Also on AOL
- Autos
- Technology
- Lifestyle
- Gaming
- Finance
- Entertainment on AOL
- Lifestyle on AOL
- Sports on AOL
- Travel on AOL
- More on AOL
Featured Galleries
Joystiq
© 2013 AOL Inc. All rights Reserved. Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Trademarks | AOL A-Z HELP | About Our Ads

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
3-19-2012 @ 4:14AM
ladyrhees said...
I am strangely depressed at this. I was really looking forward to the server limit being lifted and keeping to the account limit of 50. It makes more sense and you can only have ONE char on at a time per account, so the argument of server crowding doesn't apply. I don't play on other servers and have zero desire to do so. I'd planned on moving toons I have on another account to my main so I can give those slots to my kid and make the account his own. Yes, I have bank alts, 3 of them atm and 9 85s to play to my heart's content. An 11th char slot.....gee, thanks. I seriously hope this will be reconsidered and GC's previously suggested solution put in play. So now those with full 10 slots that wanted to play a monk and a pandaren are restricted to playing a pandaren monk?
Reply
3-19-2012 @ 11:10AM
duskhawk said...
I'd imagine it's less server load in number of characters connected than database query times on servers with high populations. I was hoping to be able to do a Tauren monk and a Pandaran *something* without deleting a toon, but it looks like I may just have to server transfer one of my 85s somewhere.
(My bank toon is 85, and my scribe & JC, so she's not leaving my main's server.)
3-19-2012 @ 11:18AM
Stilhelm said...
The difference between the same query returning 10 and 50 rows from a set of many thousands (total number of characters on a server) is pretty much not measurable. I'd assume they have separate databases for each server, but even if not, there shouldn't be any significant difference considering the max number returned even if they completely removed the per-server limit would be 50.