That’s actually a great idea…
Take two servers dominated by one faction, and cross server them to achieve a faction balance.
Terres you are an absolute genius!
But therefore you would need servers like that and you don’t have that in every region. In some regions one faction dominates all the servers.
Where it’s possible, it’s a great solution. But the general problems would still remain in some regions.
1 Like
I just checked at ironforce.pro and it would be an almost perfect solution for EU
Cool and all, but why should someone implement crossrealm sharding to fix server population to make players find groups more easily, while crossrealm itself is the most hated aspect of the RDF and most arguments against RDF are related to crossrealm alone?
If Blizzard did this, it would only prove the assumption, that not adding RDF is not about arguments, but a symbolic act.
If crossrealm was in RDF and optional, it would be much less problematic than combining two servers with crossrealm sharding altogether.
I did not intend it as a solution to anything. If cross-server sharding had been a thing from the get-go the obvious problems that servers create wouldn’t have been as problematic, and therefore people would not have shouted for free transfers off of medium-sized servers. There would not have been the same desire to flock to the largest servers.
But it would also not have been a very “classic” experience. It would have been reviled by those who played classic, no doubt. I would not have been a fan myself. Because while cross-server does fix many things something very important is lost in the process.
While I agree with you in terms of positive and negative points of crossrealm sharding, its not really related to the RDF. Crossrealm was but one aspect. The group finding process was something most players didnt enjoy back in the day and dont enjoy now either. Social interactions can happen in the process, but measured on the time of finding groups, its a very very small part of the time spend. Most of the time looking for a non premade dungeon group is simply neither social nor enjoyable (especially for unwanted dps classes), which is why many players prefer to have RDF.
The crossrealm aspect is indeed needed for low pop servers and low level content. That server sharding would have really helped solving the dungeon activity in the low level content is something we can only speculate about. Seeing that even on Firemaw alliance its hard to find groups for most low level dungeons, I highly doubt sharding alone would have helped smaller servers in that regard.
Probably because horde and alliance can’t talk to each other… So it doesnt effect the social side, but it would address faction imbalances.
I was half joking, but also half serious. For realms like Earthshake and Gehenas, it would fix the realm imbalance. There would actually be an equal faction population in the world itself.
So you go to your boss with a great idea. It will make the company better. They listen to your idea and then tell you, “We actually have done that already - here’s what happened. We’re actually thinking of removing this process because of the problems it caused, its just giving our customers a bad experience”
Then you tell them no, it’s fine, your idea is great and it will work better because people will act differently. They WONT do what they have been doing for 10 years, which caused the problem. They will do it right this time.
If you still had a job after that I’d be surprised. They’d manage your out the door with some HR policy.
2 Likes
Thank you for actually making an argument for me.
So many things flopped when they were first introduced but later on were a big success.
Sometimes the audience just wasn’t ready for the product yet. So if I see, that the customers behaviour has changed on a way, that the product will be a success now I would of course bring this up.
And the boss would be a moron if he refused it just because of 10 year old data, without at least looking at the new data. In such a company it wouldn’t be a problem to get fired, because it won’t exist losing long anyway.
1 Like
Yes, you walked to your boss and told him “hey lets remove RDF”
And boss told you, nah we have 2 expansions without RDF and they suck, people are just toxic and not social at all …
And you tell he him, trust me bro, this time it will be different …
1 Like
Except that’s not been the Classic experience at all. Community has been hilarious in classic - but one thing it hasn’t done is suffer fools. If you’re having a bad experience it might be because, like many people, you expect to be treated specially/with reverence you haven’t earned.
I’ve found nothing but respect from the people i’ve played with.
1 Like
You mean like the whole thread about world pvp that laughed “undead rogue” out of the doors xD
2 Likes
These forums are really not representative of the classic community. Barely half the posters bother to show an active TBCC cahracter.
it’s also a very vehement vocal minority. Most people are on the forums because they’re mad about something. Within a few days time they’ve moved on to another game and forgotten about the WoW issue - leaving the TBCC community to deal with the fallout.
It would all make sense, if it was only RDF that was introduced and nothing else changed. But while you assume that all that changed the game to the worse is RDF, it is neither proven nor even likely that this is the case. It is much more likely that the overall game design changes in cata caused the game to drop numbers, since cata was the first expansion ever to have a drop in sub numbers, while there werent any with a year of wotlk with RDF.
1 Like
So you’re saying, go with the Vanilla > TBC design strategy, because that attracted players, then dump WOTLK onwards because that’s when they started leaving?
How do you come to the conclusion that I was addressing this point at all?
To try to make you understand. Vanilla is different from tbc. Tbc is different from wotlk. Wotlk is different from cataclysm. There is not one voice of the “classic community”, because every player has their favorite expansion for different reasons. This is the reason why we should have all versions available and at least one era server for every expansion. If someone doesnt like an expansion (anymore), this person should have the option to keep playing their favorite expansion with the features and design it was known for back in the day. Not adding RDF will neither change the game design nor have a significant impact on the social experience for cataclysm, mop or wod. You might think otherwise, but there is no proof for the claim, especially, if crossfaction of RDF would be optional in the classic version.
That players will start leaving anyway is another claim, that holds no value. You assume many things, but they all seem very unlikely to me. Like the “loud minority” one, that has been disproven by every poll that was made. Of course you can say these hold no value, but on the other side there is no prove, no indication at all that the majority would prefer no RDF. Therefore it would be more logical to keep an expansion as it was, than removing/altering it, because of an unknown number of players that assume it might harm their experience in the long run.
1 Like
Keeping as it was means RDF doesn’t get added until around TOC.
People aren’t asking for that. They want it in from the start.
Many prefer it earlier, since it improves their group building experience, but how is that an argument against RDF?
1 Like
It’s not - but you’re arguing “keep it as it was”. Not “Maybe it would better if we made this change”.
Pick a lane.
The main argument pro RDF is that is was part of wotlk.
Your argument now is the same as reasoning like because players wanted guild banks earlier in tbc, they shouldnt have been added at all. This reasoning doesnt make any sense.
2 Likes