I really am asking seriously - are the people buying the hardware and software and running this stuff and changing the code and making ages - are they going to commit to such complicated configurations, and all the agreements that have to be made so that this all works together?
Who is going to do all this network, systems and database management, in an organization where no one is in charge, and no one gets paid?
I just can't see it. For something fan run, it seems both complicated and fragile.
The beauty of UU was that each "group", for want of a better word, has responsibility for their own stuff. If a shard went away, if a vault got corrupted - there were other areas to go to. You are telling me that you want everyone running shards to all come together and configure all the pieces of a system so that it really is one system? Also, if you are telling me there is one nexus, I take it that it means that Uru has one vault. It also means that everyone has to agree on the configuration - what's a fun age, what's an age conforming to current standards - and everyone has to agree on how to configure it in our massive Nexus links, because there only is one configuration. If we have one implementation of Uru, which is what you are saying, all the people running this stuff have to agree how the system works.
It's also a bit weird with the Cyan ages, which I assume you can implement differently on each server/shard, should you choose to. Everyone is going to agree that the Cyan ages are set up only one way? Thinking aloud perhaps you could have different versions of the Cyan ages if you name them differently (The GoG Gahreeson, the Slackers Teledahn, as an example). Sure seems complicated. I guess there's also only one version of the server and client code running, because it's all one system. Maybe I'm wrong on that - maybe you could have different versions of different servers for different ages, but some pieces will have to, by necessity, be only one version.
Let's go over the great track record we have on all agreeing on everything - little joke here!
I think it's better to not pretend that the community, or any fan community, for that matter, is one way, when it's not. To propose such a complicated system and also a system that requires so much agreement - I think that's a nutty thing to do.
The things you are talking about doing are the things done for systems where one organization runs them, and they pay people to do that, and there are processes and versions, and test and production systems, and hardware and software managers, and a clear demarkation of who gets to decide what. It's also an organization where people get paged (now it's a cell phone call) when things break, also a clear escalation path when something is not working.
I think you should match the kind of system you want to set up with the kinds of organization/groups running it. In our case we won't have one organiation - we'll have people using their own machines to run stuff, and also, hopefully, a number of developers working on changes to code. I think it's better to figure out what a group can comfortably manage, what you can control, and leave it at that.
I guess I don't have to worry about this - in my humble opinion, this is not going to happen. We are not going to have one system. That's my opinion.
_________________ mszv, amarez in Uru, other online games, never use mszv anymore, would like to change it Blog - http://www.amarez.com, Twitter - http://www.twitter.com/amareze
Last edited by mszv on Wed Jan 14, 2009 8:00 am, edited 2 times in total.
|