Discussion on setting up an Inter-Guild server bank

EowynCarter · **Joined:** Wed Dec 20, 2006 4:19 pm **Posts:** 1161

Quote:

GoW - They have already have a ton of resources for building Ages, Majority of Age Builders are there. That's were the plugin for Blender to create Ages is, and the GoW Wiki has Age Creation Tutorials.

Aren't said tools for the old version only ? Will be some time before we see any fan made age ingame, because they will need to be ported first.

BAD · **Joined:** Tue May 09, 2006 2:10 am **Posts:** 372

It will happen a lot faster than you may think Carter. Not that I know anything. :wink:

JKla · **Posted:** Sat Dec 13, 2008 6:58 pm

MOOSE is O.K. but look out for a Pailin avatar.

trylon · **Joined:** Mon Aug 28, 2006 10:35 pm **Posts:** 72

EowynCarter wrote:

Aren't said tools for the old version only ? Will be some time before we see any fan made age ingame, because they will need to be ported first.

Actually converting the plugin is fairly easy to do - especially now that we will be able to set up a test server to test if the conversions are holding.
A lot of code is already MOUL ready BTW: A lot of the work recently done on the plugin for Uru:CC was based on knowledge of MOUL's inner workings.

Back to the subject of this thread:
The purpose of an Inter-Guild initiative is to provide a solid base from the start. Most (if not all) of the guilds are already organized groups, who are itching to do something. Instead of all building our own stuff, we could gain a lot by working together from the start - the guilds working together as an organized group would be a major advantage.

Ideally a team of members representing all guilds could be established to work out the details, and those would be in contact with their guilds about it (final authority lying with the guilds, not the shard-team ofcourse)

TomahnaGuy · **Posted:** Sat Dec 13, 2008 7:05 pm

JKla wrote:

MOOSE is O.K. but look out for a Pailin avatar.

I thought that was Cate? :shock:

TG

Emor D'ni Lap · **Joined:** Sun Aug 12, 2007 6:15 am **Posts:** 587

As always, we can conjecture ourselves to infinity - and probably will.
But Cyan has stated that they were already very close to having their server model for MORE established prior to putting things on hold, and the news announcement seems to indicate that they already have in mind a preestablished model of how servers will be structured.

So, one request: until Cyan comes out with their official announcements and policies regarding this next incarnation, please phrase your comments in terms of your preferences, rather than stating "what we're gonna do is _____"

That said, here are my preferences:
1. There should once again be an authorization server. Without it, won't we once again run into the same problem we had during UU where players with modified datasets caused vault problems? (obviously, the terminology will have to be modified for the distributed server model Cyan has proposed, but I believe the concepts remain)
2. Cyan once again runs the authorization server. Why? Without authorization, how can rogue players be moderated or outright banned from the game? And would any of us trust any one server operator, any guild, or even a coalition of guilds to have that power over the whole system? As much as we may resent Cyan's judgment on occasion, I'm afraid they are the only authority that most of us would trust. While I'm not suggesting that Cyan resurrect internal ResEngs - far more than they can be expected to provide these days - I'm sure that even playing cavern cop at the auth server is not a role Cyan wants or can afford to host, so:
3. Cyan should be compensated for both its technical involvement and some level of personnel allocation in this project. We need their support in so many ways throughout this project (just wait!), and at this crucial time they need our support. Their phenomenal generosity and goodwill deserves a bit of monetary return from each and every one of us that will be benefiting from it, even though this termed an open-source project.

I could also conjecture 'til the chaos come home, but I'll stop :arrow:

here

for now....

dtierce · **Posted:** Sat Dec 13, 2008 8:08 pm

One thing I'd like to stress is that the owners of the servers providing ages should adhere to the FCAL policy. By that I mean that all ages need to have an FCA License before being made available on their servers. This will provide some consistency to the ages and also (maybe) reduce the "second live" feelings that some people have expressed concern over.

David Tierce

BAD · **Joined:** Tue May 09, 2006 2:10 am **Posts:** 372

Just to avoid confusion......

This is only a discussion about a SINGLE idea. Please refrain from interjecting your own speculation.

We only want to know if other Guilds would be interested in this idea and what their thoughts are on it.

I do appreciate that others want to express their opinion, but at least keep your opinion on the SUBJECT of the thread.

trylon · **Joined:** Mon Aug 28, 2006 10:35 pm **Posts:** 72

Emor D'ni Lap wrote:

2. Cyan once again runs the authorization server. Why? Without authorization, how can rogue players be moderated or outright banned from the game?

Why should you want to ban people from the entire game, instead of from the shard they misconducted themselves on?
We went that road before in the days of the united shards, and I will say - it was an ugly picture at times.

Just let the shards ban people they don't want there for themselves, not have one central decision made for all shards.

But we're veering off topic here.. let's keep this thread on topic....

Emor D'ni Lap · **Joined:** Sun Aug 12, 2007 6:15 am **Posts:** 587

trylon wrote:

Why should you want to ban people from the entire game, instead of from the shard they misconducted themselves on?

My admittedly vague understanding was that this proposed model will look like one big worldwide distributed server rather than being broken up into individual shards. I could be entirely mistaken here, remains to be seen.

Quote:

But we're veering off topic here.. let's keep this thread on topic....

Quite right, I apologize for my post above and offer to delete the speculation portion if you all prefer.

JKla · **Posted:** Sat Dec 13, 2008 8:28 pm

We are all in the game of speculation till the software is released.

BAD · **Joined:** Tue May 09, 2006 2:10 am **Posts:** 372

No, no need to delete it. We just want to get a feel for this issue.

This idea will not be the only server by any means (if I am interpreting Chogon's words correctly). THough I can see by what he said they would prefer that very much.

JKla · **Posted:** Sat Dec 13, 2008 8:35 pm

One shard multiple servers.

I wonder if this news has been posted on GameTap?

Rusty_Russell · **Posted:** Sat Dec 13, 2008 8:49 pm

"My admittedly vague understanding was that this proposed model will look like one big worldwide distributed server rather than being broken up into individual shards"

I think you've got your telescope the wrong way round.

Think of a shard as a server farm, and each server can be anywhere in the world. [A shard can be one server, of course]. Prologue was the initial model - 3 shards - 5 instances on each - many servers.

Dot · **Joined:** Fri Jan 12, 2007 11:52 am **Posts:** 1015

Trylon wrote:

Quote:

Ideally a team of members representing all guilds could be established to work out the details, and those would be in contact with their guilds about it (final authority lying with the guilds, not the shard-team ofcourse)

This makes sense to me. It really does need to be across the community -- not just one group or individual holding sway.

Discussion on setting up an Inter-Guild server bank

Who is online