A Forgotten Vision of OSMO

MustardJeep · **Posted:** Wed Jan 14, 2009 6:32 am

Chogons post basically puts this in a nut shell doesn't it?

All the assumptions based on Prologue and UU are either Outdated, Wrong, or Both.

The book was rewritten while no one in the "know" among the the fans was looking go with it already. :lol:

mszv · **Joined:** Wed May 10, 2006 5:28 am **Posts:** 2266

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.

DarK · **Joined:** Sun May 21, 2006 11:51 am **Posts:** 510

mszv wrote:

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.

Reserved!

I want to reply to this but don't have time right now

Please leave your message after the beep!

Rusty_Russell · **Posted:** Wed Jan 14, 2009 10:16 am

mszv is right. One shard fits all is a commercial endeavour, not a fan-run one, even if it is possible technically.

Oracle wrote:

To link the individual databases of a distributed database system, a network is necessary.

Teedyo, you need to make a distiction between client-server connections and Wide Area Networks. You're talking about your browser client or your email client on your pc connecting to one specific destination. I'm not.

Even with your example, do a ping, then do a tracert. You'll see lots of networks and routers (and firewalls).

Kero wrote:

If I have to download all of the data for the game each time I log into a different shard plus any shard specific data just so I can see what that shard offers I see myself running out of allocatted disk space real fast.

I agree, but it didn't happen that way in UU. Everything starts off with a common server core and a common client. I'd only expect to download the ages that are different from any given shard. That was the purpose of lots of vnode_caches in UU (one per shard you went to), but only one client.

mszv · **Joined:** Wed May 10, 2006 5:28 am **Posts:** 2266

I think there is nothing wrong with recognizing what we are - a group of fans, not an organization where someone reports to someone, people get paid for the jobs they do, and there is a way to make decisions that is clear cut and unambiguous. We are group of fans who love Uru. No one is getting paid, no one reports to anyone, no one has ultimate decision making capabilities. I think it's smarter to design a system that reflects what we are - groups of fans who come together, rather than assuming we are just like a company that runs these kinds of systems and networks. What you are proposing would be tricky, but not impossible to implement in an organization that does this for a living.

In the UU days, there was one piece that had to be up for UU to work - the authorization piece, and it was run by Cyan. Without that (yes, I realize you could hack it) - nothing worked. The one thing that had to work was run by Cyan, and they had the ultimate decision making capability and technical infrastructure to make it work. Apart from the authorization piece, UU was (depending on your point of view), either loosely coupled, or not really "coupled" at all. Each shard could do whatever they wanted, and the only thing that was affected was the users on that one shard. You may not like it, but it reflected what we are - fans that come together in small groups to play Uru.

From what Chogon is saying, the servers scale - better network capabilities. What that tells me is that we may need less shards - not "only 1 shard". There is a big difference. Bigger groups of like minded people may be able to come together and decide how things work, for their own systems/shards. Everyone who does this, around the world, doesn't have to agree. There is no single point of failure - well, maybe the Cyan server that gives us their ages, but once those age data files get copied all over the place that will change. I think that's the smart way to do something where no one reports to everyone, no one can agree on everything and the stuff runs on a variety of hardware and software with varying levels of system management. Sure, it's not as easy for the players, but it works. Your system reflects your organization and vice versa.

Remember - the issue is with both systems and applications - and decision making. To amuse myself, I tried to figure how this would work if we wanted to implement different versions of the Cyan ages, all on one system. My view is that this is something we will want. Some groups will want to implement ages where the puzzles are solved, particularly with regards to the cleft. Some will implement ages where you have to solve them all again. That's just one example. What this means is that you'll you'd have to give players a choice of what version of an age they want to access. I couldn't figure out how to get that to work. I also tried to figure out how we'd run different versions of the server, and possibly even the client, on one system. I then tried to figure out who would be the ultimate authority on age categorization and setup, and how it would appear in the nexus. There is no ultimate authority. Remember the liason elections, and we still had a company involved! .

Rusty_Russell · **Posted:** Wed Jan 14, 2009 4:43 pm

mszv wrote:

To amuse myself, I tried to figure how this would work if we wanted to implement different versions of the Cyan ages, all on one system.

At least that's not an issue at present, as the Cyan ages aren't being released for change.

Eleri · **Posted:** Wed Jan 14, 2009 4:47 pm

There's been oh so many posts here about how capable, resourceful, tech savvy the fans are, even to the point of saying 'we could do it better than Cyan'... but then the idea of a central hub gets rejected out of hand because 'we're just fans'?

EVERY option, EVERY possibility needs to stay on the table, until we get a better picture from Cyan of exactly what the plan is.

Zardoz · **Posted:** Wed Jan 14, 2009 5:02 pm

Eleri wrote:

There's been oh so many posts here about how capable, resourceful, tech savvy the fans are, even to the point of saying 'we could do it better than Cyan'... but then the idea of a central hub gets rejected out of hand because 'we're just fans'?

EVERY option, EVERY possibility needs to stay on the table, until we get a better picture from Cyan of exactly what the plan is.

That's comparing apples and oranges. There is much that can happen in an open source environment that requires no coordination, and these will flourish under that arrangement and will add wonderful things to Uru. There are other things that, to be implemented, do require some form of central organization or even authority. I am in mszv's camp in believing the latter will be difficult. Saying they should remain a possibility is fine, for neither mszv nor I have the power to exclude them from the set of options. But they will only become more than a possibility if someone tackles the hard questions of how to organize in an environment in which anyone can just say No (thank you). Guilds, Cyan's intent, the incredible creativity of fans - these are just not enough by themselves.

Still, all of this is idle speculation until Cyan does provide more structure. Rather than solving things, however, I suspect that's when the real fun will begin ...

JWPlatt · **Posted:** Wed Jan 14, 2009 5:14 pm

I was expected a post from Zardoz, but I was expecting him to pick on the use of the word 'involved' in this:

mszv wrote:

Remember the liason elections, and we still had a company involved!

Kero · **Posted:** Wed Jan 14, 2009 5:15 pm

Eleri wrote:

There's been oh so many posts here about how capable, resourceful, tech savvy the fans are, even to the point of saying 'we could do it better than Cyan'... but then the idea of a central hub gets rejected out of hand because 'we're just fans'?

After reading what folks have posted I think it boils down to whether we're doing it for free or getting paid for it. A central hub does require a governing body - or one authoritative voice - to run it, that has a final say so on how it is run. It also requires dedicated technical folks willing to work on it 24/7 cause Murphy doesn't keep office hours. Those who don't think it can work believe that such a thing can only be done by a Company - the one authoritative voice - that has dedicated workers who get paid for doing it. Which is why they rule out a central hub run by "Fans" even if those fans have the savy and know-how to do it.

I have to admit that our track record as "Fans" leaves a lot to be desired when it comes to a general consensus on how something should be run. At this moment I have no solution to the conundrum that would be acceptable to all partys. Whether such a solution is even possible.......

mszv · **Joined:** Wed May 10, 2006 5:28 am **Posts:** 2266

Agreed - it's a conversation.

My concern was that, for all the smart and dedicated folks who were not involved in computer systems / applications / networks / business issues - my concern was that people would think this is a feasible solution. Then they would be disappointed when they learned it wasn't a solution that could work. I have no crystal ball, and am in no position of authority, nor do I want to be. However, from my perspective, the "one Uru application" approach is not a solution that would or even could work. Feel free to disagree - I just wanted to get my view out there. Personally, I think it's better to focus on what we are good at - creativity, caring about Uru, different views on things, technical strength, and a willingness to dive right in and do something. This is where we shine. To focus on the one thing that is not our strength (understatement), to expect to change it, and to design an Uru that is dependent on the one thing we aren't good at - I think that's counterproductive.

----------------
Separate topic - on the "we can't change Cyan ages" - we can. We can change how they are implemented. It happened on UU. On UU, some ages had the cleft set up so you could walk into Uru proper. Some ages were set up so you had to solve the puzzles to get into Uru proper. My understanding is that we'll be able to do that in our new system, since we can change the client and the servers. So - there can be more than one version of the Cyan ages. Rusty_Russell - is there something I'm not seeing? I don't know the specifics of how this was implemented in UU. It was the same age data, as far as I could tell, but the configuration (if there is a better word, let me know) was different.

vidroth · **Joined:** Tue Oct 03, 2006 3:25 am **Posts:** 869

While I have high hopes that there will be a working distributed authentication system, I hope very much that it's not exclusive. There are many, many people who were so unhappy with the slow pace of the Uru storyline that they were running their own RPG storylines in-game. Completely imaginary, agreement-based storylines, with no basis in the game data, but that gave them more satisfaction than waiting a month for the next "episode."

These people will want to be able to run their own Uru, where they can stop having to meta-role-play around a thousand people who aren't living in their reality, and have a "real" Uru to play in where their RPG elements actually happened.

As for the rest of us... Just bring it back! I intend to throw some hardware and bandwidth at this, just like hundreds of other people, and between us I bet we can get something really special running.

Rusty_Russell · **Posted:** Wed Jan 14, 2009 7:18 pm

mszv wrote:

Separate topic - on the "we can't change Cyan ages" - we can. We can change how they are implemented. It happened on UU. On UU, some ages had the cleft set up so you could walk into Uru proper. Some ages were set up so you had to solve the puzzles to get into Uru proper. My understanding is that we'll be able to do that in our new system, since we can change the client and the servers. So - there can be more than one version of the Cyan ages. Rusty_Russell - is there something I'm not seeing? I don't know the specifics of how this was implemented in UU. It was the same age data, as far as I could tell, but the configuration (if there is a better word, let me know) was different.

Not everything is being released under the same licence, mszv. Look at the DEVELOPERS tab to see what's not included. My reading of that is that Cyan wants to preserve its own IP. We can extend (and we may be able to fix), but it doesn't read that we can make sweeping changes. It may be that we can change what an age does [which is client-server], but not how it looks.

poutrew wrote:

They will also provide a bare bones framework of the engine without the models and textures i.e. with no 'art' resources along with the 3DS Max plugin.

DarK · **Joined:** Sun May 21, 2006 11:51 am **Posts:** 510

mszv

You seem to be asuming that people need to be paid and a single person needs to be charge, what about people doing it just because they want to, and people been in charge because they have the skills to be in charge?

chucker · **Posted:** Wed Jan 14, 2009 7:31 pm

Rusty_Russell wrote:

It may be that we can change what an age does [which is client-server], but not how it looks.

What an age "does" is just as client-side as how it looks. Sure, there's some form of interaction (e.g., if I press a button, someone else needs to see that I did so, and the effects of pressing it need to affect them as well), but the action itself is nonetheless something that's implemented on the client side.

A Forgotten Vision of OSMO

Who is online