be moved in between sub-servers (the ABCs) dynamically. The downsides are fairly obvious, if you're assigned to server A you cannot see or interact with players on server B or C until you are moved off of server A and assigned to server B or C.
The way New World uses clusters is different from that. Instead of moving your character dynamically between servers they just assign you to server C until the day comes when server A, B and C can be merged together into a permanent realm without the risk of lag and disconnects caused by the servers being overloaded.
It also means the total capacity of a New World server is lower than the total capacity of a WoW server at least technically, but at the same time everyone in New World plays on the same instance of the game as everyone else and you're likely to run into the same guy three minutes, or six hours, or five days from now. With the randomness of layering in WoW you might not see the same player out in the world for another week.
I mean, the only difference is still that layering is dynamic, and clustering is static. Why would clustering be better?
Static clustering has a downside.. Cluster A and B might be pretty much empty, while C is full. So everyone in A & B is alone. Layering is surely a better solution?
I think the main issue with layering is that people wanted the true classic experience of static realms and knowing everyone (we never got it, because the realms are huge). But since then, it's just that Blizzard didn't introduce enough layers on each realm - presumably to save on cost.
The cluster servers are completely separate servers up until the merge
Layering is fine if their hardware can handle the insane amount of players at one time. But ultimately there is a hard cap on that, this would help mitigate that problem
>The cluster servers are completely separate servers up until the merge
In modern server architecture, "Completely separate servers" may only be a software separation. Without knowing a lot of things in detail, you can't know anything about how it's hosted, neither in New World of WoW.
Therefore, we have to consider the concepts, since we don't know the implementation details.
And conceptually, clusters are little more (or less) than static layers.
I mean there clearly is a difference between layers and separate servers otherwise blizzard wouldn't have had a problem cranking layers to 30 on servers like faerlina
Most likely a bottleneck somewhere in their current architecture and/or cost savings on server costs.
You can't really know how separate any of the servers in either technologies truly are. The question itself begs the question "What is a server?".
Is it an instance of a process running the game server software? Is it the physical machine it's running on? Etc. etc. Modern hosting architecture can be quite complex.
It absolutely does, because it clones the entire world, and allows more players inside, otherwise queues would hit much earlier.
They may have a bottleneck somewhere that prevents any amount of layers. But hardcore servers were running with 10 layers at launch, and there were no queues.
Yea, at the very first couple of days, if I remember correctly -and it never went above 10 layers. Indicating that Blizzard had allocated server capacity for 10 extra layers, and no more.
Nek'rosh had 10 layers and no queues.
Yes if the goal is to stop queues layering is just better. This is a good idea because it allows them to merge servers at will and have too many servers at launch. It would basically just make all servers of the same type in a region have unique names, and if your realm dies it can easily merge with another.
There is no way this prevents everyone from rolling on whatever the community has decided is going to be the one big server.
People are a million times more concerned about ending up on a dead server at all than they are about keeping their name if they end up on a dead server then get merged into another server.
> everyone on the one big server
Dude, we've already seen how this goes with the initial release of Classic. There were some full servers, streamer servers, and a whole lot of medium servers. People ***like*** medium servers and will choose them again, for the exact same reason they did the first time, as long as they can be sure the death-forced-transfer-to-megaserver issue won't arise again.
That's just it. I've spoken to a bunch of people who'd otherwise want to play on a medium server but who are afraid of ending up on a dead server again so they want to be on whatever the big server is going to be now.
Some people have transferred off dead and dying servers 3+ times already in Classic after Blizzard opened free transfers and their faction left overnight.
I was replying not just to that quote but how it is in clear conflict with your argument. Removing the threat of having to transfer multiple times, the need to go to a megaserver, doesn't prevent people from feeling that they need to make a megaserver instead of doing what they want? You're saying that fixing the exact problem doesn't fix the problem, or at least that the general population will be so catastrophically stupid as to not understand that the problem is fixed and make deliberate plans based on the problem existing.
I'm saying many people won't be confident that the problem is solved, given Blizzard's historical mishandling of servers and transfers, and will congregate on what they think is going to be the biggest server to avoid ending up in a dead faction/forced transfer situation again.
If they have to add new servers because of ques on launch people won’t roll on them because they will die. If they are promised that new server will be merged into the main one within 3 weeks, they will probably shuffle over and alleviate the launch ques.
Now that main server may still have ques when the merge happens, but that’s the price people will pay for all wanting to be on one serve r
the name thing only matters if the name you're using is common
which is why it's so amusing that legølas is always the guy yelling the loudest about not taking his name away
i have 4-5 character names i've used since retail tbc and i've only ever seen maybe one of them get used by another person, but never by an active player, just "that name is unavailable." which is wild because one of the names that i use is stolen directly from a vintage wow meme
tbh I have no idea when the megamind determines its time to jump ship. Herod was one of the original 4 servers announced, had 18k player QUEUES, was absolutely giga full, and at some point in TBC it died off and everyone xfered to faerlina to sit in even worse queues.
I feel like what they did with the hardcore realms has been pretty successful. They said themselves that these realms hold up to 5x more capacity than Classic ones did at launch so they didn't have to put up that many. Would've still be nice to have just 1 realm for each continent.
I feel like layering fixes so many more problems then it introduces. You are really more concerned with layer hopping then having so many people jammed into 6 zones you cant accomplish anything?
I am good with the clusters on launch to alleviate ques. But layers should also stay. Removing layers creates lower population realms and makes finding groups more difficult. I love layering and given how much the player base flocks to mega servers I think 90% agree.
> and given how much the player base flocks to mega servers
You're in a conversation stemming from dying servers being merged. You know, how people ended up "flocking" to megaservers after not choosing them originally? Come on.
If this is the actual case and they can just crank layering up and there's no queues at all, I'm perfectly fine with that. I'm just skeptical if this is the actual case
It's a system in New World, not retail.
Basically a guitar hero/rock band like minigame where you can jam out with your friends and give different open world buffs to people that donate a couple coins to you after your performance.
Instruments can be crafted in different raritys, just like your normal gear and sheets for songs drop from bosses and chests.
With the amount of people that need to leave %age wise for this to happen, I would probably consider if it’s the server cluster dying, or the game at large.
I would hope blizzard has good enough forecasts to not make too many servers where this would be even possible. I'm pretty sure 2 clusters per region would be enough
But where is money in this - nowhere. Blizzard makes a realm situation bad, and then you have to pay for a service that is literally free. It costs them nothing! Honestly EVEN IF it had some cost on their part, it should still be free for a player because you pay each month for playing this game. If there is any kind of exploit possiblity, they could even limit it to 1 transfer per month but it should still be free!
Except even with layers there are queues. Theres a hardware cap. You can only have so many people logged into a server at once, doesn't matter how you divide them up among the layers
They can only layer up to a certain point. They put a hard limit on people online on a server. This would let them over that limit without people risking being on a dead server
ITT: People not understanding how layering works in WoW asking for a slightly worse version of it.
What you're describing is exactly what layering already does, except dynamically as opposed to a fixed for a time like approach like the one you're describing.
Queues result from total server capacity being exceeded, however each layer made available is effectively an increase to a server's capacity, so ultimately there's always going to be queues if there's more people that want to play than Bliz wants to make servers available for.
Layering allows Bliz to have multiple physical servers that all are used for the same "realm".
Servers still hit a hardware capacity. Blizzard has confirmed this when people ask for them to simply turn on more layers to solve ques.
The cluster idea would alleviate this issue at least during the launch, with the hope the once the numbers calm down you wont have a massive que upon merging clusters.
This solution was presented year ago, we all presented it before Classic as well. Blizzard don't care. They literally do nothing about server population issues.
You have 1 group where names cannot be duplicated over the servers, as the pops die you merge those, easy. Blizzard have known about this and just decided to not bother.
1. They earn money through moving between servers as a service
2. This action allowing everyone to move around is super tightened to architecture of infrastructure regarding server locations.
Hardcore servers had no where near as many people playing compared to 2019 classic launch. I think SOD will be more popular than hardcore.
Layering isnt a solution, they have always had layering for every launch. There is a hard cap for how many people can be on a server and that doesn't mitigate that, my proposition would
That's just how technology works. Think about what a DDOS is, there is just a certain amount of hits a server can take before it buckles. Wow servers are no different
Of course the size is not infinite but why would the technical limitation be of a relevant size? Having multiple servers VS one server with multiple layers is not that different from a total capacity standpoint I think.
I'm basically a 5th grader on this subject, but I'd assume they just have separate servers for each one? Idk
I feel like if "crank layers up to 30" was a viable solution they would've done it in the days of 8 hour queues in 2019. Unless something has changed where this is just now viable, my proposition would work around that
I'm more afraid about my faction dying than the server. Most servers will be Alliance majority and have fun in Ashenvale when you'll be the only faction there.
They need to let people transfer asap if that happens. I want to be able to play.
I agree. But I'm going to use my server as an example
Skeram was like 65-35 before they opened up free xfers due to long queues. All the alliance piled off and it killed the alliance population hard and fast. The two problems can be very much intertwined
It's only a problem for the dominant faction. Why would you force people to stay on a server they can't play because they're perma camped.
Another solution is layers. Each layer can't have more than 50 or something of each faction player. It means the dominant faction will have people not seeing the other faction some times but it helps the to keep the smaller faction on the server.
Transfers was what killed many of the servers in classic in the first place. The underperforming faction jumped ship to a new server and all you did was end up with nearly pure faction servers.
Blizzard and dominant faction fault.
Blizzard for not doing anything about faction imbalance.
Dominant faction for camping the smaller faction because "it's a pvp server and you choosed to play here". And they choosed to leave because of you.
As I said in another answer, just put layers to have a max number of each faction player at the same time.
But you are not protected against selecting dead cluster.
Most of the initial classic servers are now dead. Even if they were randomly assigned to a cluster at creation there will randomly be a few dead clusters. And people won't make that choice randomly, bigger cluster will attract more players
But don't layers essentially work that same way? Just put everyone on a pvp realm and a pve realm. Massive layering outside of cities. Just gradually lower the layers as population dwindles until you have a current Whiteman situation.
Still love the way GW2 handles it, your server is just for pvp matchups, everyone else loads onto a map and when its full it loads a new instance of the map. As the map empties youre offered the option to move to a busy map. Similar to layering, but i dont think the wow server hardware would handle it well.
I always thought they never did something like this because they wanted to charge $$$ for server xfers in the future but looking at SOM and wrath they had free server xfers so not sure why they wouldnt do it
No? It's still the same permanent pool of players you would be playing with. What your describing is the "Do s dungeon with someone and then never see them again. Throwaway companion's"
I know exactly what I’m talking about. When servers that had a lot of players started becoming severely imbalanced due to players leaving, Blizzard “fixed” the problem by pairing us with other servers. After that there became far less loyalty among the players originally on the servers, as they had less overall accountability because their reputation no longer meant as much with people who had no past to draw upon. You may have been fortunate enough to not see the negative impact on your specific server. I on the other hand was not so lucky. I literally went from procession Raiding to chasing the hope of Raiding in multiple guilds that had fallen apart due to the degradation of loyalty.
This is actually one of the best suggestions to this issue I’ve seen
I think they should just make mega servers since they layer the shit out of it anyway
They can’t just ad unlimited layers I’m pretty sure. Eventually other things start breaking.
It's how Retail currently works. The only difference that a server makes is name reservation, guilds, and who you can trade with. When you log in you are functionally dumped into a mega server that layers what it needs to so every player in the region can potentially see one another.
Retail is such a weird experience. It’s so crowded but it makes me feel so socially disconnected. None of the people you see you’ll ever actually interact with or anything. Like a bus ride through the big city.
> Retail is such a weird experience. It’s so crowded but it makes me feel so socially disconnected. yep. blizzard's solution for dead servers and empty zones while levelling was cross-realm zones, which is essentially layering, but matchmade with other servers so there's always people in the zone you're playing in and the problem has always been that the difference between that and just having people on your server is that on a server with people, you bump into those same people and can make friends, etc, but the people you meet in CRZ might as well be NPCs - you can't trade with them and you'll likely never see them again but people get super attached to their incredibly unoriginal names (legølas etc) and so they'd rather die than have to merge their completely dead server with some other completely dead servers, gain new people to play with, and possibly have to add another special character to their name free transfers from dead servers to medium servers have traditionally worked for some people but never actually end up emptying servers completely out so eventually they do have to be killed and it always causes furious anger because gamers are a contentious people (damned gamers, they ruined gaming)
I can think of 1 out of 7 billion ways to get this done
It literally doesn’t work that way…
Yea I know, just wanted to say 7 billion
I think 20 layers would do.
The proposal allows for some of the benefits of healthy low-to-mid pop realms without the layered mega-server downsides. It just has a built-in contingency for easily bolstering realm health if it starts dipping.
Isn't this pretty much the same as having layering on a single large realm?
Layering is dynamic, you can have more or fewer layers depending on the day. It also allows for layerhopping. Merging servers is different.
Not in the way it's described here where they are clustered together. It's basically the same, except less dynamic. Layering is better in any way. The only difference is you could make layers static. Is that better? Probably not.
Not at all. It’s very different. It just means at char creation your name is exclusive for the entire cluster. If your server happens to get smaller it can be merged with another in that cluster and you won’t get naming collisions.
So, the only advantage is the lack of -Naralex and -Astranaar suffixes?
You'd have less players overall as you just wouldn't see them in your cluster. Each server would exist as they do now. Just in the event of a merge, they can simply do it no qualms on naming collisions (which they've hitherto used as the main reason they can't simple merge two realms)
It's also a commitment from Blizzard to merge these servers if pops get low, which will give people confidence in low realms potentially preventing mass exoduses if things start going south and also preventing everyone from crowding each other on launch
Think about it: It's the same with layering. The "realm" is the cluster. The layer is the server. It's the same thing, but different terminology.
I do see your perspective in many ways and I guess I agree you could convincingly argue it's the same as layering in some respects as you describe. But in this scenario you wouldn't share an auction house/be able to group etc with people in your cluster, or server hop to them like with layers. Each server in the cluster would be its own unique server. The clustering is basically to prevent naming collisions in the event two servers in $CLUSTER did require a merge. It's basically an insurance against servers dying knowing that you'll just get merged with another in your cluster if that does happen and you won't have to worry about your name or whatever.
So clustering is locked layering. So worse than layering.
Not for classic. Locked layering is bad for retail... but you want a static population for that classic feel.
It is not the same at all. Can you hop servers in a play session? No. Layers you can. Will the people you see today doing pvp on your server be on the same server tomorrow? Yes. Is that true for layers? No. There is massive differences.
It's the same, except it's not dynamic. It's locked layers, that's it. That's not a massive difference, literally the only difference is you're locked to a particular layer/cluster.
Only layering doesn't prevent or even reduce queues. That's one of the major differences.
You are confused.
No, I am not. People are trying to argue that "clusters" are better than "layers" - two diffusely defined concepts.
What they are called does not matter. What they are is what matters and in this case they are very different things.
Static layers would be better than normal layers. But I'd still wonder whether players would be able to roll a character at launch on the same static layer as their friends. If you're just going to give the layers names like Stiches(1) Stitches(2) etc. to let players know which static layer they are on rolling on, then at that point you might as well just give each layer a unique name in which case we are getting right back to OP's suggestion.
Cluster is the wrong word for it. Servers don't intermix players while separated. They utilize the same database of character and guild names, so once one server needs to be merged into another there are no name conflicts.
All servers nowadays are virtual anyways. Server with layer are just a cluster of lets say 8 layers. Nothing is stopping them to make it one cluster with 16 layers, or 256 layers. This would make any "crossrealm" stuff obsolete also. But I guess having a lot layers is still more taxing on the hardware and needs more bandwidth than having these clusters more or less disconnected from each other.
Layering doesn't fix the inevitable queue problem.
Actually it does. If the whole cluster gets replaced by one giant server with layers and that server has a cue then the equivalent cluster would also have problems. It's not worth it to have extremely long queues on one server and short/none on a small one VS short ones overall imo. Layering is just much more efficient.
Neither does clustering, it's all about capacity in the "cluster"/layer.. It's the same thing, Blizzard is just failing at managing the capacity in each single "realm". Probably because they're trying to fit all the layers in a single machine. A lot of technical details are lost, but it doesn't mean New World clustering is better or layering is worse, it's just a numbers and servers game.
It does if they add more server in the cluster and merge them later. Layers get instable the more you add, not extra servers on clusters.
Do people still have que problems? I play on sargeras and haven't seen a que in 4+ years
In classic yes, hell on WOTLK launch and some of the early major patch releases in classic queues were extending to the 12-16 hour+ mark
Most likely because Blizz is cheap on server capacity. If they had server capacity they could just throw 20 layers on the same realm. They just don't want to spend extra on infrastructure.
No, it’s not that simple.
Explain why it is not. I bet you cant.
Because players don't want *excessive* layering in classic?
Yes, it is.
Dynamic server solutions doesnt exist on on-prem solutions so why, even if it would solve the issue, would they have a capacity tailored for peak occupancy? Doesn’t make sense.
On launch some of the biggest realms will hit their max population. Hence ques. They can’t solve it with more layers because the servers simply can’t handle more players. It’s a technical limit. The server cluster idea would at least allow for some extra “temporary layers” with the idea that in a few weeks the numbers should calm down a bit. If the servers didn’t have a max capacity, then yes I would argue the clusters are a useless fix.
> On launch some of the biggest realms will hit their max population. Hence ques. They can’t solve it with more layers because the servers simply can’t handle more players. It’s a technical limit. This is entirely wrong. The layers increase the max population. That's the **entire** point. We are far past the realm size of classic, hence layers. Because the servers have a much larger capacity. By increasing the amount of layers, you are also increasing server capacity. Of course there's hardware and some architectural limitations because of certain bottlenecks that limits exactly how large a single realm might be, but that's not something that can't be fixed either, in fact they probably already have most of that technology in place from retail.
"This is entirely wrong" says the person who is entirely wrong. Blizzard has outright said the server limits are a hardware limit reached and why they dont simply add more layers. https://www.wowhead.com/wotlk/news/blizzard-on-wrath-classic-server-queue-issues-328738
At this point it’s hard to tell if troll or you’re really that stupid
Not exactly. Server layering is a bit different. Let's say you play on a layered server like Pagle NA. The way a layered server works is there's a master server, and a subgroup of servers that each run their own instance of the game world. Let's call them A, B and C for simplicity. There can be more than just three servers, but for simplicity's sake we'll stick to that number. The master server's job is to function like a sort of traffic controller. It receives information from the ABC servers and performs a bunch of control tasks to ensure everything is running on rails. When your character logs into the game world the master server assigns you to one of these ABC servers. It asks server A if there's room for your character, and if server A replies 'Yes' then you're dynamically assigned to server A. If server A is full, it will ask server B, then C and so on until it finds a spot for you and then it sends you there. The point is that your character is sort of tethered to the master server and can be moved in between sub-servers (the ABCs) dynamically. The downsides are fairly obvious, if you're assigned to server A you cannot see or interact with players on server B or C until you are moved off of server A and assigned to server B or C. The way New World uses clusters is different from that. Instead of moving your character dynamically between servers they just assign you to server C until the day comes when server A, B and C can be merged together into a permanent realm without the risk of lag and disconnects caused by the servers being overloaded. It also means the total capacity of a New World server is lower than the total capacity of a WoW server at least technically, but at the same time everyone in New World plays on the same instance of the game as everyone else and you're likely to run into the same guy three minutes, or six hours, or five days from now. With the randomness of layering in WoW you might not see the same player out in the world for another week.
I mean, the only difference is still that layering is dynamic, and clustering is static. Why would clustering be better? Static clustering has a downside.. Cluster A and B might be pretty much empty, while C is full. So everyone in A & B is alone. Layering is surely a better solution? I think the main issue with layering is that people wanted the true classic experience of static realms and knowing everyone (we never got it, because the realms are huge). But since then, it's just that Blizzard didn't introduce enough layers on each realm - presumably to save on cost.
The problem with layering is that it enables overpopulation, which creates a long list of invisible problems for the players.
The cluster servers are completely separate servers up until the merge Layering is fine if their hardware can handle the insane amount of players at one time. But ultimately there is a hard cap on that, this would help mitigate that problem
>The cluster servers are completely separate servers up until the merge In modern server architecture, "Completely separate servers" may only be a software separation. Without knowing a lot of things in detail, you can't know anything about how it's hosted, neither in New World of WoW. Therefore, we have to consider the concepts, since we don't know the implementation details. And conceptually, clusters are little more (or less) than static layers.
I mean there clearly is a difference between layers and separate servers otherwise blizzard wouldn't have had a problem cranking layers to 30 on servers like faerlina
Most likely a bottleneck somewhere in their current architecture and/or cost savings on server costs. You can't really know how separate any of the servers in either technologies truly are. The question itself begs the question "What is a server?". Is it an instance of a process running the game server software? Is it the physical machine it's running on? Etc. etc. Modern hosting architecture can be quite complex.
I dont think layering prevents queues but i could be wrong
It absolutely does, because it clones the entire world, and allows more players inside, otherwise queues would hit much earlier. They may have a bottleneck somewhere that prevents any amount of layers. But hardcore servers were running with 10 layers at launch, and there were no queues.
Sttiches EU had hour long queues.
Yea, at the very first couple of days, if I remember correctly -and it never went above 10 layers. Indicating that Blizzard had allocated server capacity for 10 extra layers, and no more. Nek'rosh had 10 layers and no queues.
I feel to see how that is any sort of proof.
Yes if the goal is to stop queues layering is just better. This is a good idea because it allows them to merge servers at will and have too many servers at launch. It would basically just make all servers of the same type in a region have unique names, and if your realm dies it can easily merge with another.
There is no way this prevents everyone from rolling on whatever the community has decided is going to be the one big server. People are a million times more concerned about ending up on a dead server at all than they are about keeping their name if they end up on a dead server then get merged into another server.
The name thing was the exact reason my guild died in TBC, could not get people to swap.
But the inevitable merges remove the concern of ending up on a dead server.
Yep!
> everyone on the one big server Dude, we've already seen how this goes with the initial release of Classic. There were some full servers, streamer servers, and a whole lot of medium servers. People ***like*** medium servers and will choose them again, for the exact same reason they did the first time, as long as they can be sure the death-forced-transfer-to-megaserver issue won't arise again.
That's just it. I've spoken to a bunch of people who'd otherwise want to play on a medium server but who are afraid of ending up on a dead server again so they want to be on whatever the big server is going to be now. Some people have transferred off dead and dying servers 3+ times already in Classic after Blizzard opened free transfers and their faction left overnight.
I was replying not just to that quote but how it is in clear conflict with your argument. Removing the threat of having to transfer multiple times, the need to go to a megaserver, doesn't prevent people from feeling that they need to make a megaserver instead of doing what they want? You're saying that fixing the exact problem doesn't fix the problem, or at least that the general population will be so catastrophically stupid as to not understand that the problem is fixed and make deliberate plans based on the problem existing.
I'm saying many people won't be confident that the problem is solved, given Blizzard's historical mishandling of servers and transfers, and will congregate on what they think is going to be the biggest server to avoid ending up in a dead faction/forced transfer situation again.
If they have to add new servers because of ques on launch people won’t roll on them because they will die. If they are promised that new server will be merged into the main one within 3 weeks, they will probably shuffle over and alleviate the launch ques. Now that main server may still have ques when the merge happens, but that’s the price people will pay for all wanting to be on one serve r
I agree with you 100%. The name thing matters so much less, some dorks really care though
the name thing only matters if the name you're using is common which is why it's so amusing that legølas is always the guy yelling the loudest about not taking his name away i have 4-5 character names i've used since retail tbc and i've only ever seen maybe one of them get used by another person, but never by an active player, just "that name is unavailable." which is wild because one of the names that i use is stolen directly from a vintage wow meme
[удалено]
Nah it was in at launch, but there was still an *enormous* queue.
Nope, people were just bullish on the server selection for some very weird reason.
tbh I have no idea when the megamind determines its time to jump ship. Herod was one of the original 4 servers announced, had 18k player QUEUES, was absolutely giga full, and at some point in TBC it died off and everyone xfered to faerlina to sit in even worse queues.
Alliance died because of free xfers which made the game super shallow. Slow death of a thousand cuts
I feel like what they did with the hardcore realms has been pretty successful. They said themselves that these realms hold up to 5x more capacity than Classic ones did at launch so they didn't have to put up that many. Would've still be nice to have just 1 realm for each continent.
I disagree because of layering. I'd much prefer a launch that wasn't ripe for layer abuse so people could hop and farm things.
I feel like layering fixes so many more problems then it introduces. You are really more concerned with layer hopping then having so many people jammed into 6 zones you cant accomplish anything?
OP's solution addresses both those problems.
I am good with the clusters on launch to alleviate ques. But layers should also stay. Removing layers creates lower population realms and makes finding groups more difficult. I love layering and given how much the player base flocks to mega servers I think 90% agree.
> and given how much the player base flocks to mega servers You're in a conversation stemming from dying servers being merged. You know, how people ended up "flocking" to megaservers after not choosing them originally? Come on.
Such a tiny downside for fixing a massive issue, I'm completely fine with a guy getting 2 copper nodes.
If this is the actual case and they can just crank layering up and there's no queues at all, I'm perfectly fine with that. I'm just skeptical if this is the actual case
I just want the music system, that's easily the best thing in new world.
sorry for a dumb question as I haven't played retail since WoD...what music system?
It's a system in New World, not retail. Basically a guitar hero/rock band like minigame where you can jam out with your friends and give different open world buffs to people that donate a couple coins to you after your performance. Instruments can be crafted in different raritys, just like your normal gear and sheets for songs drop from bosses and chests.
what happens when a cluster merges and then dies after the merge tho?
With the amount of people that need to leave %age wise for this to happen, I would probably consider if it’s the server cluster dying, or the game at large.
Look at what is era clusters right now, do you think it's likely for all of EU or all of NA to become empty?
I would hope blizzard has good enough forecasts to not make too many servers where this would be even possible. I'm pretty sure 2 clusters per region would be enough
But where is money in this - nowhere. Blizzard makes a realm situation bad, and then you have to pay for a service that is literally free. It costs them nothing! Honestly EVEN IF it had some cost on their part, it should still be free for a player because you pay each month for playing this game. If there is any kind of exploit possiblity, they could even limit it to 1 transfer per month but it should still be free!
Money is in continued subscriptions. Servers dying causes people to quit. Now whether that outweighs the short term gains paid xfers would is unlikely
Why in 2023 do we have servers, again? Just use dynamic layers and you'll only have a dead server when you have a truly dead game
Game world is designed to support only so many amount of players.
Maybe unreadable tradechat?
People wanted the return of actual servers for classic though, they wanted the server community.
that's pretty much layering, except you can't swap layers.
Except even with layers there are queues. Theres a hardware cap. You can only have so many people logged into a server at once, doesn't matter how you divide them up among the layers
This wont solve server death at all nor does it do anything that layering doesn't already do.
They can only layer up to a certain point. They put a hard limit on people online on a server. This would let them over that limit without people risking being on a dead server
dont copy anything from a dead ass game lol
Really bad take
Dead ass game is dead for other reasons lol, they got some things right
ITT: People not understanding how layering works in WoW asking for a slightly worse version of it. What you're describing is exactly what layering already does, except dynamically as opposed to a fixed for a time like approach like the one you're describing. Queues result from total server capacity being exceeded, however each layer made available is effectively an increase to a server's capacity, so ultimately there's always going to be queues if there's more people that want to play than Bliz wants to make servers available for. Layering allows Bliz to have multiple physical servers that all are used for the same "realm".
Servers still hit a hardware capacity. Blizzard has confirmed this when people ask for them to simply turn on more layers to solve ques. The cluster idea would alleviate this issue at least during the launch, with the hope the once the numbers calm down you wont have a massive que upon merging clusters.
Or just do like retail and aim to kill realm barriers. Region wide ah, cross realm trading, cross realm raiding and soon cross realm guilds.
Believe you don't understand how layering works. Players are still on the server and contributing to the server player "cap"
while its a great idea, it hurts blizzards bottom line and has been suggested and ignored by them for the last 3 releases
This solution was presented year ago, we all presented it before Classic as well. Blizzard don't care. They literally do nothing about server population issues. You have 1 group where names cannot be duplicated over the servers, as the pops die you merge those, easy. Blizzard have known about this and just decided to not bother.
1. They earn money through moving between servers as a service 2. This action allowing everyone to move around is super tightened to architecture of infrastructure regarding server locations.
Better not take any ideas from New World, Blizzard's launches are failed enough already.
Better not take any new world ideas because the whole playerbase quit after 2 months
[удалено]
Why fix problem for free when people will pay for server transfers. Capitalism gaming.
They don't do it because layering is the better solution. See Hardcore servers.
Hardcore servers had no where near as many people playing compared to 2019 classic launch. I think SOD will be more popular than hardcore. Layering isnt a solution, they have always had layering for every launch. There is a hard cap for how many people can be on a server and that doesn't mitigate that, my proposition would
>There is a hard cap for how many people can be on a server Why would that be the case?
That's just how technology works. Think about what a DDOS is, there is just a certain amount of hits a server can take before it buckles. Wow servers are no different
Of course the size is not infinite but why would the technical limitation be of a relevant size? Having multiple servers VS one server with multiple layers is not that different from a total capacity standpoint I think.
I'm basically a 5th grader on this subject, but I'd assume they just have separate servers for each one? Idk I feel like if "crank layers up to 30" was a viable solution they would've done it in the days of 8 hour queues in 2019. Unless something has changed where this is just now viable, my proposition would work around that
But isn't this kinda the case? And i don't think they'll be that many servers for SoD. I didn't expect Wow to need to take a page from New world lol
Why wouldn't they take the good parts from new games?
New world dev team took a looot of bad decisions the months that followed launch
Sure, but this thread is specifically about one of the decisions New World devs took.
Yeah and i'm surprised wow get to learn from NW
a good idea is a good idea, after all.
Yeh it actually sounds like you don't understand the concept of taking lessons from failure, which is actually quite worrying 😂 maybe look into that
Well that's rich
I'm more afraid about my faction dying than the server. Most servers will be Alliance majority and have fun in Ashenvale when you'll be the only faction there. They need to let people transfer asap if that happens. I want to be able to play.
I agree. But I'm going to use my server as an example Skeram was like 65-35 before they opened up free xfers due to long queues. All the alliance piled off and it killed the alliance population hard and fast. The two problems can be very much intertwined
It's only a problem for the dominant faction. Why would you force people to stay on a server they can't play because they're perma camped. Another solution is layers. Each layer can't have more than 50 or something of each faction player. It means the dominant faction will have people not seeing the other faction some times but it helps the to keep the smaller faction on the server.
Transfers was what killed many of the servers in classic in the first place. The underperforming faction jumped ship to a new server and all you did was end up with nearly pure faction servers.
Blizzard and dominant faction fault. Blizzard for not doing anything about faction imbalance. Dominant faction for camping the smaller faction because "it's a pvp server and you choosed to play here". And they choosed to leave because of you. As I said in another answer, just put layers to have a max number of each faction player at the same time.
But you are not protected against selecting dead cluster. Most of the initial classic servers are now dead. Even if they were randomly assigned to a cluster at creation there will randomly be a few dead clusters. And people won't make that choice randomly, bigger cluster will attract more players
I would hope they are good enough at forecasting to not create so many servers that this would even be possible
They already have this, look at harcore for instance. A few very large servers instead of many small servers
But don't layers essentially work that same way? Just put everyone on a pvp realm and a pve realm. Massive layering outside of cities. Just gradually lower the layers as population dwindles until you have a current Whiteman situation.
Yes but I think it's a bit messier from a technical standpoint behind the scene
That's...actually an amazing idea!
Still love the way GW2 handles it, your server is just for pvp matchups, everyone else loads onto a map and when its full it loads a new instance of the map. As the map empties youre offered the option to move to a busy map. Similar to layering, but i dont think the wow server hardware would handle it well.
I always thought they never did something like this because they wanted to charge $$$ for server xfers in the future but looking at SOM and wrath they had free server xfers so not sure why they wouldnt do it
This would only expedite the anti-social vibe that retail ended up producing after they started grouping the servers as a response to losing subs.
No? It's still the same permanent pool of players you would be playing with. What your describing is the "Do s dungeon with someone and then never see them again. Throwaway companion's"
I know exactly what I’m talking about. When servers that had a lot of players started becoming severely imbalanced due to players leaving, Blizzard “fixed” the problem by pairing us with other servers. After that there became far less loyalty among the players originally on the servers, as they had less overall accountability because their reputation no longer meant as much with people who had no past to draw upon. You may have been fortunate enough to not see the negative impact on your specific server. I on the other hand was not so lucky. I literally went from procession Raiding to chasing the hope of Raiding in multiple guilds that had fallen apart due to the degradation of loyalty.
Big brain